ML061840036

From kanterella
Revision as of 03:30, 27 October 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

VYNPS Environmental Scoping Open House Transcript Re. LRA Environmental Review, Pages 1-7
ML061840036
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 06/06/2006
From:
NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/REBB
To:
References
NRC-1071
Download: ML061840036 (8)


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Vermont Yankee License Renewal Public Scoping MeetingDocket Number:(050-00271)Location:Brattleboro, Vermont Date:Tuesday, June 6, 2006Work Order No.:NRC-1071Pages 1-7 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2+ + + + +3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING 4 FOR THE VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, 5 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 6+ + + + +7 TUESDAY, 8 JUNE 6, 2006 9+ + + + +10 BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT 11+ + + + +12The Public Meeting was convened at the 13Quality Inn at 1380 Putney Road in Brattleboro, 14 Vermont, at 2:00 p.m.

15 SPEAKERS: 16 MICHAEL MULLIGAN 17 NANCY CROMPTON 18 ELLEN KAYE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1 2:34 p.m.2MR. MULLIGAN: Hello. I'm Mike Mulligan.

3I live in Hinsdale, New Hampshire, P.O. Box, 161, 4Hinsdale, New Hampshire 03451. And my concern is with 5global warming. What I understand is that the 6Connecticut River, upstream of Vermont Yankee has been 7heating up slightly, especially during the summers.

8It's been turning up for a decade or so, the peak 9 summertime temperatures, as an example.

10Or how about river low-flows in a drought 11 situation? So the question is will the re-licensing 12of Vermont Yankee have -- will they consider what 13global warming could potentially do with the river 14 temperatures? Will Vermont Yankee have to power down 15at times for that? Will the environmental 16temperatures inside the buildings and stuff, are they 17-- the design environmental temperatures, are they 18adequate enough so that we wouldn't be confronted with 19 shutting down the plant during the summer, summer 20 time?21I'm concerned about say we're in a drought 22 in the summer time and the plant -- and we approach 23their limits. Probably around that time other plants 24would be stressed and the grid of New England would be 25 3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 stressed. So the question is well, do you want to 1 make the grid worse at its most vulnerable time with 2shutting down Vermont Yankee? Do you want to push the 3 grid electric prices to astronomical prices? Do you 4 want to de-stabilize, the grid maybe, because of not 5 enough voltage or whatever it is.

6So I'm generally concerned about 7 projecting out what global warming could potentially 8 do and make sure that there's an adequate margin so 9that you wouldn't have to cycle down the plant during 10the summer times. That's it. I talked about cycling 11down the plant. I meant reducing power. So that's 12either shutting down the plant or reducing power to 50 13percent or some sort of percent type of thing and 14 stuff.15 (Off the record.)

16MS. CROMPTON: Hi. I'm Nancy Crompton, a 17 resident of Brattleboro, Vermont. I live four miles 18from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. My concerns 19 about living so close to the power plant are concerns 20that, in fact, would not be alleviated even if I were 21 living far away from the nuclear power plant which I 22have over the past few months been contemplating. The 23 fact is that there are people, there are 103 nuclear 24power plants in the United States, all of them 25 4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433generating nuclear waste for which we have no long-1 term disposal solution.

2I've been told that the Federal Government 3is supposed to have a plan in place by 2025 and I wish 4to state that that is utterly unacceptable. It is on 5our watch right now. It is our generation that is 6responsible for the creation of the nuclear waste and 7we need a solution, not soon, not tomorrow, but 8 yesterday, decades ago.

9 We have no moral right to create a poison 10that can affect the earth and all living creatures for 11 a half life of 25,000 years, if I remember that 12 correctly. We have no moral right to do this.

13We also do not have to demand so much electricity. We 14don't really require it. Our inflated desires for the 15expansion of electrical power have been -- are a 20th 16 century notion of progress at any cost. The cost is 17 now coming due and we are going to have to begin 18paying for the expansion and -- oh dear, I'm starting 19 to ramble. Can we turn it off?

20 (Off the record.)

21 And I very much want to hear the NRC, the 22Regulatory Commission and other leaders in our country 23talking about conservation. This is indeed a war.

24It's as if we are at war against our unchecked desire 25 5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433to progress at the expense of other nations and at the 1expense of the environment. And we can indeed change 2 our ways and show a willingness to conserve.

3 I'm concerned about also climate change.

4Although the nuclear power plant was probably built to 5withstand a 500-year storm and its effects on the 6Connecticut River, since we have been seeing 100-year 7 storms in this area and in Boston over the last six 8months, perhaps the infrastructure is indeed not 9adequate to be worse worst case scenario, the kinds of 10 storms that we perhaps should be anticipating will 11 happen in the future.

12And therefore, I'm very concerned about 13dry-cask storage, alongside the Connecticut River 14 which flows through Massachusetts and Connecticut to 15 the Long Island Sound and just the idea that nuclear 16 radioactivity could be carried by that water all the 17 way to Long Island Sound should give us great pause.

18I believe we have to take responsibility right now for 19 the effect that we are having because we are already 20seeing its effects upon our children and 21 grandchildren.

22 We know that mercury in the ponds in the 23fish that we happily go out and catch on a Sunday 24already in Vermont, we can't allow the children to eat 25 6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 more than four ounces a month and we have seen the 1effects of children who have more than that. The 2illnesses and cancers and neurological damage already 3caused by different kinds of pollutants in Vermont is 4 staggering. We certainly don't need any more.

5 (Off the record.)

6MS. KAYE: I'm Ellen Kaye. I live in 7Brattleboro, right on the edge of the evacuation zone, 8the 10-mile radius of Vermont Yankee. My comments 9about environmental issues regarding Vermont Yankee 10that I think should be given serious consideration:

11 (a) maybe the only issue is the waste. We're having 12an increase in production and a relicensing and a 13lengthening of the time that Vermont Yankee can 14 operate.

15What we're getting is more and more waste 16 which we have no way to deal with. That waste is 17going to last for many, many, many generations. We 18have no idea what the health effects are going to be.

19 We have no idea what the effects on humans, animals, 20plant life, everything that makes this place this 21 place. And I am tired of hearing everybody associated 22with the nuclear power industry and the NRC talk about 23nuclear power generation without ever addressing 24 waste. So what we have is a hazardous waste dump, a 25 7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433nuclear waste dump on the banks of the Connecticut 1 River. 2I'm raising a child here. I hear that 3 cancer rates near the plant are higher than in other 4 places. There's some studies. I hear that Strontium-590 turns up in baby teeth. So this is an experimental 6thing and we're being experimented on and I don't 7 think it should continue. It should be closed down.

8We should be looking for safer forms of energy 9 production and we should be conserving.

10 But what I want the NRC to weigh heavily, 11it's the waste issue, environmentally, and the cancer 12 issue. Are there cancer clusters around nuclear power 13 plants? Are there elevated rates of breast cancer 14around nuclear power plants? I read reports that say 15 that there are and it is unfair to experiment with a 16population when these are questions hanging in the 17 air. It's unconscionable.

18 I think that's all I need to say today.

19(Whereupon, at 7:12 p.m., the public 20 meeting was concluded.)

21 22 23 24 25