Vermont Legislature - Week of March 24 - March 30, 2009 (prepared by Thomas Weiss, citizen of Vermont, from information provided by the legislative council and from personal observation.)
NEW BILLS: This gives the title and my brief summary. One can get any bill in the bill corridor of the state house or on line at www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm .
CROSSOVER All bills must be reported out by the committees of reference by the end of the day of Friday, March 20. Bills that are then referred to a money committee must be reported out of the money committees by the end of the day of the following Friday, March 27. Exceptions to the foregoing deadlines include the major money bills (Appropriations, Transportation, Capital, and Miscellaneous Taxes) and other bills as determined by the President pro tempore and the Speaker.
H.429 - Tuition credit for students in agricultural programs. This bill will create a tuition credit of $500 per semester for students enrolled in accredited postsecondary agricultural programs in Vermont. Representative Masland is the main sponsor and their are 2 others sponsors. The bill was sent to House Education on 3/19/9. No sponsors are on this committee.
H.434 - Agency of agriculture, food and markets revenues. This bill will increase revenue for the agency in several ways.
- Sec. 1. This bill will allow the agency to issue it licenses, permits, registrations, and certificates for terms up to three years. Recipients have the choice of whether to have the document issued for only one year or for up to three years.
- Sec. 2. This section will add exotic animals to the list of those for which the department will provide voluntary inspections and will remove ratites (such as emus) from the list. The section will also increase the inspection fee to what is charged for meat and poultry inspections. (The fee is now $5 per hour for Vermont animals or $20 per hour for out-of-state animals.)
- Sec. 3. This will eliminate the license fee exemptions for a number of items. Those items that will be required to pay the fee will be: commercial scales in facilities with less than 2,000 feet of floor space; any person operating three or fewer motor fuel dispensers; and medium-duty scales for commercial enterprises which operate the scales as primarily a public service.
- Sec. 4. This will require operators of laser scanners to obtain a license. The fee will be $25 per scanning point with an exemption for single retail units having up to three scanning points.
- Sec. 5. This will require a fee of $0.01 per pound of maple syrup inspected or graded by the agency when a dealer requests such an inspection for certification.
This bill is sponsored by the House Agriculture Committee. The bill has been posted and will likely be introduced on March 24.
H.436 - Decommissioning and decommissioning funds of nuclear energy power plants.
- This bill will define decommissioning to include decommissioning as that term is used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission plus management and storage of spent fuel, plus returning the site to a greenfield condition. Decommissioning in the sens of this bill will need to be completed within 10 years of either the expiration of a certificate of public good or the permanent cessation of generation. An extension of time may be granted if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorizes additional time for non-financial reasons.
- If the legislature does not approve the issuance of a certificate of public good by December 30, 2010, then the bill will require the owner or operator of an existing nuclear power plant to make four equal payments of $114,720,000 each to the existing decommissioning fund on the first of January in the years 2011, 2012, 2018, and 2020. If the owner misses a payment, authority to operate the plant will be immediately suspended.
- The bill will also place conditions on the public service board if a nuclear power plant is transferred or sold. The decommissioning fund will need to have the ability to promptly begin decommissioning the plant when it ceases to operate. The bill will place restrictions on how the public service board can estimate the future value of the fund.
- The bill will apply to all certificates of public good issued before enactment of the bill and will apply to proceedings pending before the public service board when the bill is enacted.
This bill is sponsored by the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. The bill has been posted and will likely be introduced on March 24.
S.119 - Renewable energy, energy efficiency, decommissioning, and rural economic development. This bill has many features.
- * Sec. 1. The bill is designated as the renewable energy and rural economic development act.
