ML061840029
| ML061840029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/07/2006 |
| From: | NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/REBB |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-1072 | |
| Download: ML061840029 (183) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Public Meeting: Evening Session Docket Number: (050-00271)
Location: Brattleboro, Vermont Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2006 Work Order No.: NRC-1072 Pages 1-143 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING 5 FOR THE VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, 6 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 7 EVENING SESSION 8 + + + + +
9 WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE 7, 2006 11 + + + + +
12 BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT 13 + + + + +
14 The Public Meeting was convened at the 15 Latchis Theatre at 50 Main Street in Brattleboro, 16 Vermont, at 7:00 p.m., F. "Chip" Cameron, Facilitator, 17 presiding.
18 NRC STAFF PARTICIPATING:
19 F. "CHIP" CAMERON 20 ERIC BENNER 21 RICHARD EMCH 22 FRANK GILLESPIE 23 SPEAKERS:
24 SHAWN BANFIELD 25 BERNIE BUTEAU NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 SPEAKERS (continued):
2 CLAIRE CHANG 3 ELLEN COTA 4 JOSHUA DOSTIS 5 JOHN DREYFUSS 6 JOHNNY EADS 7 DART EVERETT 8 MIKE FLORY 9 DENNIS GIRROIR 10 MIKE HAMER 11 JOAN HORMAN 12 GEORGE ISELIN 13 DAN JEFFRIES 14 DEB KATZ 15 MARIAN KELNER 16 LARRY LAKENS 17 BETH MCELWEE 18 SUNNY MILLER 19 EVAN MULHOLLAND, ESQ.
20 KAREN MURPHY 21 CHRIS NORD 22 BILL PEARSON 23 GARY SACHS 24 GOV. THOMAS P. SALMON 25 RAY SHADIS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 SPEAKERS (continued):
2 EMMA STAMAS 3 TED SULLIVAN 4 EMILY TINKHAM 5 CLAY TURNBULL 6 SHERRY ZABRISKIE 7 BETH 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 I N D E X 2 Welcome and Purpose of the Meeting, 3 Francis "Chip" Cameron, NRC 5 4 Overview of License Renewal Process, 5 Eric Benner, NRC 10 6 Overview of Environmental Review Process, 7 Richard Emch, NRC 18 8 Audience Questions 27 9 Public Comments 43 10 Closing/Availability of Transcripts, 11 Francis "Chip" Cameron, NRC 12 Adjourn NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 7:00 P.M.
3 MR. CAMERON: If you could take a seat, 4 we're going to get started with the meeting tonight.
5 (Pause.)
6 Good evening, everyone. Nice to see all 7 of you and thank you for coming out tonight on a rainy 8 night and my name is Chip Cameron and I'm the Special 9 Counsel for Public Liaison at the Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission which we're going to be referring to as the 11 NRC tonight.
12 Welcome to the meeting. The subject of 13 the meeting tonight is going to be the environmental 14 review that the NRC conducts as part of its evaluation 15 of an application that we received from the Entergy 16 Company to review the operating license for Vermont 17 Yankee and it's my pleasure to serve as your 18 facilitator tonight. And in that role, I'll try to 19 help everybody to have a productive meeting this 20 evening.
21 I just wanted to cover three items of 22 meeting process before we get to the substance of the 23 discussions. And one is the format for the meeting 24 tonight. Secondly, I'd like to talk about some very 25 simply ground rules and last, I'd just like to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 introduce the two NRC speakers who will be giving you 2 some background information tonight.
3 In terms of the format for the meeting, 4 we're going to start out with a couple of brief NRC 5 presentations to give you some background on license 6 renewal at the NRC and on the environmental review, 7 specifically that part of license renewal so that you 8 know what we look at in deciding whether to grant a 9 renewal for any particular reactor and so that you 10 know how to get information about the process, the 11 schedule for the license renewal and how you can 12 participate.
13 We'll have time for a few questions on 14 process after those presentations, to make sure that 15 we've explained things clearly to you, but the most 16 important part of the meeting tonight is to hear from 17 all of you, to hear your views.
18 This particular meeting is called a 19 scoping meeting and very simply, that's to ask for 20 public comments, advice, recommendations on what the 21 scope of the draft environmental impact statement 22 should be. The NRC is going to prepare a draft 23 environmental impact statement and we'd like to know 24 what issues we should look at, what alternatives 25 should be considered as we develop the environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 impact statement.
2 The staff will tell you about submitting 3 written comments. We're taking written comments as 4 well as meeting with you tonight, but we did want to 5 be here in person to talk with you.
6 Any comments you give tonight are going to 7 carry the same weight as any written comments that we 8 receive.
9 In terms of ground rules, they're very 10 simple. When you speak, please introduce yourself and 11 give us any affiliation, if that's appropriate. And 12 I would ask that only one person speak at a time.
13 Most importantly, so that we can give our full 14 attention to whomever has the floor at the moment, but 15 also so that we can get a clear transcript. We have 16 a court stenographer, Mr. Peter Holland, who is up 17 here. He's going to be recording all the comments 18 tonight. And that's going to be our record. It's 19 also going to be your record of what transpired here 20 tonight.
21 I would also ask you to try to be brief, 22 so that we can have an opportunity for everybody who 23 wants to talk to speak tonight and I'm asking you to 24 follow a five-minute guideline. When you come up here 25 to give us your comments and I'll ask you to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 summarize, as we get close to the five-minute 2 guideline.
