ML052790245
| ML052790245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/23/2004 |
| From: | Neil Sheehan NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Bolick C - No Known Affiliation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0369 | |
| Download: ML052790245 (4) | |
Text
I Neil Sheehan - Re: "Aging Nukes" story on "Living On Earth" Page 1 From:
Neil Sheehan To:
INTERNET: cbolick@loe.org Date:
9/23104 2:41PM
Subject:
Re: "Aging Nukes" story on "Living On Earth" Mr. Bolick, Yes, you may.
Thank you for your timely response to my e-mail message to you.
Sincerely, Neil Sheehan NRC Public Affairs Officer, Region I
>>> Christopher Bolick <cbolick@loe.org> 09/23/04 02:30PM >>>
Dear Mr. Sheehan,
We appreciate your comments regarding our recent story, "Aging Nukes," and we may want to include them in a listener letters segment of an upcoming show. May we have permission to read an excerpt of your letter?
Thanks for listening, Christopher Bolick Living on Earth 20 Holland Street, Suite 408 Somerville, MA 02144 (617) 629-3638 cbolick(Dloe.org
> From: "Neil Sheehan" <NAS(anrc.gov>
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:48:17 -0400
> To: <comments(gloe.org>
Subject:
re: "Aging Nukes" story on "Living On Earth"
Dear "Living On Earth" staff,
> I wanted to call to your attention several inaccuracies in the story you aired
> on Sept. 17th titled "Aging Nukes":
> http://www.loe.orq/ETS/organizations.php3?action=drintContentltem&orpid=33&tvp
> el D=18&itemlD=222&User Session=b7d248c8f6c3f2a1703af865dd8b4202.
> The piece dealt with a proposed power uprate of 20 percent at the Vermont
> Yankee nuclear power plant.
> Specifically,
- Your story stated that the owners of 90 nuclear power plants across the U.S.
> are asking the NRC for permission to boost the amount of power their plants
> can generate. In fact, the NRC has, since 1977, approved 101 power uprate
> requests. They have ranged from less than 2 percent to no more than 20
> percent. There are currently 10 power uprate applications - rather than 90 -
> pending before the NRC.
>
- Your story states that Vermont Yankee is seeking a 20-percent power increase j
I[Neil Sheehan - Re: "Aging Nukes" story on 'Living On Earth'~
~Page 21
> without making "major investments" in the plant. It's our understanding the
> plant does plan to make several major (and expensive) modifications in
> conjunction with the uprate, including installing a new transformer (already
> completed) and a new turbine. That equipment is on the power-generation side
> of the facility.
- Your story quotes reporter Eesha Williams saying that the federal government
> has estimated that 7,000 people would die within a year of a serious accident
> at Vermont Yankee. While no source is provided for this information, it may
> have come from a 1982 NRC report known as "CRAC2." Unfortunately, that report
> is one that has been widely misused and misconstrued over the years. The
> report did project numerous fatalities following a severe accident at a
> nuclear power plant. However, what gets lost in the conversation is that the
> study looked at the worst of all worst-case scenarios and was not designed to
> provide realistic estimates of deaths. The scenario involved the reactor
> vessel rupturing, spouting a radioactive geyser into the air. The entire
> contents of the reactor then get injected into a rain cloud hovering above the
> plant and the cloud then floats toward a major population center where it
> drenches residents with radioactive rain. This one-in-a-billion scenario is
> outlandish, but outlandish assumptions were necessary in the use of computer
> modeling in order to produce catastrophic disaster consequences. Just
> providing the raw fatality numbers offers no context.
- The story says there has been only one hearing so far in the area around
> Vermont Yankee. Actually, no "hearings" have been held to date on the proposed
> Vermont Yankee power uprate. The NRC did hold a public informational meeting
> on the subject in Vernon earlier this year, but it was clearly not a hearing,
> which implies sworn testimony and a judicial-like proceeding.
- The story does not accurately portray the way spent fuel pools at nuclear
> power plants are cooled. It suggests that water is taken from the river, flows
> around the spent fuel in a pool and is then returned to the river (or other
> body of water). In fact, the water taken from the nearby body of water
> circulates through the plant, is used to cool down various components and is
> then pumped back. In the case of the spent fuel pool, the water contained in
> the vessel is constantly recirculated, with heat exchangers used to keep the
> water below a certain temperature. Only a limited amount of water is added to
> replace that lost by evaporation. There is certainly no constant infusion of
> water from a nearby body of water.
- The story asserts that critics of the plant say the NRC is being "much less
> rigorous" with regard to Vermont Yankee than it was at Maine Yankee. It's true
> that Vermont Yankee critics have asked for the same kind of independent safety
> assessment that was done at Maine Yankee in the 1990s to be performed at
> Vermont Yankee. However, the independent safety assessment at Maine Yankee
> was done in response to an investigation of allegations regarding use of a
> computer code. Because of the nature of these allegations and the involvement
> of the Inspector General, the NRC determined that the assessment at Maine
> Yankee should be conducted by persons independent of the routine oversight of
> Maine Yankee. The NRC decided to conduct the assessment at Maine Yankee
> because we had significant concerns with conformance to license requirements;
> that's a situation that does not exist currently at VY. It's also worth noting
> that the NRC is performing an engineering inspection at Vermont Yankee that
> will look at several key safety systems that would be affected by the power
> uprate. What's more, the NRC's review of the uprate application is expected to
> involve about 4,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of review by the agency. That's pretty rigorous in
> almost anyone's book.
> Should you decide to do another piece about the Vermont Yankee power uprate,
> or on any topic regarding nuclear power or materials in the United States, I
> would encourage you to contact the NRC's Office of Public Affairs. We would be
> glad to assist you in any way possible.
> Sincerely,
> NRC Public Affairs Officer, Region I
> (610) 337-5331
IC:\\TEMP\\GW)00001.TMP
- M Mail Envelope Properties (415318E9.E38: 9: 35118)
Paae 1 1
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Created By:
Re: "Aging Nukes" story on "Living On Earth" 9/23/04 2:41PM Neil Sheehan NAS @nrc.gov Recipients loe.org cbolick (INTERNET: cbolick~loe.org)
Action Transferred Date & Time 09/23/04 02:41PM kplpo.KPDO DPS BC (Diane Screnci) nrc.gov owfl_po.OWFN_DO EAH BC (Elizabeth Hayden)
EXB2 BC (Eliot Brenner)
Delivered Opened Deleted Delivered Opened 09/23/04 02:41PM 09/23/04 02:41PM 09/23/04 03:45PM 09/23/04 02:41PM 09/23/04 03:12PM Post Office loe.org kpl-po.KP.DO owfl-po.OWFNDO Delivered Route INTERNET nrc.gov 09/23/04 02:41PM 09/23/04 02:41PM Files MESSAGE Options Auto Delete:
Expiration Date:
Notify Recipients:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
To Be Delivered:
Status Tracking:
Size 11126 Date & Time 09/23/04 02:41PM No None Yes Standard No None No Standard Immediate All Information