- Secs. 2, 3, 4, and 5. These are essentially the same as sections 1, 3, 4, and 5 of H.188 - Vermont-based renewable energy development projects. These sections will provide incentives for developers of Vermont-based renewable energy projects including: any action by the Public Service Board under 30 VSA 248 must be completed within 12 months; a utility shall pay the first $100,000 of the cost to interconnect to the utility's electric system; a utility shall not charge for wheeling the electricity over its lines unless it needs to reserve capacity for the project; the clean energy development fund shall give priority to Vermont-based renewable energy projects; the State property tax on Vermont-based renewable energy projects shall be $0.0025 per kilowatt-hour; and there will be no sales tax on the first $500,000 in sales of electrical energy. To be eligible for these benefits, a project must be owned by at least two qualifying owners who receive at least 51% of the financial benefits over the life of the project. Qualifying owners can be Vermont residents, limited liability companies whose members are Vermont residents, non-profit corporations whose principal office is in Vermont; co-operatives whose principal business transactions occur in Vermont; Vermont municipalities in the broad sense; public colleges or universities in Vermont; and Vermont regional planning commissions. A project must have a minimum capacity of 50 kilowatts.
- Sec. 6. This section will make Vermont-based renewable energy development projects eligible for funding from the clean energy development fund. This section will also allow the clean energy development fund to fund thermal or geothermal resources that do not generate electricity.
- Sec. 7 will require the seller of a property to disclose the annual energy consumption at the property for the preceding five years or has provided a home energy rating performed within the previous two years.
- Sec. 8 will require the agency of agriculture, food, and markets, the agency of natural resources, and the public service department to jointly prepare a state biomass plan covering a period of 20 years. The plan shall implement the state energy policy; shall increase the use of forest biomass energy feedstocks by 5% by January 1, 2011 and by 30 by January 1, 2028; shall increase the use of wood products in building materials by 2% by 2012 and by 10% by 2028; and shall determine an appropriate balance between use of wood for biomass feedstocks and for building materials. The section goes on to provide details of the contents of the plan (biomass inventory; viable technologies; net energy contribution from biomass; siting criteria for wood-fired electric generators; standards for fuel efficiency of biomass electricity; sustainable wood procurement standards; strategies for consideration of distributed heat and combined heat and power; strategies for biomass market development; and strategies to use suitable biomass from the municipal waste streams). The section will require the agency of natural resources to establish a timber management program and provides details of the contents of the program. The section will require the secretary of natural resources to develop a forestland conservation program and provides details on the contents of the program. The section will require the plan and both programs to be adopted by January 1, 2010 and will require public input on development of all three.
- Secs. 9, 10, and 11 will place requirements on the public service board (when issuing a certificate of public good), on the district environmental commission (when granting a land use and development permit), and on a municipality (when granting a municipal land use permit) for a facility that uses woody biomass to generate electricity. They must require a facility that uses woody biomass to generate electricity to be a combined heat and power unit with an efficiency of at least 50%; use procurement standards that support sustainable forestry and promote compliance with the Act 250 criteria on wetlands, rare and irreplaceable natural areas, habitat, and threatened or endangered species. The facility's procurement standards, management, and supply chain will need third-party certification. The facility will support locally produced value-added goods and services; create new jobs in the town and region; support continued viability of the forest products sector; provide local use of the energy produced; and enhance economic viability of one or more rural municipalities in Vermont.
- Sec. 12. This section will require the public service board to allow regulated electric or gas utilities to recover an additional premium for investments in new or expanding renewable energy generation of combined heat and power plants in Vermont or for investments to purchase power from a non-regulated generator of renewable energy or combined heat and power in Vermont. The bill does not indicate what the additional premium will be. The bill does require that costs paid by an electrical distribution utility under long-term, fixed-price contract will be considered just and reasonable and will not be subject to disallowance if the public service board approves the contract.
- Secs. 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18. (These sections are essentially the same as H.402 - Renewable energy generation on state lands.) These sections will repeal the agency of natural resources' existing policy (Wind Energy and Other Renewable Energy Development on ANR Lands) and any other policies that restrict the use of state lands for renewable energy. The bill will also require the secretary of natural resources to open state lands to renewable energy development to the maximum extent possible consistent with federal and state laws and with restrictive covenants on the lands.