3 And I found that five minutes is usually 4 enough for someone to summarize their major points for 5 us and you can elaborate, if you want to with 6 detailed, written comments that you submit to us, but 7 even though it's only five minutes, it does two 8 important things. One, it alerts the NRC staff to 9 what they should begin looking at immediately, even to 10 exploring that in more detail with you after the 11 meeting. And secondly, it alerts everybody else in 12 the audience to what concerns people might have about 13 the license renewal.
14 And finally, I would just, as usual for 15 any meeting, is to just display courtesy to those that 16 might have different opinions from you tonight. And 17 I want to introduce the NRC speakers this evening and 18 we're going to Mr. Eric Benner who is right here.
19 Eric is the Chief of the Technical Review Branch 20 within the License Renewal Program. And Eric and his 21 staff, they are responsible for looking at the 22 technical review issues in the environmental impact 23 statement.
24 And just to give you some background on 25 Eric, he's been with the Agency for about 15 years.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 He's been a reactor inspector in one of the NRC 2 regions. He's also been on the staff of the 3 individual Commissioners who make up the Nuclear 4 Regulatory Commission and has been an advisor to the 5 NRC and the United States in terms of the development 6 of the international convention, the Treaty on Nuclear 7 Safety. He has a Bachelor's in nuclear engineering 8 from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and he has a 9 Master's in environmental engineering, I believe, from 10 Johns Hopkins University.
11 Eric will be giving you an overview of 12 license renewal and then when Eric is done, we're 13 going to turn to Mr. Rich Emch who is right here.
14 He's the project manager for the environmental review 15 on Vermont Yankee. And he'll be providing some of his 16 detailed contact information to you in a few minutes.
17 But Rich has been with the Agency for over 30 years 18 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He's been 19 involved in all aspects of reactor regulation, 20 focusing on radiological protection and safety and his 21 academic background is a Bachelor's in physics from 22 Louisiana Tech University, and a Master's in health 23 physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
24 And with that, I would just thank you all 25 for being here with us tonight and I'll turn it over NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 to Eric.
2 MR. BENNER: Thank you, Chip. I'd like to 3 begin by thanking all of you for taking the time to 4 come out and talk to us tonight. I hope the 5 information we provide will help you understand the 6 NRC's license renewal process and your role in 7 ensuring that our environmental impact statement that 8 we prepare for the Vermont Yankee license renewal is 9 accurate and complete.
10 Next slide, please.
11 (Slide change.)
12 MR. CAMERON: I think you need to raise it 13 and --
14 MR. BENNER: Can everyone hear? Okay.
15 No?
16 MR. CAMERON: Well, say something and then 17 we'll be able to tell.
18 MR. BENNER: Can everyone hear now? Okay, 19 I see heads nodding in the back, so I'm going to take 20 that as affirmative.
21 We have several purposes for tonight's 22 meeting and this is going to reiterate some of what 23 Chip said. First, is background. We'll discuss the 24 NRC's mission and process for renewal of nuclear power 25 plant licenses with particular emphasis on our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 environmental review process, including the typical 2 areas we look at in the environmental review and the 3 schedule for the Vermont Yankee review.
4 Well, I'm sure that many of you are 5 familiar with the NRC's mission and some of our 6 processes. I'll ask you to be patient with me as we 7 go through this for the people who are not familiar 8 with these processes.
9 At the conclusion of the presentations, 10 we'll have some time, as Chip said, for questions 11 about the process. After the question and answer 12 portion is complete, then we'll move into what we 13 consider one of the more important purposes of the 14 meeting and that is to receive any comments that you 15 may have on the breadth and depth, commonly called the 16 scope of our environmental review. I'd ask you to 17 hold your comments until that time because for 18 purposes of the transcription, it's easier to have the 19 presentation portion, the Q & A portion and then the 20 comment portion all discrete.
21 Additionally, we'll also give you some 22 information about how you can submit comments outside 23 of this meeting.
24 Next slide, please.
25 (Slide change.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 MR. BENNER: Before I discuss the license 2 renewal process, I'd like to take a minute to talk 3 about the NRC in terms of what we do and what our 4 mission is.
5 The Atomic Energy Act is the legislation 6 that authorizes the NRC to, among other things, issue 7 operating licenses for nuclear power plants. The 8 Atomic Energy Act allows for 40-year license for power 9 plants. This 40-year term is not based on safety 10 limitations, but is instead based primarily on 11 economic considerations and anti-trust factors.
12 The Atomic Energy Act also authorizes the 13 NRC to regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials 14 in the United States. In exercising that authority, 15 the NRC's mission is three-fold: to ensure adequate 16 protection of public health and safety; to promote the 17 common defense and security; and to protect the 18 environment.
19 The NRC accomplishes this mission through 20 a combination of regulatory processes such as 21 conducting inspections to verify compliance with our 22 regulations; evaluating operating experience from 23 power plants domestically and internationally; and 24 issuing enforcement actions when licensees are found 25 to be not in compliance.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 The regulations that the NRC enforces are 2 contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 3 Regulations which is commonly referred to as 10 CFR.
4 Next slide, please.
5 (Slide change.)
