ML040980559
| ML040980559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/31/2003 |
| From: | Bales B - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| DLPM | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML041470032 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MC2574, Y020040071 | |
| Download: ML040980559 (3) | |
Text
Original Due Date: 05/28/2004 Ticket Number: 020040071 Document Date: 03/31/2003 NRR Received Date: 04/07/2004 TACs:
MC2574 From:
Bart Bales
- YELLOW ***
NRC For Signature of:
Dyer, BRR
==
Description:==
Require an Independent Engineering Assessment (For Vermont Yankee)
Routing: Dyer Borchardt Craig Sheron Case NRR Mailroom Assigned To:
Contact:
MARSH, LEDYARD (TAD) E Special Instructions:
Bart Bales 100 River Road Gill, Ma 01376 March 31, 2003 Attn: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Re: Require an Independent Engineering Assessment For: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Dear Commissioners:
I am here to speak as a concerned citizen living in a town within the emergency evacuation zone, as well as to be a message bearer for a number a elected and public officials. First, I have a letter from a Massachusetts legislator, Steven Kulik, who represents a district in the adjacent areas to the plant.
Representative Kulik, as I do, calls for an independent engineering assessment of the type called for and detailed by the Vermont state Senate resolution. Such an assessment should be of the level of the assessment given Maine Yankee in the past.
I hold a letter from the Board of Selectmen of the town of Gill, Massachusetts, also calling for an independent safety assessment for the Vermont Yankee plant. I note for the public record that the Gill-Montague Regional School Board has already made public its call for an independent assessment.
I also hold a letter from the Gill Elementary School principal, Robert Mahler, expressing his concerns about the power uprate and about the inadequacy of the emergency planning procedures that-are purported to provide protection to residents in the event of a nuclear accident or release.
And I know for a fact that my daughter's former preschool was omitted two years running in evacuation drills that it had requested to be included in.
Yesterday I spent some time reading through the many pages of the Vermont Service Board's decision document and many things were clear.
- 1. First and foremost, the approval of the uprate was allowable if and only if an engineering assessment of the depth of that applied to Maine Yankee were completed.
- 2. That the potential economic benefit of the uprate, even before considering issues of safley and reliability was limited.
I understand that the NRC does not intend to provide such an independent assessment, thus I will assert that the uprate has not been approved.
I am a citizen. I am also a trained energy engineer with many years of experience in evaluating energy-related systems.
I believe that it is impossible for one to claim a knowledge of the reliability and safety of a system as complex as the Vernon plant under dramatically changed operating conditions, without a comprehensive engineering assessment. In my opinion, you cannot know. I do not believe that the types of evaluations that you do under routine operations are of the depth to provide this information.
This system is 31 years old and of a design that will not meet the standards of a new plant if it were built today. What is being proposed is the adding of the equivalent of 1/5 of a new plant in terms of power production, but not having to meet current standards. I think this project should have to meet current codes, just like any major renovation project.
And finally, I understand that the spent fuel capacity of the plant will be exceeded in the Fall of 2008 under current operations, or by spring of 2007 if the uprate is allowed?
Why in the world take all this risk for 3 or 4 years worth of electricity and minimal public benefit?
I believe that to move forward with this uprate without an independent engineering assessment would be very imprudent and irresponsible and very bad policy.
Sincerely, Bart Bales