- Sec. 14 will establish that "The policy of the state of Vermont therefore is to site renewable energy, as defined in 30 V.S.A. § 8002(2) on state lands where such lands have the capacity to produce renewable energy, provided that such siting does not directly conflict with a specific restriction in federal or state law or with a specific restriction or covenant contained in a conveyance of an interest in the property to the state or one of its agencies or departments." The section will also establish a working group to report by January 15, 2010 to the legislature that recommends how to implement the policy stated above; that identifies each state property on which siting of wind energy generation facilities will not conflict with the restrictions or covenants listed in the policy; and that contains a wind assessment for each identified property. The section will require the working group to solicit public input. The working group shall consist of at least of the following members or their designees: the secretary of administration as chair; the secretary of natural resources; the commissioner of public service; the commissioner of forests, parks and recreation; a representative of the wind turbine industry; a representative each of two interested citizens’ organizations; a representative of a retail electric utility; and a representative of local government.
- Sec. 19 will require that the department of economic development within the agency of commerce and community development make it a priority of the department to assist renewable energy companies in expanding and moving to Vermont.
- Sec. 20 will make renewable energy and energy efficiency businesses eligible for assistance from the Vermont Economic Development Authority.. The section will also make logging, operation of sawmills, and the further processing of forest products eligible for assistance from the Vermont Economic Development Authority.
- Sec. 21 will add qualified energy efficiency and renewable energy goods and services eligible for the market Vermont logo maintained by the Agency of Commerce and Community Development.
- Sec. 22 will add a chapter on Green Buildings to title 10 in Part 5 on Land Use and Development. This section will require all new buildings, additions to existing buildings, and substantial reconstructions of existing buildings to comply at a minimum with the standards of the U. S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system. Every municipal zoning permit and every act 250 permit must require those same standards a s a condition of the permit. The seller of a building subject to the requirement must demonstrate to the buyer that the building complies with the requirement.
- Sec. 23 will establish requirements for reclaiming lands on which electric generating facilities are located as soon as possible following cessation of use for electric power generation or authority to operate. Decommissioning will mean removal of all structures, improvements, waste materials, and debris. Decommissioning will include removal of all transmission and distribution facilities, roads and trails, and below-ground infrastructure except those which the public service board find to be in the public good if they remain. Decommissioning will also include restoring the site to its original grade and replanting with native stock. Any person as defined in act 250 and any electric or gas utility holding a certificate of public good will be required to maintain a separate decommissioning fund. The decommissioning fund will need to be sufficient to allow decommissioning within 15 years. The requirements to establish a decommissioning fund will apply to existing plants and to new ones.
- Sec. 24 will require the public service board to adopt rules to encourage farm biogas energy systems by allowing a utility to recover the cost of extending service to farms using on-farm manure for farm biogas systems.
- Sec. 25 will establish priorities by which electric utilities must obtain electricity for their customers needs in the following order: cost-effective energy efficiency, demand-side management, and demand response programs; renewable energy; non-qualifying sustainably priced energy enterprise development resources; fossil fuel resources inversely ranked by carbon footprint; and all other resources.
- Sec. 26 will establish effective dates as the date of passage. The wind-powered electric generating facilities tax (sec. 3) and the Vermont-based renewable energy project tax (sec. 4) will be effective in tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2009. The decommissioning fund requirement will apply to all existing certificates of public good and to all applications pending as of the date of passage of the bill.
Senator Lyons is the main sponsor and there are three other sponsors. The bill was assigned to Senate Natural Resources and Energy on 3/20/9. The main sponsor and one other members of the committee.