6 MR. BENNER: As I have mentioned, the 7 Atomic Energy Act provides for a 40-year license term 8 for nuclear power plants. The NRC's regulations also 9 include provisions to allow for an extension of the 10 license for up to an additional 20 years. For Vermont 11 Yankee, the current operating license will expire on 12 March 21, 2012. The licensee for Vermont Yankee, 13 Entergy, has requested license renewal for the plant.
14 As part of the NRC's review of the license 15 renewal application, we'll perform an environmental 16 review to look at the potential impacts of the 17 environment associated with an additional 20 years of 18 operation. As I stated earlier, the purpose of this 19 meeting is to give you information about this process 20 and to seek your input as to what issues we conduct in 21 our environmental review.
22 Next slide, please.
23 (Slide change.)
24 MR. BENNER: The NRC's license renewal 25 review involves two parts: an environmental review NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 and a safety review. This slide really gives a big 2 picture overview of the license renewal review process 3 which involves these two parallel paths. I'm going to 4 briefly describe these two review processes, starting 5 with the safety review.
6 Next slide.
7 (Slide change.)
8 MR. BENNER: Two guiding principles form 9 the basis of the NRC's approach in performing its 10 safety review. The first principle is that the 11 current regulatory process is adequate to ensure that 12 the licensing basis of all currently operating plants 13 provides and maintains an acceptable level of safety 14 with the possible exception of the effects of aging on 15 certain structure's systems and components.
16 The second principle is that the current 17 plant specific licensing basis must be maintained 18 during the renewal term in the same manner and to the 19 same extent as during the original license term.
20 Next slide.
21 (Slide change.)
22 MR. BENNER: The safety review for license 23 renewal focuses on aging management of systems, 24 structures and components that are important to safety 25 as determined by the license renewal scoping criteria NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 contained in 10 CFR Part 54. The license renewal 2 safety review does not assess current operational 3 issues such as security, emergency planning and safety 4 performance. The NRC monitors and provides regulatory 5 oversight of these issues on an on-going basis, under 6 the current operating license. Because the NRC is 7 addressing these current operating issues on an 8 continuing basis, we do not re-evaluate them during 9 license renewal.
10 Next slide, please.
11 (Slide change.)
12 MR. BENNER: As I mentioned, the license 13 renewal safety review focuses on plant aging and the 14 programs that the licensee has already implemented or 15 will implement to manage the effects of aging. Let me 16 introduce Mr. Johnny Eads. Johnny is the safety 17 project manager and he's in charge of the safety 18 review.
19 The safety review involves the NRC staff's 20 evaluation of technical information that's contained 21 in the license renewal application. This is referred 22 to as a safety evaluation. The NRC staff also 23 conducts audits as part of the evaluation, and there's 24 a team of about 30 NRC technical reviewers and 25 contractors who are conducting the safety evaluation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 at this time.
2 The safety review also includes plant 3 inspections. The inspections are conducted by a team 4 of inspectors from both headquarters and NRC's Region 5 1 office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. A 6 representative from our Inspection Program is here 7 today, Senior Resident Inspector Dave Pelton. And the 8 Resident Inspector lives in this area, works at the 9 plant 40 hours a week conducting independent 10 inspections of the licensee's activities to ensure 11 compliance. The result of inspections are documented 12 in separate inspection reports.
13 The staff documents the results of its 14 review and safety evaluation report. That report is 15 then independently reviewed by the Advisory Committee 16 on Reactor Safeguards or ACRS. The ACRS is a group of 17 nationally-recognized technical experts that serve as 18 a consulting body to the Commission. They review each 19 license renewal application and safety evaluation 20 report, form their own conclusions and recommendations 21 on the requested action and report those conclusions 22 and recommendations directly to the Commission.
23 Next slide, please.
24 (Slide change.)
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 MR. BENNER: This slide illustrates how these 2 various activities make up the safety review process.
3 I'd like to point out that the hexagons on the slide, 4 the yellow hexagons, indicate opportunities for public 5 participation. Also, the staff will present the 6 results of its safety review to the ACRS and that 7 presentation will be open to the public.
8 Next slide, please.
9 (Slide change.)
10 MR. BENNER: The second part of the review 11 process involves an environmental review with scoping 12 activities and the development of an environmental 13 impact statement. As I've said, we are here today to 14 receive your comments on the scope of that review.
15 We'll consider any comments on the scope that we 16 receive at this meeting or any written comments. Then 17 in December, we expect to issue a draft environmental 18 impact statement for comment.
19 Next slide, please.
20 (Slide change.)
21 MR. BENNER: So the final Agency decision on 22 whether or not to issue a renewed operating licenses 23 depends on several inputs, inspection reports, and an 24 associated confirmatory letter from the Region 1 25 Regional Administrator, conclusions and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 recommendations of the ACRS which are documented in a 2 letter to the Commission, the Safety Evaluation Report 3 which documents the result of the staff's safety 4 review, and the final environmental impact statement, 5 which documents the results of the environmental 6 review.
7 Again, the yellow hexagons on the slide 8 indicate opportunities for public participation. An 9 early opportunity is during the scoping meeting today.
10 The meeting on the draft EIS is another opportunity.
11 The opportunity to request a hearing ended on May 27 12 of this year, and three petitions were proffered 13 containing about 10 separate issues. As I mentioned, 14 the ACRS meetings also are open to the public.
15 Now I will turn it over to Richard Emch, 16 who will discuss the environmental review in more 17 detail.
18 MR. EMCH: I'm Rich Emch. I'm the 19 Environmental Project Manager for the Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission for the Environmental Review of 21 the license renewal application for Vermont Yankee.
