ML060540079: 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:February 5, 2006 TO: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Admission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 0,// / -X /72 9 7)dF Cf ,__CD Cl)RE: Federal Register:
{{#Wiki_filter:February 5, 2006                                   0,// / -X 9/72 TO: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch                                                   Cf
January 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 7) Pages 1774-1776 As a resident within a 50-mile radius of the 33-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, I object strongly to Entergy's push to uprate this aging facility for a 20%increase in the production of electrical power. An independent safety assessment is, at the very least, in order.In America in the past year, the neglect of aging infrastructures (levees and mines)has resulted in hardship and death. Vermont Yankee has already displayed many signs of aging: a cracked steam dryer, steam valves that no longer meet original leak-prevention criteria, an aging condenser, a fire that was the result of "inadequate preventative maintenance...
                                                                                            ,__
and failure to monitor age-related degradation" (from Vermont Yankee's own assessment of the event).I am concerned that the uprate will cause;An An An An increase increase increase increase in the likelihood of a nuclear accident in the amount of radioactivity released in such an event in radiation exposure for workers in the amount of nuclear waste that is produced While Entergy pursues short-term profits by squeezing the last possible dollar out of this aging plant, it is the people and the environment around this plant that will be left, at the end of the day, with spent radioactive contol rods. Will Entergy assume responsibility for the containment of this radioactive waste? Temporary dry-cask storage along the Connecticut River, a river that flows through Massachusetts and Connecticut to the Long Island Sound, is hardly adequate.If New Englanders were asked to reduce electrical consumption by 20% in order to avoid this uprate, I believe they could rise to this challenge.
Division of Administrative Services Office of Admission                                                       7)
Will we be offered this choice? ',I) *95/ rg/O Ad,-_ ~e,= tic x M-0/_3 p4,; /M C4A ?,4-fgX) '/Vr-,9- 1b-6 e S}}
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001                                                 dF             CD RE: Federal Register: January 11, 2006                                                   Cl)
(Volume 71, Number 7) Pages 1774-1776 As a resident within a 50-mile radius of the 33-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, I object strongly to Entergy's push to uprate this aging facility for a 20%
increase in the production of electrical power. An independent safety assessment is, at the very least, in order.
In America in the past year, the neglect of aging infrastructures (levees and mines) has resulted in hardship and death. Vermont Yankee has already displayed many signs of aging: a cracked steam dryer, steam valves that no longer meet original leak-prevention criteria, an aging condenser, a fire that was the result of "inadequate preventative maintenance... and failure to monitor age-related degradation" (from Vermont Yankee's own assessment of the event).
I am concerned that the uprate will cause; An increase   in the likelihood of a nuclear accident An increase    in the amount of radioactivity released in such an event An increase    in radiation exposure for workers An increase  in the amount of nuclear waste that is produced While Entergy pursues short-term profits by squeezing the last possible dollar out of this aging plant, it is the people and the environment around this plant that will be left, at the end of the day, with spent radioactive contol rods. Will Entergy assume responsibility for the containment of this radioactive waste? Temporary dry-cask storage along the Connecticut River, a river that flows through Massachusetts and Connecticut to the Long Island Sound, is hardly adequate.
If New Englanders were asked to reduce electrical consumption by 20% in order to avoid this uprate, I believe they could rise to this challenge. Will we be offered this choice?                                               ',I)
* p4,;            /MC4A ?
95/
rg/O Ad,-_     tic
            ~e,=     M-0/_3 x
                                                              ,4-fgX)   '/Vr-
                                                                      ,9-1b-6   e S}}

Revision as of 22:05, 23 November 2019

2006/02/05-Comment (47) of Rita Pickette Strongly Objecting to Entergy'S Push to Uprate Aging Vermont Yankee Facility for a 20% Increase in the Production of Electrical Power
ML060540079
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 02/05/2006
From: Pickette R
- No Known Affiliation
To:
NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB
References
%dam200606, 71FR1774 00047
Download: ML060540079 (1)
v • d • e


Text

February 5, 2006 0,// / -X 9/72 TO: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Cf

,__

Division of Administrative Services Office of Admission 7)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 dF CD RE: Federal Register: January 11, 2006 Cl)

(Volume 71, Number 7) Pages 1774-1776 As a resident within a 50-mile radius of the 33-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, I object strongly to Entergy's push to uprate this aging facility for a 20%

increase in the production of electrical power. An independent safety assessment is, at the very least, in order.

In America in the past year, the neglect of aging infrastructures (levees and mines) has resulted in hardship and death. Vermont Yankee has already displayed many signs of aging: a cracked steam dryer, steam valves that no longer meet original leak-prevention criteria, an aging condenser, a fire that was the result of "inadequate preventative maintenance... and failure to monitor age-related degradation" (from Vermont Yankee's own assessment of the event).

I am concerned that the uprate will cause; An increase in the likelihood of a nuclear accident An increase in the amount of radioactivity released in such an event An increase in radiation exposure for workers An increase in the amount of nuclear waste that is produced While Entergy pursues short-term profits by squeezing the last possible dollar out of this aging plant, it is the people and the environment around this plant that will be left, at the end of the day, with spent radioactive contol rods. Will Entergy assume responsibility for the containment of this radioactive waste? Temporary dry-cask storage along the Connecticut River, a river that flows through Massachusetts and Connecticut to the Long Island Sound, is hardly adequate.

If New Englanders were asked to reduce electrical consumption by 20% in order to avoid this uprate, I believe they could rise to this challenge. Will we be offered this choice? ',I)

  • p4,; /MC4A ?

95/

rg/O Ad,-_ tic

~e,= M-0/_3 x

,4-fgX) '/Vr-

,9-1b-6 e S

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML060540079&oldid=2196114"