ML070660081
| ML070660081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/12/2007 |
| From: | Stamas E - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB |
| References | |
| 71FR76706 00001 | |
| Download: ML070660081 (12) | |
Text
ý I
--I UNITED STATES 0,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 40 7/f/s 7~/62~
0 IJ 1~1 i7~
0
.D 10 (3l-)
I 6 Oj&52:ý_7 '6c /;&'*
~9b ~'7-e~~ 3 7-,~4e;4~
,/
/
CL~ St
ý ~
4~-X W--
e2-L
~
~nf~eJ
a-ý a4,-e-
ý,
4 -
VT) 1 0
ý J
-k)
L
_~_-
-Aý_
ex xWZ--
eýC-O~ ~~~ C)
_y 9
-~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~I~*W
~/I) i~~~
ecL4~
~
~~
V7 7
(Vt) 9
~L414 m--_
I el
,I 4-__
-fat-
/&o~4o.i9 0 14A)
SO e"~~-~
A-X -t
~
~
J_,ale
~
~
4~d 'dOF
3 -
~z y
_6_
_Qj*_oJd £*_
m_,_ _
_ 12 LT_
//__o 6/,/
I C;
/a t¢ Z"
- ,_4o:_,- 4 F- -rZ
-.J*
- W-
w-.~
V/
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 ef xa&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 rQ rk'Qys t
.S be-10 X tt(5 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 OL O
6/0 De rr-o ypo r/0 4 50 0
LL?1 C43/4~e r L-o-n t
+/-
er
- re-e rC Vexior-rx+ L
)
t,,&,,ee-)
-P r, C)e~
v~e
~.~r5 e-4e, da
(
0L 800o~
(cO LO/ar 5u~z e-r r e-Vn more-6-t1avv 4-,Ch~
roeol qj,,,,ý4evýS 0,moctntiý anq unIQ Q2ýe&qD ich~'qofri
I 128 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10
,-i 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR.
SACHS:
- Well, I'm gonna briefly respond to the woman from the Vermont Business Partnership who spoke earlier and mentioned the Department of Public Service, and how they said how much money we would lose if Vermont Yankee were to close.
So let's take Commissioner David O'Brien who's the head of the state department of Public Service.
He put a $60 million figure on the cost that would come to Vermont ratepayers if VY closed in 2008.
Vermont Yankee provides roughly 250 megawatts to Vermont.
That represents one-third of our Vermont total energy demand, which is about 750 megawatts.
A recent PSB study determined that energy efficiency measures could reduce Vermont's total electricity use by 20 percent, or 150 megawatts.
Let's apply that savings to what VY provides.
Then we'd reduce the amount of power needed to replace VY to 100 megawatts.
That's 250 minus 150.
If it would cost Vermont 60 million bucks to replace the 250 megawatts over four years, it would cost us 40 percent of that or $24 million to replace the 100 megawatts that would remain, if we implemented all the efficiency measures we could.
Now we're down to $24 million.
Spread 1
/
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 that] over four years.
That's $6 million a year, diviede by 250,000 households in Vermont, and the increase in each household's electricity bill for the entire year would be roughly $24.00.
That's not even conside~ng the contribution from industrial and commerchl users.
That doesn't sound like a lot of money to 7
investI in freeing Vermont from this role in the produc!ion of hundreds of tons and millions, hundreds of torS of radioactive waste, millions of curies of deadO nuclear substances created by the Vermont Yank4e nuclear reactor, stored on the banks of the ConrIcticut River.
It doesn't sound like a lotta monly to spend to get rid of Vermont -Yankee.
Now I'm gonna repeat what I said earlier trday for the few of you who are left in this elening's event.
Richard Monson, Harvard School of iublic Health, stated: "The scientific research base
'$hows that there is no threshold below which low
.levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be "armless or beneficial."
There is no threshold below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial.
The health risks, particularly the development of solid cancers in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 I.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130
- organs, rise proportionally'with exposure.
At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small.
Low doses.
It sounds like what the NRC was giving me earlier in tonight's case.
As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk.
E Every nuclear reactor emits small amounts of 'adiation, even so-called zero emission reactors'.
3-29-2004 was two days before the NRC arrived in
- Vernon, when they came to ihform us that they would not be performing
'the independent engineering assessment which had been donsidered a requirement on the proposed uprate by the Vermont Public Service Board, the state's regul~atory body.
5-4 of 04, the NRC changed its tune and announced that it had long been planning such an independent engineering assessment'.
They must have been planning it since at least March 15th.
You, the NRC, say that Three'Mile Island was a wake-up Call for the industry.
That waas March
- 28th, 1979.
That is the same year the NRC publicly stated there was no such thing as a safe amount of radiation.
Since 1979, these are some o'f th6 events.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 February-lth,
- 1981, Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoia One Plant in Tennessee, a rookie operator caused a 110,000 gallon radioactive coolant release.
February 25th 1982.
The Ginna Plant near
'ochester, New York.