22 Next slide, please.
23 (Slide change.)
24 MR. EMCH: We conduct this review under 25 the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 Act of 1969. NEPA requires that Federal agencies use 2 a systematic approach to consider environmental 3 impacts. They also require that an environmental 4 impact statement be prepared anytime there is a major 5 Federal action which has the potential to 6 significantly affect the quality of the human 7 environment.
8 The Commission decided that we would issue 9 an environmental statement for any license renewal 10 projects. In 1996 and revised in 1999, the Commission 11 prepared a generic environmental impact statement that 12 looked at the 92 aspects of environmental impact for 13 the 103 operating reactors in the United States. This 14 generic environmental impact statement was for license 15 renewals specifically.
16 Next slide, please.
17 (Slide change.)
18 MR. EMCH: I mentioned that there were 92 19 issues that were evaluated in that generic 20 environmental impact statement. Approximately 69 of 21 those issues were labeled as what we call Category 1 22 issues which means that we concluded that the impact 23 was essentially the same at all power plants in the 24 United States and that it was small. For the other 25 issues, the decision was made that there was enough NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 variability in the impacts of those areas from power 2 plant to power plant that we needed to do a plant 3 specific analysis of those aspects of the 4 environmental impact.
5 Going back again for the Category 1 6 issues, in addition to the plant specific reviews, we 7 do it for the Category 2 issues. For Category 1 are 8 the ones where we made the generic conclusion. We do 9 what's called a search for new and significant 10 information. What that means is we're looking for any 11 information, we will look for any information 12 affecting that particular plant that would cause us to 13 want to decide whether or not, or cause us to think 14 that there might be some challenge to that generic 15 conclusion.
16 If we find such new and significant 17 information after evaluating, then we come to the 18 conclusion that it is new and significant, and then it 19 does challenge the conclusion, then we need to do a 20 plant specific review for that issue for that plant.
21 That's that first yellow arrow on my right-hand side 22 there.
23 For the issues that are in Category 2 24 issues, we do conduct a plant specific review. All 25 that goes into this generic, all this goes into what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 we call a supplement to the generic environmental 2 impact statement. It's a plant-specific supplement 3 for each plant, in this case, Vermont Yankee.
4 Next slide, please.
5 (Slide change.)
6 MR. EMCH: The purpose of all this review 7 is against this decision standard. In simple 8 language, to me, this decision standard says what 9 we're trying to do is determine whether it is 10 acceptable, whether the environmental impact of an 11 additional 20 years of operation of the plant is 12 acceptable.
13 Next slide, please.
14 (Slide change.)
15 MR. EMCH: Now that we talked about what 16 we're going to do, let's talk about the schedule. As 17 you can see from -- I'm not going to read the entire 18 schedule, but let me just hit a few of the high 19 points.
20 The first high point I'm going to hit is 21 tonight, this scoping meeting. In the parlance of 22 NEPA, this is a scoping meeting. In other words, this 23 is where we come talk to the public, the people who 24 live and work near this plant and ask you if you have 25 any information about issues or if you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 information that you want us to be specifically aware 2 of as part of our review of this plant.
3 We already know we're going to be looking 4 at the 92 Category 1 and 2 issues, but it's possible 5 that you might have some issue that we need to know 6 about or you might have some information that we need 7 to know about.
8 On June 23 is when the end of the scoping 9 period occurs. There are a number of ways to do -- to 10 give us comments. One is by speaking tonight. You 11 can send it in by email. You can write them by 12 letter. We'll talk a little bit more about that at 13 the end of my presentation.
14 The next big events are the public 15 meeting. After we take your scoping comments and all 16 the other information that we find as part of our 17 review, we will develop a draft environmental impact 18 statement and we will send that draft environmental 19 impact statement out with preliminary conclusions.
20 We'll send it out to the public for review. When you 21 signed up tonight, we asked you to sign up on a yellow 22 or blue card. If you put your address on either one 23 of those cards, we'll send you a copy of that draft 24 environmental impact statement when we develop it.
25 Then we'll come back in January, probably NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 at this same theater for another meeting where we will 2 ask you, give you the opportunity to give us comments 3 about that draft environmental impact statement. You 4 can tell us what you like, what you don't like, what 5 you wished we had changed, what you think we missed.
6 And then finally, and the comment period 7 will run into March and then in the end we'll issue a 8 final environmental impact statement in August of 9 2007.
10 Next slide, please.
11 (Slide change.)
12 MR. EMCH: This depicts all the various 13 areas where we gather information. The first area of 14 information -- place where we get information is from 15 the licensee's application. The licensee includes an 16 environmental report in the application that they send 17 in for license renewal. That environmental report 18 does a couple of things. First, it includes plant-19 specific analyses for the Category 2 issues. The 20 other thing it does is it includes licensee's 21 description of the extent that they went to try to 22 find new and significant information that might affect 23 the Category 1 issues.
24 We also have our staff audit. I have a 25 team of people from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 I also have a team of various environmental science 2 experts from the Argonne National Laboratory, led by 3 Mr. Dave Miller.