COMMITTEE HEARINGS: Hearings are subject to change: addition or deletion; if you are really interested, contact the committee to find out (828-2231). Check www.leg.state.vt.us for the latest schedule. To testify on a bill in person call the legislative council (828-2231). Send written comments to the committee at the state house in Montpelier (05633). Recordings of most committee hearings can be ordered on compact disc from the legislative council for $1 per disc. The Sergeant-at-arms can deliver messages to legislators. (828-2228). The schedules are available at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/schedule/schedule2.cfm
As of the posting of this report on Tuesday evening, March 24, all committees had provided schedules.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Renewable energy bill draft with Municipal Electric Municipalities, Public Service Board, Avatar Energy, Central Vermont Public Service, and Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets at House Natural Resources and Energy (all day beginning at 8:30)
Carshare Vermont at Senate Transportation (11 - 11:30)
Public Transit with Chittenden County Transportation Authority at Senate Transportation (11:30 - noon)
H.279 - Emergency management with the sponsor at House Government Operations (2:50 - 3:15)
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Blueprint for revitalization of Vermont's economy for update to members of Senate Agriculture at Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs. (after 8:30 floor)
Renewable energy bill draft with Green Mountain Power (lobbyist) at House Natural Resources and Energy (9:30 until noon)
H.125 - Farm-fresh milk with multiple witnesses at House Agriculture (all day working around two floor sessions)
Electronic benefit transfer machines and farmers' markets at Senate Agriculture (10 - 11)
S.107 - Entrepreneurial manifesto for Vermont with clean energy development fund at Senate Natural Resources and Energy (10 - 12)
Bee Colony Collapse at Senate Agriculture (11:15 - noon)
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Renewable energy bill draft with Secretary of Natural Resources, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, and Northern Power at House Natural Resources and Energy (8:30 - noon)
H.214 - Expanding eligibility for fuel assistance with legislative counselor, Vermont Fuel Dealers' Association, Office of Home Heating, Community of Vermont Elders, Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council, American Association of Retired Persons, and Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity at House Human Services (9 - noon)
H.125 - Farm-fresh milk with multiple witnesses at House Agriculture (all day beginning at 9)
Food Hubs at Senate Agriculture (10:45 - noon)
Friday, March 27, 2009
Renewable energy bill draft with groSolar and Vermont Public Interest Research Group at House Natural Resources and Energy (8:30 - noon)
H.125 - Farm-fresh milk with multiple witnesses at House Agriculture (15 minutes after 9:30 floor)
LAST WEEK:
ACTIONS ON PREVIOUSLY REPORTED BILLS:
H.62 - Working farm dogs was assigned to Senate Agriculture on 3/20/9. The bill as amended by the house is described in the report for March 2, 2009.
H.83 - Underground storage tanks and the petroleum cleanup fund was amended before second reading on 3/18/9, was amended again before third reading on 3/19/9. As amended this bill has several provisions, the most significant being to require underground storage tanks of capacity less than 1100 gallons at public buildings to register with the program. Those tanks are now exempt. Public building is broadly defined and includes buildings such as schools, public utilities, hospitals, houses of worship, hospitals, homes for the aged or disabled, nurseries, buildings where more than one person is employed; co-operatives or condominiums, rented accommodations (apartments or motels), restaurants, stores, offices, structures for public assembly (indoor or outdoor), government-owned buildings. The bill will extend the petroleum cleanup fund and its collection of fees five more years. Low-sulfur and ultra-low sulfur, non-highway Diesel fuel will be taxed for the cleanup fund at the same rate as home heating oil. The amendments will increase the amount that can be spent in any one year to $300,000. (The previous limit had been $200,000.) The bill will require the petroleum cleanup fund advisory committee shall determine whether the fees on sales of fuel should be collected by the motor vehicle department or the tax department. The advisory committee shall also review on how payment should be made when a tank is removed and evidence is found of a spill left over from a previous removal. The bill was read in the senate for the first time on 3/23/9 and sent to Senate Natural Resources and Energy.
H.145 - Composting was amended before second reading on 3/18/9, was amended again before third reading on 3/19/9. The description of the bill in the legislative report of March 2, 2009 is still accurate for the bill as it passed the house.
S.18 - Limiting the power of municipalities or deeds to prohibit the installation of solar collectors, clotheslines, or other energy devices based on renewable resources was amended before second reading on 3/23/9. The amendment is to exempt municipal ordinances and deed restrictions that were in effect as of the effective date of the act, set to be June 1, 2009.
HEARINGS I ATTENDED:
House Agriculture on Meat Inspectors and Agency Fees.
Most of the discussion at the hearing ended up in bill H.434 - Agency of agriculture, food and markets revenues described above. There was additional information provided by the agency on the cost to the state of employing the inspectors, which was quite a bit more than the what the State charges. The State charges $5 per hour for inspections. The base cost to the state for the inspectors is $38 per hour; the overtime rate is $51 per hour. The federal rate is $60 an hour and they charge on a full time basis while Vermont charges only when an inspector is at a processing facility. When not at a processing facility,an inspector can do other inspections, such as scales at stores. If a Vermont processing facility closes, there are so few of them that there is insufficient capacity elsewhere to take up the slack. There have been three vacancies in the staff of federal meat inspectors for some time. Vermont state inspectors actually provides the federal inspection at 4 processors.
