ML070660081
| ML070660081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/2007 |
| From: | Stamas E - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB |
| References | |
| 71FR76706 00001 | |
| Download: ML070660081 (12) | |
Text
ýI
--I 0, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 40 7/f/s 7~/62~
IJ 0 1~1 i7~ .D 10 0 (3l-)
I
~9b ~'7-e~~ 3 6 Oj&52:ý_7 '6c /;&'*
7-,~4e;4~
,/
/
___ __ CL~ St ý~
4~-X W-- -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ e2-L
____ ~ ~nf~eJ
a-ý a4,-e-1
ý, 4- .
0 ý J VT)
__ - - -k)
___- _ _ - L
_ _ _~_- -Aý_ ex xWZ-- eýC-O~ ~~~C) __ _ __ _ _
_y 9 .
-~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~/I)
~I~*W i~~~ ecL4~
_ _ _ _ ~ _ ~~ 7 V7 _ _
(Vt) 9 ~L414
-- m--_ I el ,I 4-__ -fat-
_____ _ ___ /&o~4o.i9 0 14A) - SO _
e"~~-~ A-X -t
_ _ _ _ ~ ~ J_,ale
_ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ 4~d 'dOF
-. _6_ _ *_ _ _ _ _ _
_Qj*_oJd £*_
- m_,_ _
~zy 12
_ * -* *
- _ _ LT_
//__o __-
I C; *6
/ ,/ /a , t¢ Z"
- ,_4o:_,- 4F- -rZ-.J* *W-
V/
w-.~ .. -
The Vermont Statutes Online Title 30: Public Service Chapter 90-4 VERMONT HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY TITLE 30 Public Service PART III Utility Companies' CHAPTER 90. VERMONT HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY
§ 8051. Findings, purpose, and goals (a) The general assembly of the state of Vermont finds:
(1) Potential exists to purchase an interest in4 hydroelectric 'power stations along.the Connecticut and Deerfield Rivers located in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.
(2) The general assembly created the Vermont Renewable Power Supply Acquisition Authority (VRPSAA) in Sec. 38 of No. 63 of the Acts of 2003 to investigate such a purchase and the VRPSAA has taken actions towards that goal.
(b) Therefore, it is the purpose of this chapter to create an entity with
.:,the authority to~finance, purchase, own, operate, or manage any interest in the hydroelectric power faci~liti es aldng!the Connecticut and Deerfield Rivers located in Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and to sell the electric energy under the control of the authority from those facilities at wholesale to authorized wholesale purchasers. The purchase and operation of an interest shall be pursued with the following goals:
(1) To promote the general good of the state; (2) To stimulate the development of the Vermont economy; (3) To increase the degree to which Vermont's energy needs are met through environmentally-sound sustainable and renewable in-state energy sources;,
(4) To lessen electricity price risk and volatility for Vermont ratepayers and increase system reliability;
( Not to compete with Vermont utilities; (6) To ensure that the credit rating of the state will not be adversely affected and Vermont taxpayers will not be liable should the project fail because of the failure to produce sufficient revenue to service the debt, the failure of a partner, or for any other reason; and (7) To cause the project to be operated in an environmentally sound manner consistent with federal licenses and purposes. (Added 2003, No.
121 (Adj. Sess.), § 101, eff. June 8, 2004.)
_ - A .
ZIA
~~3d 4Au-is /kZkvn 0 izý efxa&cdo&,Q -.Q2 ,7-- e /
-- J Clean Energy'Plan for the Pioneer Valley Plan Summary As part of Massachusetts' electric utility restructuring legislation in 1997, the state passed several new policy programs which require a small, but increasing, amount of electricity sold to Massachusetts customers to come from new, qualified renewable energy sources. These renewable energy sources are defined as solar photovoltaic, wind energy, landfill methane gas, biomass, and fuel cells using a renewable fuel.
Beginning in the fall of 2005, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) and the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) have been working with the Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative and vast public input to develop a regional strategic plan for clean energy with funding from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. The purpose of this two-year project is to develop a community-based, yet regional, strategic plan to implement shared goals (the following are draft goals):
" Create new clean energ in the range of 75-100 MW /year in the Pioneer Valley (Franklij,*
Hampshire, and Hampden counties) by 2010; OVe-r" 5 rs: V/5A 5 7 37 5 A40 ,'r1eroS_
- Increase energy efficiency across the board on the order of reducing year 2000 energy demand by 100-200 MW/year; and, Ovr \tj rk'Qys rQ t .S be-10 tt(5 X 5_00- MP Yr,'ikirAUX
- Create jobs associated with clean energy technologies. 'n Our Clean Energy Planning Process involves the following:
- Update an inventory of renewable energy (RE) activities and efforts in the Pioneer Valley;
" Create, administer, and compile the results from a public Web-based RE opinion survey;
" Create, administer, and compile the results from a survey of municipal officials in 69 cities and towns;
" Create, administer, and compile the results of a detailed SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis surveying 30 regional stakeholders including municipal officials, business owners, environmentalists, RE experts, and RE advocates; During Clean Energy Month October 2006:
- Nine Clean Energy Education Sessions on topics ranging from small-scale biomass to energy audits;
- Four weeks of on-line discussions to develop consensus on goals, guiding principles, selection criteria, strategies, and an implementation plan; and
- 3 Strategic Planning Sessions in October to confirm on-line work.
