ML060480416: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:121406 7//5'( j / /48 Richardson Road Leverett, MA 01054 February 8, 2006 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Federal Register Notice T1 a Wednesday, January 11, 2006 ca Volume 71, Number 7, page 1774 a-1 To Whom It May Concern: FL=We~~~~i are *tt h e o hV We are writing to urge you not to approve the uprate for the Vermont Y 2 ee Nucleai60 Power Plant. We believe the plant is currently an accident waiting to happen and to enable this old, crumbling plant to produce more power would be a grave mistake. We worry about our safety with the plant operating at its current level. If the uprate occurs, we will seriously consider leaving an area we love because we fear for our lives.The potential for a meltdown exists everyday.
{{#Wiki_filter:121406 7//5'(     j / /48                         Richardson Road Leverett, MA 01054 February 8, 2006 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Federal Register Notice                                                 T1         a Wednesday, January 11, 2006                                                             ca Volume 71, Number 7, page 1774                 a-1 To Whom It May Concern:                                                                   FL=
In July 2005, water over the core evaporated so quickly that workers needed to add cold water to avert a meltdown.
We~~~~i         are     *tt h       e o hV We are writing to urge you not to approve the uprate for the Vermont Y 2 ee Nucleai60 Power Plant. We believe the plant is currently an accident waiting to happen and to enable this old, crumbling plant to produce more power would be a grave mistake. We worry about our safety with the plant operating at its current level. If the uprate occurs, we will seriously consider leaving an area we love because we fear for our lives.
How often will potentially disastrous problems occur if the plant is uprated? The risk assessments in the draft Safety Evaluation released by your commission are based on the fallacious assumption that the reactor is brand new. The plant is not brand new, so the design basis safety margins no longer apply. The vast number of reduced safety margins on every page of the SE adds up to significant reductions in safety margins. We urge the NRC to perform an Independent Safety Assessment before any final decisions are made.Sincerelyj Maureen Ippolito and Jeff Young ,. A- 5 5f of e ;/ er 6-fi-=~~~'>
The potential for a meltdown exists everyday. In July 2005, water over the core evaporated so quickly that workers needed to add cold water to avert a meltdown. How often will potentially disastrous problems occur if the plant is uprated? The risk assessments in the draft Safety Evaluation released by your commission are based on the fallacious assumption that the reactor is brand new. The plant is not brand new, so the design basis safety margins no longer apply. The vast number of reduced safety margins on every page of the SE adds up to significant reductions in safety margins. We urge the NRC to perform an Independent Safety Assessment before any final decisions are made.
S > ~ G/}}
Sincerelyj Maureen Ippolito and Jeff Young
                                                            ,.                   A-   5 5f       of           e   ;/er       6-fi-=~~~'>
        >   ~     G/ S}}

Revision as of 22:14, 23 November 2019

2006/02/08-Comment (44) of Maureen Ippolito and Jeff Young Opposing Entergy'S Push to Uprate Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant for a 20% Increase in the Production of Electrical Power
ML060480416
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 02/08/2006
From: Ippolito M, Young J
- No Known Affiliation
To:
NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB
References
%dam200606, 71FR1774 00044
Download: ML060480416 (1)
v • d • e


Text

121406 7//5'( j / /48 Richardson Road Leverett, MA 01054 February 8, 2006 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Federal Register Notice T1 a Wednesday, January 11, 2006 ca Volume 71, Number 7, page 1774 a-1 To Whom It May Concern: FL=

We~~~~i are *tt h e o hV We are writing to urge you not to approve the uprate for the Vermont Y 2 ee Nucleai60 Power Plant. We believe the plant is currently an accident waiting to happen and to enable this old, crumbling plant to produce more power would be a grave mistake. We worry about our safety with the plant operating at its current level. If the uprate occurs, we will seriously consider leaving an area we love because we fear for our lives.

The potential for a meltdown exists everyday. In July 2005, water over the core evaporated so quickly that workers needed to add cold water to avert a meltdown. How often will potentially disastrous problems occur if the plant is uprated? The risk assessments in the draft Safety Evaluation released by your commission are based on the fallacious assumption that the reactor is brand new. The plant is not brand new, so the design basis safety margins no longer apply. The vast number of reduced safety margins on every page of the SE adds up to significant reductions in safety margins. We urge the NRC to perform an Independent Safety Assessment before any final decisions are made.

Sincerelyj Maureen Ippolito and Jeff Young

,. A- 5 5f of e  ;/er 6-fi-=~~~'>

> ~ G/ S

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML060480416&oldid=2196226"