Blueprint for the Revitalization of Vermont's Economy at Senate Economic Development, Housing, and !General Affairs.
This is a draft committee bill with multiple facets and the committee has been holding hearings on various facets. I sat in on a couple hours relating to permitting. (I also report on this in the report of February 16, 2009.) The hearing had already begun when I arrived. When I entered, Senator Illuzzi, chair of the committee was saying that he was concerned that the length of the permitting process in Vermont will not allow all federal stimulus money to be spent.
Richard Shupe of the Vermont Natural Resources Council was testifying. Shupe agreed that all of the federal stimulus money should be spent. He said that there were so many projects out there ready to go that he thinks all of the money will be spent. He also thinks that the proposed amendments to permitting are not necessary to ensure that all of the stimulus money is spent. His statement was along the lines of these amendments are a solution looking for a problem (although those are my words, not his.)
Senator Miller said that it is time to stop labelling all those who want to streamline permitting as anti-environment. She wants the Vermont Natural Resources Council to modernize its position and to realize that all Vermonters care about the environment.
Shupe responded that he didn't make that characterization. He also pointed out that he is not anti-growth, and not anti-permit reform, having worked hard to have growth centers implemented. He also pointed out that the Act 250 process results in changes to projects that are needed to meet the criteria.
Senator Racine acknowledged that those who appeal permits have a strong interest. He cited a case of an appeal by Rutland City of a permit granted to Rutland Town.
Rob Apple of the Stowe Mountain Resort spoke next. He thought that because the bill has language to smooth permitting, that is a sign that the process needs improvement. The Vermont Ski Areas Association and the Chambers of Commerce have long pushed to for more weight to be given to ANR permits. If that means opening up the ANR permit to more public involvement, then do that.
Senator Racine pointed out that the Husky project in Milton received expedited permits from all state agencies due to influence from the governor. Racine asked why that couldn't be done with stimulus projects rather than changing the permitting laws.
Sandy Levine of the Conservation Law Foundation testified that the proposed changes to permitting and Act 250 will be a significant rollback of environmental and safety issues. She pointed out that without enforcement there is low compliance with permits and compliance with self-certified general permits. Thus creating more general permits (such as the stormwater general permit) will lead to more non-compliance. She also pointed out that these changes are not needed to ensure spending federal stimulus money because the potential projects so far exceed the funds that will become available. She pointed out that the Stowe Mountain Resort is a better project because of Act 250. She pointed out that fast-tracking a project can sometimes slow down a project because it can get ahead of federal requirements (she used the Chittenden County circumferential highway as an example). She opposes expanding the exemption of certain municipal projects from Act 250. She opposes making permits issued by the agency of natural resources unchallengeable and unrebuttable in Act 250 (the legal jargon is dispositive) for two reasons: Act 250 looks at different issues and in a different way than do the ANR permits, and the Act 250 process catches and corrects sloppy work by ANR. She opposes ending the consideration of indirect traffic impacts on air quality when issuing air quality permits. Chittenden County is close to non-attainment for air quality and this review of indirect traffic impacts associated with large projects needs to be retained. In response to a question on how to improve permitting, she said it is the responsibility of ANR to do its permitting efficiently and she recommends not changing the standards.
Brian Shupe gave additional testimony. This draft bill has sections concerning Green Growth Zones. He prefers some of the features of a Green Growth Zones in a house bill. (He did not give the number of the bill; there is a hose bill H.139 at House Natural Resources and Energy.) He thinks that we should not create another type of special purpose zone with special zoning, permitting, and incentive requirements. Rather he suggests working the concept of a green growth zone into one of the existing types. (NOTE: some of the existing types are designated downtowns, growth centers, Vermont neighborhoods, new village centers.) He opposes making ANR permits dispositive (unrebuttable and unchallangeable) in act 250 because the ANR permit processes are not accessible to the public and because neighbors are not notified. The permit revisions of 2004 made it more difficult for opponents to become a party in Act 250 proceedings and also raised the bar on participating in zoning proceedings. This bill will make it even more difficult for citizens to hold ANR, Act 250, and municipalities accountable.