4 Together, we do on-site audit activities.
5 We've done some. We'll be doing additional ones where 6 we look at the site. We look at the site environs.
7 We go out and talk to various government agencies. We 8 consult with them about information that we need in 9 order to carry out our review. That kind of moves 10 down to the next box. We talk to the Agency for 11 Natural Resources here in Vermont. We talk to the 12 people, the Historic Preservation Officer. We talk to 13 the State Health people. Talk to a wide range of 14 Federal agencies such as Fish and Wildlife Service, 15 NOAA Fisheries Service and gather all the information 16 that we need to do the review.
17 We also talk to -- what we call permitting 18 authorities. In the State of Vermont, EPA has 19 delegated the responsibility for issuance of what we 20 call a national pollutant discharge elimination system 21 permit and that's been delegated to the State of 22 Vermont and we talk with the officials in the State of 23 Vermont who are responsible for issuing that permit to 24 make sure we understand what's going on there.
25 We also will talk with social services in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 the State or in the community near the plant. And 2 finally, what we're here for tonight, as I mentioned 3 before, is to get comments from you folks about the 4 issues that we need to look at and information that 5 you believe we need to look at as part of our review.
6 Next slide, please.
7 (Slide change.)
8 MR. EMCH: This picture depicts in a broad 9 sense the areas that we look at as part of the review.
10 You'll see terrestrial and aquatic ecology there.
11 You'll see water quality, air quality, socio-12 economics, environmental justice, radiation 13 protection, and looking at archeological and cultural 14 resources -- I believe I covered all of them.
15 That's a kind of a broad view of the things that 16 we do as part of our review.
17 Next slide, please.
18 (Slide change.)
19 MR. EMCH: This is some additional 20 information about how to contact us or to get more 21 information about the review. As I said, my name is 22 Rich Emch. There's the phone number up there that you 23 can contact me at. Four libraries in the local area 24 have agreed to make the documents involved in the 25 review available. This is the licensee's application.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 The draft environmental impact statement, when we 2 issue it, those can be found at these libraries: the 3 Vernon Free Library in Vernon, Vermont; the Brooks 4 Memorial Library here in Brattleboro; the Hinsdale and 5 the Dickinson Memorial Library in Northfield, 6 Massachusetts. You can also find these documents on 7 the web at the web address that's up there.
8 Let's talk again about how to submit 9 comments. First and foremost, of course, you can give 10 us comments by making a presentation here tonight.
11 You can also send them to us by mail at the address 12 that's up there. You can email them to us. The email 13 address that's been set up specifically for that 14 purpose is VermontYankeeEIS@nrc.gov and then if you 15 wish, you can deliver them to us in person in 16 Rockville, Maryland.
17 Again, the scoping comments, we need to 18 receive them by June 23rd or they need to be 19 postmarked by June 23rd. If they are, I assure you we 20 will consider them. If they come in after that, we'll 21 consider them to the extent that we have time to do 22 so.
23 With that, I'm finished with my 24 presentation.
25 Chip, are you ready to take some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 questions?
2 MR. CAMERON: Yes, thanks, Rich. And 3 thanks, Eric.
4 Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of time 5 for questions, but if there are a few that we could 6 address at this point, we'll be glad to do so and the 7 staff will be here after the meeting to talk to you, 8 if we don't get to your questions.
9 Let's go right here and please, just 10 introduce yourself to us.
11 MS. MILLER: Yes, I'm Sunny Miller. I 12 live and work at Trap Rock Peace Center in Deerfield, 13 Massachusetts.
14 I'd like to ask why at the nrc.gov website 15 I can't select Vermont Yankee and get simply all the 16 reports for this reactor separate from the myriad 17 collection of reports at all reactors? I find it very 18 difficult to isolate the information that I'm looking 19 for. It takes me hours and hours to look at what's 20 there and I can't select easily what I want to find.
21 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Sunny.
22 MR. EMCH: If you go to the website and 23 select Vermont Yankee under license renewal you can 24 find fairly simply a number of the documents, but if 25 you're talking about -- I'm not sure what range of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 documents you're talking about.
2 MS. MILLER: I'm specifically interested 3 in emissions, in mishaps, in irregularities of all 4 kinds and that is blended into -- it looks like it's 5 blended into the entire national history of thousands 6 of mishaps and problems nationwide.
7 MR. EMCH: Yes, I understand what you're 8 talking about, ma'am. In fact, I understand it can be 9 difficult. I don't really have a good answer for 10 that. We can take your name and number and I can get 11 in touch with you and I can try to help lead you to 12 some of those documents, but -- do you have something 13 to add?
14 MR. EADS: Yes, like you, I face that same 15 challenge. If you'll end your search on ADAMS, 16 there's a place where you put in a docket number. If 17 you'll insert the number 05000271, that docket number, 18 that is the docket number for Vermont Yankee and it 19 will only pull up those documents related to Vermont 20 Yankee.
21 You can then do a key word search and find 22 those items particular to VY that you'd like to see.
23 You can also specify a day range.
24 MR. CAMERON: And Johnny, are there --
25 when you talk about key words for Sunny's search and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 you heard the types of things that she's interested 2 in, are there particular terms of art that the NRC 3 uses that cover things like that?
4 MR. EMCH: Yes. As a matter of fact, 5 thank you, Johnny, for that. Yes, as a matter of 6 fact, when I'm doing searches like the ones you're 7 talking about, ma'am, one key word that I often use is 8 effluent and another key word that I often use is 9 environmental. Those will usually pull up their 10 effluent reports and those will usually pull up their 11 environmental -- radiological environmental monitoring 12 reports.