In the spring of 2007, as each of the Plan partners tkegins to implement the strategies, PVPC and FRCOG will be inviting all 69 cities and towniin the regio to endorse the Clean Energy Plan in principle and to commit to pursuing a few specific activities. PVPC and FRCOG will also apply to MTC and work with other supporters to secure funding to implement recommendations of the Plan.
.. ir 46 roV + is 6/0 O OL Derr-o ypo r/0 4 50 0LL?1 C43/4~er L-o-n t er+/-
- re- e rC Vexior-rx+ Lt, ,&,,ee-) ) -P r, C)e~v~e ~.~r5 e-4e,da ( 0L 800o~ LO/ar 5u~z (cO e-r r e-Vn more-6-t1avv 4-,Ch~ roeol qj,,,,ý4evýS 0,moctntiý anq unIQ Q2ýe&qD ich~'qofri
I 128 129 1 MR. SACHS: Well, I'm gonna briefly 1 that] over four years. That's $6 million a year, 2 respond to the woman from the Vermont Business 2 diviede by 250,000 households in Vermont, and the 3 Partnership who spoke earlier and mentioned the 3 increase in each household's electricity bill for the 4 Department of Public Service, and how they said how 4 entire year would be roughly $24.00. That's not even 5 much money we would lose if Vermont Yankee were to 5 conside~ng the contribution from industrial and 6 close. 6 commerchl users.
That doesn't sound like a lot of money to 7 So let's take Commissioner David O'Brien 7 7 8 who's the head of the state department of Public 8 investI in freeing Vermont from this role in the 9 Service. He put a $60 million figure on the cost that 9 produc!ion of hundreds of tons and millions, hundreds 10 would come to Vermont ratepayers if VY closed in 2008. 10 of torS of radioactive waste, millions of curies of
,-i 1 Vermont Yankee provides roughly 250 megawatts to 11 deadO nuclear substances created by the Vermont 12 Vermont. That represents one-third of our Vermont 12 Yank4e nuclear reactor, stored on the banks of the 13 total energy demand, which is about 750 megawatts. 13 ConrIcticut River. It doesn't sound like a lotta 14 15 16 efficiency electricity A recent PSB study determined that energy measures could use by 20 percent, reduce Vermont's or 150 megawatts.
total 1 14 15 16 monly to spend to get rid of Vermont -Yankee.
trday for Now I'm gonna repeat the few of you who what I said earlier are left in this 17 Let's apply that savings to what VY provides. Then 17 elening's event. Richard Monson, Harvard School of 18 we'd reduce the amount of power needed to replace VY 18 iublic Health, stated: "The scientific research base 19 to 100 megawatts. That's 250 minus 150. / 19 '$hows that there is no threshold below which low 20 If it would cost Vermont 60 million bucks 20 .levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be 21 to replace the 250 megawatts over four years, it would 21 "armless or beneficial."
22 cost us 40 percent of that or $24 million to replace 22 There is no threshold below which low 23 the 100 megawatts that would remain, if we implemented 23 levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be 24 all the efficiency measures we could. 24 harmless or beneficial. The health risks, 25 Now we're down to $24 million. Spread 25 particularly the development of solid cancers in (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I. (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I
130 131 1 organs, rise proportionally'with exposure. 1 February- lth, 1981, Tennessee Valley 2 At low doses of radiation, the risk of 2 Authority's Sequoia One Plant in Tennessee, a rookie 3 inducing solid cancers is very small. Low doses. It 3 operator caused a 110,000 gallon radioactive coolant 4 sounds like what the NRC was giving me earlier in 4 release.
5 tonight's case. 5 February 25th 1982. The Ginna Plant near 6 As the overall lifetime exposure 6 'ochester, New York. Its steam generator pipe broke, 7 increases, so does the risk. Every nuclear reactor E 7 i5,000 gallons of radioactive coolant spilled, 'small
- I 8 emits small amounts of 'adiation, even so-called zero 8 amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.
9 emission reactors'. 9 January 15th and 16th, 1983, the' Browns 10 3-29-2004 was two days before the NRC 10 F"rry Station, nearly 208,000 gallons of low-level 11 arrived in Vernon, when they came to ihform us that 11 radioactive contaminated water was accidentally dumped 12 they would not be performing 'the independent 12 irto the Tennessee River.
13 engineering assessment which had been donsidered a 13 1981, 1982, and 1983, -Salem One and Two in 14 requirement on the proposed uprate by the Vermont 14 New'Tersey, 90 seconds from catastrophe when the plant 15 Public Service Board, the state's regul~atory body. 15 was shut down manually, after the failure of an 16 5-4 of 04, the NRC changed its tune and 16 autorstic shutdown system. A 3000 gallon radioactive 17 announced that it had long been planning such an 17 w'aterleak in June of '81, a 23,000 gallon leak of 18 independent engineering assessment'. They must have 18 mildly-radioactive water, which did splash on to 16 19 been planning it since at least March 15th. 19 worker:,in February of 182, and radioactive gas leaks 20 You, the NRC, say that Three'Mile Island 20 in Mard of '81 and September of '82.