Kim Greenwood of the Vermont Natural Resources Council noted that public notice of ANR permits goes to town offices and that abutters are not notified directly. (NOTE: There are permits where notices are published in newspapers and where abutters are notified.) She has concerns about making ANR permits dispositive and about increasing the use of general permits. She discussed some issues regarding the existing general permit for stormwater. She cited a report on the implementation of stormwater general permits. That report shows that contractors who implement the best management practices for stormwater have been losing work to contractors who do not use those practices. She pointed out ANR issued 90% of the applications for stormwater general permits without any review. On the thousands of applicants there are almost no public comments. The study included a random review of sites. Of the 29 active sites that had general permits (with self-certification instead of ANR inspections), 28 of them were out of compliance. Some of the lack of compliance is due to the contractor's ignorance, some is due to the lack of enforcement. Sites with individual permits were in high compliance. Individual permits require interaction between the agency and the developer. Even the process for individual permits omits public interaction, thus appeal is the only way for the public to be involved in a permit process. She stated that over 1000 stormwater permits have been issued since 1999 and there ave been only two enforcement actions. She claimed that ANR was well aware of violations and did not take enforcement action. She opposed making ANR permits dispositive under Act 250 because that would eliminate the ability of Act 250 to integrate the various issues under the umbrella of Act 250.
Laura Pelosi, commissioner of environmental conservation testified next. She began with a rebuttal of the indirect effects of traffic in air quality permits. She said our air quality problems are not caused within Vermont and not caused by our traffic. Rather, our air quality problems come from out of state. There are only a handful of indirect permits issued annually anyway. Making DEC permits dispositive under Act 250 will allow the department to not send staff to Act 250 hearings, allowing department to use those 5 full-time-equivalents for other purposes. She supports making permits dispositive and giving greater deference to DEC determinations because the department's staff are the State's technical experts.
Senator Racine pointed out that the statutes give the secretary of natural resources the authority to approve permits. Because he is a political appointee, politics can override technical issues when issuing a permit. Pelosi concurred that that is possible.
Pelosi believes that the public notice provided for DEC permits Over the last few years, only 2 to 10 DEC permits have been appealed each year according to her departmental attorney. Environmental ticketing as proposed in the bill is one way to improve enforcement of small violations. Implementation of environmental ticketing will require the agency to go through the rulemaking process.
Julie Beth ___ of VHB Pioneering works on stormwater permits for her clients. She thinks that changes to the offset program in H.259 (Stormwater discharges to impaired waters) will improve the situation. Offsets are starting to work. Properties with expired permits, title 3 permits, and pre-1978 systems are having problems with titles that are resolved by placing money in escrow either on an individual basis or by associations. This is a good year to get some of these systems built because contractors are looking for work, but issues need to be resolved between developers, DEC, and environmental groups. The developers and environmental groups would like to rely on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits; DEC is resistant to that approach.
Report of the Public Oversight Panel on the Comprehensive Reliability Assessment of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
This panel made the same presentation twice: in the morning to House Natural Resources and Energy which pre-empted room 11 at the last minute because of the overflow crowd in their committee room. The afternoon hearing was to Senate Finance, also in room 11 which had been reserved several days in advance. Four of the five committee members were present: Peter Bradford (current occupier of the rotating chair), Bill Sherman, Arnie Gunderson, and Fred Sear.
The report of the public oversight panel and the testimony of the members is available from the joint fiscal office at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/Vermont%20Yankee.htm .
Tony Klein, chair of house natural resources and energy, opened the morning hearing stating that this report will play an important role in the legislature's vote, probably next year. (NOTE: Some context. In order to continue operating after March 21, 2012, the owner and operator of the power plant need approval from three bodies. The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will need to approve an extension of the operating license for the power plant. The Vermont Public Safety Board will need to approve a new certificate of public good for the power plant. The general assembly must approve and determine "that the operation will promote the general welfare". I have placed the general assembly's responsibility in quotes because that is directly from the statute (30 VSA 248). It is essential when discussing the issue of continued operation to know the responsibilities and scope of authority of each of the three bodies.) (NOTE: Second context: The power plant is owned by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee. The power plant is operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations. Both are wholly owned subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation.)