13 MR. CAMERON: Great, thank you for that.
14 Yes, sir?
15 MR. NORD: You mentioned a couple of 16 minutes ago that you anticipate that the generic 17 environmental impact statement is going to show small 18 effects. And so my question is directed at those 19 small effects. In light of the recent publication of 20 the National Academies of Science BEIR VII report, 21 Biological Effectives of Ionizing Radiation which has 22 finally shown something that many people have 23 suspected for decades which is that there is no 24 threshold below which radiation doses are safe. So I 25 want to know how the NRC has taken this new finding of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 BEIR VII from our own national academies into account 2 in their assessment? That's one half of the question.
3 The other half is I've always thought that 4 environmental impact statements relating to specific 5 sites would have to be specific and so why is it that 6 we're talking about generic environmental impact 7 statements?
8 MR. CAMERON: This is Chris, right? Chris 9 Nord, okay.
10 Rich, can you answer the question?
11 MR. EMCH: Right. I want to answer in 12 reverse order, if that's all right with you. The 13 first one which -- or the second one rather was why 14 generic, right. Okay.
15 When we say Category 1 issue, that means 16 that we've already examined it for all the plants and 17 we've determined it's small and it's the same for all 18 plants. An example of an issue that is considered a 19 Category 1 issue is, indeed, exposure to the public of 20 radiation. The reason it's considered to be a 21 Category 1 issue and to have a small impact is because 22 the NRC, the EPA issue radiation standards for the 23 public and the plants follow those standards, stay 24 within those standards and therefore our conclusion is 25 that if they're within those standards, that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 impact is small.
2 Now let's move to the other part of your 3 question. Actually, that particular aspect of BEIR 4 VII wasn't entirely new and actually BEIR I, BEIR III, 5 BEIR V and BEIR VII all talk about similar issues and 6 from the very beginning, the BEIRs have always said 7 and all the international agencies and indeed the NRC 8 has always taken the approach that there is some 9 health risk associated with any amount of radiation 10 exposure.
11 Excuse me, sir, I'm talking. There is 12 some health risk associated with any amount of 13 radiation exposure. Now BEIR also talked about how 14 small that risk is for very small doses, but basically 15 in that respect BEIR VII, it's not new. We have known 16 that for some time. We have used that theory for some 17 time.
18 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Rich.
19 Let's go to Evan and please introduce yourself.
20 MR. MULHOLLAND: My name is Evan 21 Mulholland. I have a question about the slide 22 decision standard for environmental review. You 23 mentioned that standard and my question is can you 24 give us some examples of what environmental impacts 25 might be unacceptable so that it would result in a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 non-issuance of the new license? What types of 2 impacts might cause that decision to happen?
3 Thank you.
4 MR. EMCH: It's fairly difficult for me to 5 answer that because we haven't run into it yet, but we 6 use the standards or the descriptors, if you will, 7 from NEPA which is small, moderate and large. If one 8 -- if we were to find a large impact, that would 9 certainly -- we would certainly be in a category where 10 we'd have to give serious consideration to whether 11 that was acceptable or not.
12 Now there are other ways of dealing with 13 it. There are mitigating measures and things like 14 that, but if we ran into that, we would be in that 15 kind of a range.
16 I will mention that in all the 42 that we 17 have finished up to date, the impacts were all small 18 with the exception of the impact of entrainment on the 19 winter flounder fishery at the Millstone Plant in 20 Connecticut which was a moderate.
21 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Rich. I 22 think Gary has a question over here. Your question, 23 Gary?
24 MR. SACHS: The question is what is the 25 basis the NRC uses to determine radiation exposure?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 MR. EMCH: That's a pretty broad subject.
2 I'm going to kind of put that together with the 3 question that you asked when you were here earlier 4 today.
5 Basically, the NRC uses not only standards 6 from EPA. We look at broad range of standards that 7 have been published. ICRP, you mentioned that earlier 8 today, International -- I'm never quite sure exactly 9 -- International Committee on Radiation Protection, I 10 think it is. There's also the NCRP, National 11 Committee on Radiation Measurements and Protection.
12 There's the BEIR report. There's a fairly 13 wide range in number of the National Academy of 14 Sciences, etcetera and after we look at all of those, 15 the NRC uses information from all of those to base the 16 radiation standards. In the case of EPA, the overall 17 standard from EPA is 25 millirem per year to any 18 member of the public from the entire fuel cycle, 19 including reactors.
20 MR. SACHS: The follow-up question would 21 be given BEIR VII, BEIR I, III, V and VII, all of 22 which say that any radiation is damaging to the 23 public, how can you as officers, so to speak, of the 24 public good, expect us to say oh, sure, fine, extend 25 the license for 20 more years, keeping putting out NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 radiation? It is damaging to the public.
2 MR. EMCH: You said "damaging". I said 3 there is some health risk from any amount of radiation 4 exposure. As I said, BEIR VII also talked about the 5 very, very low risk at very low doses at the kinds of 6 doses that we're talking about for public exposure 7 here.
8 MR. CAMERON: We don't have time for an 9 extended dialogue, but to the extent that we're saying 10 things here, let's make sure we get it on the record, 11 and Gary, you said?
12 MR. SACHS: You mean hurting us a little 13 bit. Thank you, sir.
14 MR. EMCH: I mean there is a certain 15 level, small though it may be, of risk associated with 16 any radiation exposure at the levels that we are 17 talking about. The levels that the NRC has defined 18 for nuclear power plants, we regard those doses as 19 being relatively safe for humans.
