Inglis Reacts to Proposed Nuclear Plant

By Chris Van Ormer

The debate about Progress Energy's new nuclear energy plant still is lively, as proved at a Feb. 26 public testimony session in Inglis.

"It will forever change our lives," said the first person to speak, Inglis Commissioner Edward Michaels.

For good or ill, all aspects of the project's impact on people and their environment were to be considered as part of the site certification application in sworn testimony for public record before Administrative Law Judge J. Lawrence Johnston from the Division of Administrative hearings in Tallahassee.

Michaels presented oral and written testimony and a DVD showing how the power plant would affect the infrastructure and lifestyle of Inglis.

He said that Inglis was not actually served by Progress Energy, and that the town would be situated between two nuclear plants, the existing one in Crystal River and the proposed plant, putting Inglis effectively in a permanent no-fly zone.

"It would be impossible to ever have an airport," Michaels said.

The proposed facility would strain Inglis' water, roads and police and fire services, Michaels said. While Inglis has a population of about 1,700, he said, only about 23 percent of those residents support local government with ad valorem taxes.

The DVD Michaels presented was said to contain evidence of the traffic congestion that would happen on U.S. 19 during shift changes at the power plant.

Jobs at the power plant would be done by specialists from outside the area, Michaels said, and that would bring more population to Inglis that would strain its infrastructure.

"Residents would suffer higher taxes and lower services," Michaels said.

He said the utility would have to commit in advance to help the city with its financial problems.

"This project could bankrupt the town," he said.

While the town commission was not in opposition to the site permit, Michaels said it did not want to be run over by it.

Second to speak was Gary Sandford, who said he grew up in Inglis and is now at student at the University of Florida majoring in nuclear engineering.

Through his studies, he said, "I learned that nuclear power is and can be done safely."

While renewable energy is great, he said, nuclear power is the best option.

"I'm looking forward to a reason to come home," he said. "The plant is an exciting project for out area."

Robert Smith, however, said that he lived less than 7,000 feet from the proposed nuclear reactor, and expressed frustration with getting answers to his questions, such as those about the water flow on his 40 acres.

"Which way will it flow and how far will it flow?" he asked. "How will it affect my garden and the things I eat?"

Smith said he had moved from the Florida Keys to find a place way out in the country and get away from it all.

"I moved from the prettiest place in the world because I like to be in the woods," he said.

While he does not want Progress Energy as his neighbor, Smith said he was frustrated.

"We don't have a leg to stand on," he said. "We have to roll with the punches."

Ray Sammick, a businessman from Bronson, said he was against the proposed plant because: "If there is a nuclear spill, we would all die."

He also had a big concern about the amount of water that would be used to cool reactors, some two million gallons a day, he said.

"We don't have enough water now," he said.

He also said the power plant should be built nearer the customers it serves, such as those in Pinellas County.

And Sammick said he supported renewable energy, but it would be more expensive for the utility.

"Progress Energy is trying to do this the cheapest way it can," he said. "And it will destroy our towns. They don't care, they are all about business."

Dan Hilliard of Inglis said he was concerned about the cautious use of water resources.

"I do not object to nuclear power," he said, "but I'm concerned about the water."

In addition to the use of water for cooling the reactor, Hilliard said bring in more population would be a strain on water resources and developing homes for people would be a strain on the size of the water recharge area.

Beth Foley of Chiefland, a retired teacher, was concerned about the cooling tower salt drift.

"The droplets will spread 31 pounds a day of solid salt over the wetlands," she said.

Although the utility said the effect would be minimal, as evidenced by the effect of the salt drift from the Crystal River nuclear plant, Foley pointed out that the Crystal River plant is situated near the Gulf, with vegetation that is compatible with salt spray. The proposed Levy county plant, however, would be 10 miles inland, and the salt spray would affect Lake Rousseau and people's property.

Foley said she had looked up other proposed nuclear power plants to see if this was happening elsewhere. But all other new projects were on the coast.

"No other new nuclear plants are affected this way by a salt drift," she said. "This is unprecedented."

More public testimony will be taken from 3 to 8 p.m. Monday, March 9 at the National Guard Armory, 8551 W. Venable St., Crystal River.