Pete Bradford said that the oversight panel was created by Act 189 of 2008 and had was submitting its report on the Comprehensive Reliability Assessment of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant prepared by Nuclear Safety Associates as authorized by that same act. The panel was not involved in writing the NSA report and did not interview any staff of Vermont Yankee. The panel was involved with determining the scope of work used by NSA and in the selection of NSA to do the assessment. The panel determined that overall the NSA report met he requirements of the act although the NSA team could have done better and did miss some issues known to members of the oversight panel.
Bradford reported that the panel concluded that the plant can be reliable in the future if and only if all of the recommendations of the reports by NSA and by the oversight panel are implemented. Management changes will be needed at the plant in order to implement the changes. The legislature will need to establish a means of credible and verifiable public accountability of the implementation of the recommendations. Bradford noted that the panel recommends that verification be done through the existing structures rather than creating something new. The existing structures are the public service department, the public service board and the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel. He acknowledged that the general assembly has lacked confidence in those three bodies or they would not have commissioned the comprehensive vertical audit and reliability assessment. That may have a bearing on how the general assembly might establish a verification procedure. This was a valuable process because the panel, despite its diverse background and interests, was able to reach unanimity in their conclusions. The assessment by NSA was by far more of an inspection than the power plant has ever had. A number of the findings are things that Entergy should have known. Other findings are new. This is the first time that there has been such a comprehensive package of inspection findings. The process added value by making the problems more visible and by getting Vermont Yankee to come to them sooner. He pointed out that Entergy had every incentive to avoid the collapse of the cooling tower yet did not avoid the collapse. There is a potential to change the management of the plant but it cannot be counted on.
Bill Sherman told the committee that the basic finding is that the plant has the ability to operate reliably but it needs verification to ensure it is reliable. He recommends that the legislature set up a public verification process if the power plant continues to operate. Act 189 set up difficult conditions for NSA: pulling together a team of 30 members who had no tie to Vermont Yankee within the previous 3 years on short notice. The NSA report is adequate and the team missed some items known by members of the panel. He pointed out that the transformer fire and the cooling tower collapse could have been avoided. Uncertainty over whether the plant will be allowed to operate more than 3 years is causing some issues with reliability The uncertainty is caused by the legislature not voting on continued operation. For example, uncertainty has delayed repair or replacement of the condensers. Uncertainty has hindered filling vacancies in staff. He believes that Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee has created the uncertainty by not having a new power purchase agreement ready to sign. Sherman said that Entergy are hard negotiators and have brought some of the uncertainty on tehemselves. He recommends that the legislature remove some of the uncertainty by holding its vote this year.
Arnie Gunderson pointed out that the report of the oversight panel is a consensus report. The panel agreed that the plant has the possibility of operating reliably. The panel failed to reach consensus on the difficulty of actually being reliable. The NSA report found many issues and made many recommendations for improvement. Each of those issues is individually surmountable. Collectively they show a difficulty created by the corporate culture and it normally takes years to change a corporate culture. One issue is that tribal knowledge of the plant is being lost. Entergy's procedures are OK for an older staff with long experience at the plant; the procedures are inadequate for the increasingly less-experienced staff. Within three categories of engineers at the plant, those with less than three years experience at the plant range from 57% to more than 80%. Entergy decided that it wanted Vermont Yankee to operate within the second quartile of nuclear plants and thus set its staffing levels to operate within that quartile. Even so, vacancies are causing the plant to operate with 40 fewer staff than for that goal of being in the second quartile. The plant hired 83 new staff last year. The NSA assessment missed documents showing that staff had asked for more money for inspections and had been denied by management. The NSA team missed that it has been known since 1999 that the condenser needs to be replaced. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recenty confirmed to the panel that the power plant lacked the personnel to enter data into a computerized check system for a period of 4 to 6 years. The management of the plant is reactive; to operate reliably it will have to be proactive. The solution to the first collapse of the cooling tower caused the second collapse. Gunderson also pointed out that half of the nuclear power plants now operating in the united States had shut down for a period exceeding one year. They shut down on no advance warning.
Comment/Rate Share this Article Subscribe