21 was a wake-up Call for the industry. That waas March 21 Let's go to 1996. NRC Chairperson Shirley 22 28th, 1979. That is the same year the NRC publicly 22 Jacksoni speaking of Millstone in Time magazine.
23 stated there was no such thing as a safe amount of 23 Quote. 'Clearly the NRC dropped the ball. We won't 24 radiation. 24 do i-again. ' End quote.
25 Since 1979, these are some o'f th6 events. 25 "' 1997. Yankee Row, 20 miles from here, NEAL R. GROSS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 21-4433 1323 RHOOE ?SLANO WASHINGTON. AVE.,N.W.
D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-44*33 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
132 133 1 roughly, out, west, was closed., It's in Rome, 1 A worst-case scenario accident at VY would 2 Massachusetts. The NRC had allowed Yankee Row to dump 2 lead to an area the size of western Mass., Vermont, 3 radiation, for about 30 years, into the Deerfield 3 and New Hampshire being uninhabitable for possibly 30 4 River. 4 years or more.
5 February 15th, 2000, New Ydrk'" Indian 5 The plumes, from the National Oceanic and 6 Point Two,' aging steam generator rupture, .venting 6 Atmospheric Administration, shows plumes going as far 7 radioactive steam. The NRC initially reported no 7 north as deep into Canada. That's over Montpelier.
8 radioactive material to have been released. Later, 8 As! far south as deep into North Carolina and as far 9 they changed their report to say thatý' there was a 9 east as over Cape Cod, into the ocean.
10 leak, 6oh yes, but not enough to threaten public 10 Then in 2001, on top of that, there's 11 safety. /. this, something called an Operational Safety Response 12 2004. New NRC Chairman Nils Diaz, about 12 Evaluation. This was just a test--Operational Safety 13 Davis Besse, said--catch this--"The agency," quote, 13 Response Evaluation test. It occurred about a month 14 unquote,* "dropped the ball," end quote. , Again. Hmm. 14 be.fore 9/11. In this test, the NRC would stage mock 15 I thought you said it wouldn't happen again. I guess 15 attackers to test the security of nuclear reactors.
16 it did. Accidents do happen. That"s our NRC. 16 They came up here to Vermont Yankee and they let the 17 If Th-ree Mile Island was a wake-up call, 17 security system at VY know where the people would be 18 what exactly was happening at Davis Besse'? I do,'I 18 attacking from, when they'd be attacking.
19 would like to know that. Oh, so here we are in an NRC 19 But that of course is to make sure that if 20 meeting. The environmental '-impact of Vermont Yankee. 20 there were some real attacks at the same time, the 21 We have virtually an in'effective evacuation plan, 21 security agents would know. That's not what they 22 untested in its entirety. What about those people' 22 said. So they knew the whereabouts of where these 23 without vehicles? What about day care centers and all 23 attackers were coming from.
24 the schools together? What about the transient hotel 24 And the test was to make sure that the 25 guests? 25 attackers could not get into the control room.
NEAL R. GROSS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4-433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000523701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-44-33
134 135 Obviously, stop them at the fence line would be the Larry Lukens. I live in Vernon, in the emergency logical thing to do. planning zone, and'I work at Vermont Yankee. We've Vermont Yankee failed. Oh, I'm sorry. heard a lot tonight, there've been a lot of really The NRC doesn't use that word. I think there's some eloquent speakers. I'm not going to try to match jargonistic terminology, I can't get my grip around. that.
They certainly had a low security rating on that one. This is about the scoping for the So the mock attackers were able to enter environmental review, as I understand it, and we've the control room, and VY, one of the least secure heard a lot of things that weren't really about the nuclear stations in the country--notoriety. environment. One of the tests says, I recall from the Around Vermont Yankee, numerous engineers slide, is that NRC has to look at environmental looked at me and Said after 9/11, we fortified our effects and determine whether these environmental security, we invested $8 million into our security effects constitute a new and significant change in system. Well, here's a question for an environmental things that have already been evaluated.
impact. Has anybody, any other reactors invested I haven't heard anything tonight that says after 9/11? Did everybody have to invest $8 million? there's anything new and significant. Actually, I And if that is the case, let's say that's a given--if haven't heard anything new, and I haven't heard everybody's adding $8 million to their security anything that sounds significant.
systems but yet VY was already behind the eight ball, We have met all the requirements. We have where does that put us today? exceeded many of them. We continue to meet the I think we're still behind the eight ball because we environmental requirements. We continue to be, as saw the same amount invested. Johh Dreyfus said, good stewards of our environment.
I wonder if the fact that there have been This plant emits no carbon dioxide. In fact it emits no legislators to speak here tonight, speaks to the nothing that would be considered a hazard. We don't futility of this event. emit radioactivity.
MR. LUKENS: Good evening. My name's And the people who have spoken tonight NEAL R. GROSS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433