Its steam generator pipe broke, i5,000 gallons of radioactive coolant spilled, 'small
- I amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.
January 15th and 16th,
- 1983, the' Browns F"rry Station, nearly 208,000 gallons of low-level radioactive contaminated water was accidentally dumped irto the Tennessee River.
1981, 1982, and 1983, -Salem One and Two in New'Tersey, 90 seconds from catastrophe when the plant was shut down manually, after the failure of an autorstic shutdown system.
A 3000 gallon radioactive w'aterleak in June of
'81, a 23,000 gallon leak of mildly-radioactive water, which did splash on to 16 worker:,in February of 182, and radioactive gas leaks in Mard of '81 and September of '82.
Let's go to 1996.
NRC Chairperson Shirley Jacksoni speaking of Millstone in Time magazine.
Quote.
'Clearly the NRC dropped the ball.
We won't do i-again. '
End quote.
1997.
Yankee Row, 20 miles from here, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ?SLANO AVE., N.W.
(202) 21-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-44*33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433
132 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
- roughly, out, west, was closed.,
It's in
- Rome, Massachusetts.
The NRC had allowed Yankee Row to dump radiation, for about 30 years, into the Deerfield River.
February 15th,
- 2000, New Ydrk'"
Indian Point Two,'
aging steam generator rupture,.venting radioactive steam.
The NRC initially reported no radioactive material to have been released.
- Later, they changed their report to say thatý' there was a
- leak, 6oh
- yes, but not enough to threaten public safety.
2004.
New NRC Chairman Nils Diaz, about Davis Besse, said--catch this--"The agency,"
- quote, unquote,* "dropped the ball," end quote., Again.
Hmm.
I thought you said it wouldn't happen again.
I guess it did.
Accidents do happen.
That"s our NRC.
If Th-ree Mile Island was a wake-up call, what exactly was happening at Davis Besse'?
I do,'I would like to know that.
Oh, so here we are in an NRC meeting.
The environmental '-impact of Vermont Yankee.
We have virtually an in'effective evacuation plan, untested in its entirety.
What about those people' without vehicles?
What about day care centers and all the schools together?
What about the transient hotel guests?
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
/.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 133 A worst-case scenario accident at VY would lead to an area the size of western Mass.,
- Vermont, and New Hampshire being uninhabitable for possibly 30 years or more.
The plumes, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shows plumes going as far north as deep into Canada.
That's over Montpelier.
As! far south as deep into North Carolina and as far east as over Cape Cod, into the ocean.
Then in
- 2001, on top of that, there's this, something called an Operational Safety Response Evaluation.
This was just a test--Operational Safety Response Evaluation test.
It occurred about a month be.fore 9/11.
In this test, the NRC would stage mock attackers to test the security of nuclear reactors.
They came up here to Vermont Yankee and they let the security system at VY know where the people would be attacking from, when they'd be attacking.
But that of course is to make sure that if there were some real attacks at the same time, the security agents would know.
That's not what they said.
So they knew the whereabouts of where these attackers were coming from.
And the test was to make sure that the attackers could not get into the control room.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000523701 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4-433 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-44-33
134 Obviously, stop them at the fence line would be the logical thing to do.
Vermont Yankee failed.
Oh, I'm sorry.
The NRC doesn't use that word.
I think there's some jargonistic terminology, I can't get my grip around.
They certainly had a low security rating on that one.
So the mock attackers were able to enter the control room, and VY, one of the least secure nuclear stations in the country--notoriety.
Around Vermont Yankee, numerous engineers looked at me and Said after 9/11, we fortified our security, we invested $8 million into our security system.
Well, here's a question for an environmental impact.
Has anybody, any other reactors invested after 9/11?
Did everybody have to invest $8 million?
And if that is the case, let's say that's a given--if everybody's adding
$8 million to their security systems but yet VY was already behind the eight ball, where does that put us today?
I think we're still behind the eight ball because we saw the same amount invested.
I wonder if the fact that there have been no legislators to speak here tonight, speaks to the futility of this event.
MR.
LUKENS:
Good evening.
My name's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 135 Larry Lukens.
I live in Vernon, in the emergency planning zone, and'I work at Vermont Yankee.
We've heard a lot tonight, there've been a lot of really eloquent speakers.
I'm not going to try to match that.
This is about the scoping for the environmental review, as I understand it, and we've heard a lot of things that weren't really about the environment.
One of the tests
- says, I recall from the
- slide, is that NRC has to look at environmental effects and determine whether these environmental effects constitute a new and significant change in things that have already been evaluated.
I haven't heard anything tonight that says there's anything new and significant.
Actually, I haven't heard anything
- new, and I haven't heard anything that sounds significant.
We have met all the requirements.
We have exceeded many of them.
We continue to meet the environmental requirements.
We continue to be, as Johh Dreyfus said, good stewards of our environment.
This plant emits no carbon dioxide.
In fact it emits nothing that would be considered a hazard.
We don't emit radioactivity.
And the people who have spoken tonight NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433