20 MR. CAMERON: Rich, can you just -- it's 21 not just the NRC in terms of -- I mean there's the 22 EPA. Can you just talk a little bit about other 23 Federal agencies?
24 MR. EMCH: Chip, we just went through the 25 whole thing. I said there's an EPA standard. There'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
35 1 an ICRP --
2 MR. CAMERON: All right.
3 MR. EMCH: BEIR.
4 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's go right here 5 for a question. Yes, ma'am. And please introduce 6 yourself.
7 MS. MURPHY: My name is Karen Murphy. I 8 have a question. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 9 just made a ruling in California and it said that the 10 NRC must consider the consequences of acts of 11 terrorism and all licensing proceedings as part of the 12 environmental impact statement under NEPA. So will 13 you be doing that for VY?
14 MR. BENNER: As you indicate, that's a 15 very recent decision and there is an appeal and review 16 process associated with that decision. Right now, the 17 NRC lawyers are reviewing that decision to see whether 18 or not we would make any appeal attempts, but I would 19 say that there will be some movement on that decision, 20 either implemented or appealed well before the draft 21 environmental impact statement would be published for 22 Vermont Yankee.
23 MR. CAMERON: I guess it should be noted 24 that that decision did concern the consideration of 25 terrorism in the environment assessment and it should NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 be clear to people that does not mean that the NRC was 2 not considering terrorism as part of its safety 3 review.
4 Yes, sir?
5 MR. DOSTIS: I'm the waffle man. My 6 question is about background radiation. Do we have a 7 baseline that we can compare background radiation as 8 currently happening on the planet to, a baseline 9 perhaps 10, 20 years ago and to note what our 10 background radiation levels are now? That's my first 11 question.
12 Second question, it's known that ionizing 13 radiation occurs through solar, occurs through rocks, 14 through -- occurs TV and computers. Do you think that 15 sitting in front of your screen, your computer screen 16 is as safe or safer than being in a nuclear power 17 plant?
18 MR. EMCH: Let's do the first part of it 19 first and I'll get to the second part of it. The 20 first part of it is, not exactly sure what it was all, 21 but I'll try to hit some -- and you'll let me know if 22 I don't get it, okay. I think I got it. I'll try it.
23 If I miss something, you let me know.
24 Currently, what we saw and there's a chart 25 out in the hallway that talks about this, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 approximately, everybody as a member of planet earth 2 gets about 360 millirem per year of background 3 radiation. Now that includes cosmic radiation which 4 you mentioned. It includes radiation from naturally 5 occurring radionuclides in the crust of the earth such 6 as granite and building materials. It includes 7 radionuclides that are in your body as a course of 8 nature. It includes medical x-rays, things like that 9 and usually included in that 360 we have the line that 10 says "less than one millirem per year from the nuclear 11 fuel cycle".
12 So that's -- approximately 360 that 13 includes radon in your homes, that sort of thing.
14 There's a wide range of sources of radiation.
15 Now I don't know -- I don't recall reading 16 anything that that number has gone up in the last 20 17 to 25 years what you were asking earlier. What I can 18 tell you though as far as a background, before Vermont 19 Yankee ever started operation, they did a pre-20 operational radiological environmental monitoring 21 program for I think it was approximately three years 22 to establish what the background levels of radiation 23 were in the same areas they were going to be taking 24 measurements during operation.
25 So they established their background, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 There's a baseline around the plant to the 2 extent that they had monitoring stations in 3 Brattleboro, yes.
4 MR. CAMERON: Okay.
5 MR. EMCH: Pardon?
6 MR. CAMERON: We've got to get this on the 7 record, so -- and it is the waffle man, right?
8 MR. DOSTIS: Yes.
9 MR. CAMERON: Can you just ask that and 10 then we're going to take two more questions and we're 11 going to go the public comment.
12 Yes sir.
13 MR. DOSTIS: Okay, you have a baseline 14 that was formed 33 years ago, I would say. Has that 15 been updated to recent times?
16 MR. EMCH: Okay, well, at the locations 17 right at the plant, it's obviously very difficult to 18 do that because the plant is now operating, but as 19 part of their environmental monitoring program, they 20 do still have what they call control stations, what we 21 refer to as control stations. They have indicator 22 stations that are very close to the plant, control 23 stations that are a sizeable distance from the plant.
24 The assumption is that those control stations at a 25 sizeable distance from the plant, where they're taking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1 measurements, that there is absolutely no influence 2 from the plant on those, so you can watch for 3 variations in natural background which there are 4 variations. You can look for variations in natural 5 background that way, sir.
6 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. We're 7 going to take this gentleman and then this lady down 8 here and then I think other questions are going to 9 have to wait until after the meeting.
10 Yes sir. Please introduce yourself.
11 MR. JEFFRIES: Thank you. My name is Dan 12 Jeffries. I'm an engineer at the Vermont Yankee 13 nuclear power plant. The question relates to this 14 matter of personnel exposure to ionizing radiation.
15 We have about 100 nuclear power plants in the country 16 and roughly with retirements, I'm just going to make 17 an estimate that maybe we've had a thousand people 18 work at those nuclear power plants. So we've got 19 about 100,000 people who have been working at nuclear 20 power plants for about the last 30 years. Does the 21 NRC or does any agency that you're aware of evaluate 22 the health condition of those 100,000 employees in 23 regard to any adverse effects on their health as a 24 result of their having worked at these nuclear power 25 plants for all this time?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Dan.
