ML060410054

Comment (2) of William M. Coleman, Re Uprate in Vermont Yankee Production Capacity, Findings of No Significant Hazards at Facility

ML060410054
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	01/26/2006
From:	Coleman W - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
%dam200606, 71FR1774 00002
Download: ML060410054 (2)

Text

William Coleman, MSCP RULES.

P.O. Box 28 . OH East Haven, Vt. 6zll (802) 535 - 504; 4 To Whom It May - F 2? 43 t/gX 777 These comme i;1f's findings of no significant hazards at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Facility i rVno,\4tjwhich would impede the granting of your permisiion for an uprate in its' production capacity. This is with regard to Federal register: January 11, 2006, (Volume 71, Number 7) pages 1774-1 776.

There is a certainty in my opinion that a more thorough review of the entire plant's operations (instead of the patchy and inconsistent review which has so far taken place) -will reveal a host -of additional and alarming safety concerns and shortcomings. This is such a serious matter, with the future habitability of the entire area in a fifty mile radius of the plant in serious question in the event of a catastrophe. in spite of the assurances that are put forward by the nuclear industry a major disaster is always possible. The proposed uprate makes such a hellish scenario much more likely. It is a poor expression of the industry's confidence in the safety of the technology to see the paltry liability limits which they have arranged for, in effect leaving the government (the people) to pay for the extraordinary costs of a potential disaster, while the small group of investors in the plant make essentially guaranteed high rates of return on their investments in this high risk venture. Why is this permitted to be so??

We must have a very thorough and truly independent review of the plant's safety prior to any consideration whatsoever of an uprate, which seems highly ill advised in any case. With the end of the petroleum era very close at hand as it is, people will be forced to be making some radical adjustments in our lifestyles very soon. Therefor all of this power will not be needed, and the changes and economies necessary from a closure of the Vernon facility will take place within the larger context of a population becoming accustomed to massive changes anyhow, cushioning the effects somewhat. It is just inevitable that massive changes are coming very soon. We should not proceed along in what I consider to be a wreckless manner as though we can have any reasonable expectation of needing to or expecting to be able to maintain our existing lifestyles in this country. Consevation measures, sustainable housing designs in new construction, and resurgences of localized food production are all parts of what will be a rapidly changing picture in the very near future. Changing economic conditions (to say the least) and a very high likelihood of a massive economic depression which will last for an extended period of time will render the additional power entirely unnecessary and unaffordable for most Vermonters.

Again, I urge you people to reconsider your recent decision to let Entergy j -e/ -1 1 B goe A-

proceed with the uprate and to reopen the matter to a much more comprehensive review.

With Considerable Alarm with Regard to this Matter, William M. Coleman, MSCP January 26, 2006