2 Rich?
3 MR. EMCH: There have been some studies.
4 There was one completed fairly recently that was 5 published in the British Medical Journal, I believe it 6 was. It was a study of -- with using records of 7 occupational exposure, plant workers, etcetera, for 15 8 nations. It was led by a Dr. Cardis, C-A-R-D-I-S.
9 The NRC is still evaluating it, but I think, in 10 general, what it showed was that by and large, no, 11 there was no excess cancers amongst that group.
12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Yes ma'am.
13 MS. KELNER: I have a question. The woman 14 back here said that there was a decision to take into 15 account terrorist threats to nuclear plants and the 16 response that you gave immediately was the NRC is 17 thinking of appealing it and I'm wondering why that 18 would be the first response to something like that 19 instead of wow, we better take this more seriously or 20 what are the valid points in that?
21 So I'm a little concerned with that 22 initial response. I'm wondering why.
23 MR. BENNER: Like Chip said, the Court's 24 ruling was not directed at whether or not the NRC was 25 doing a good job at assessing terrorism at nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 power plants. The Court's decision was specific to 2 does the NRC need to talk about the environmental 3 impacts of terrorism in our environmental -- in that 4 case it was environmental assessment. For this 5 activity, it would be for the environmental impact 6 statement.
7 Now going into that decision, the NRC had 8 arguments of why it felt that terrorism did not need 9 to be considered in the environmental impact 10 statement. So certainly we are going to do whatever 11 the Courts instruct us to do, but we need to look at, 12 we need to go through the ruling of the Court to see 13 if there was a misunderstanding, we didn't convey what 14 we intended to convey or whether there's something we 15 can learn from it.
16 MR. CAMERON: That's right, but let me try 17 -- your name is?
18 MS. KELNER: Marian Kelner.
19 MR. CAMERON: Marian, can I just try to 20 answer your question?
21 MS. KELNER: Why do you think terrorism 22 shouldn't be part of the environmental impact 23 statement?
24 MR. CAMERON: That wasn't your first 25 question. You were upset about the fact that why NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 should the NRC think about appealing this. And with 2 any agency that gets a negative ruling on something 3 from Federal Court, one of the things that the agency 4 has to do and in concert with the Department of 5 Justice is just to consider that option. So that's 6 just sort of a matter of course. It doesn't mean that 7 because the NRC, the Commission is considering that 8 that the NRC thinks that terrorism shouldn't be part 9 of the licensing review. And we do have one of our 10 members of the General Counsel here who can talk to 11 you a little bit more about that after the meeting.
12 Steven Hamrick.
13 If you could explore that further with 14 her, Steve.
15 I think we need to go to public comment.
16 We've got a lot of speakers which is good, but we want 17 to make sure we hear from all of you and I'm going to 18 just list the first few speakers so that you know when 19 to expect to speak and I guess I'm just going to ask 20 you all to try to be as brief as possible so we can 21 get everybody on.
22 But our first speaker is former Governor 23 of Vermont, Governor Thomas P. Salmon, who we're going 24 to ask to speak and then we're going to go to Debbie 25 Katz and Sunny Miller.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 So Governor?
2 And we're going to ask everybody to come 3 up here and use the podium. Thank you.
4 GOV. SALMON: Thank you, Mr. Cameron, 5 ladies and gentlemen. My name is Thomas P. Salmon.
6 I've lived in this county for 47 years. I was 7 privileged to serve as Governor of Vermont for two 8 terms in the 1970s. More recently, for much of the 9 1990s, I served as president of the University of 10 Vermont. I currently am a member of the Vermont 11 Energy Partnership which is represented here this 12 evening here.
13 Let me try to be mercifully brief, if I 14 may. It was my understanding that the environmental 15 considerations were the primary focus of this meeting 16 and I've tried to structure my brief remarks on 17 environmental concerns. First among equals is that 18 since 1972, when the Vernon plant came online, the 19 State of Vermont has avoided some 100 million metric 20 tons of fossil fuel pollution and that's not an 21 inconsequential environmental effect of life, 22 particularly given the realities of potential 23 replacement power later in this century with the 24 candidates principally being natural gas and coal, 25 both of which cause gaseous greenhouse emissions into NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 the environment.
2 Point two is the fact that we're in the 3 midst of a global warming debate in this country. And 4 in my view, decisions ultimately made by regulatory 5 bodies such as the NRC must factor in the realities of 6 global warming and the clear and present danger 7 suggested by unnecessary and unwanted ingestions of 8 improper pollution into the Vermont and the 9 environment of the country.
10 Now I have an old-fashioned view, having 11 watched this plant grow, having been in the 12 legislature of Vermont when it was authorized many 13 years ago and that view is not likely accepted by all, 14 maybe viewed as heresy in some quarters, but it speaks 15 to the notion that this plant has been both safe and 16 environmentally friendly over these many years and in 17 that context in terms of its contribution or I should 18 say noncontribution to pollution in this state, has 19 helped make Vermont a cleaner place in which to live.
20 Now we're engaged in our state in a 21 conversation about energy as we speak and this meeting 22 tonight is an exceedingly important meeting on that 23 subject. Now there are some interesting participants 24 in this discussion and I'm aware of one. The Sharon 25 Academy up in Sharon, Vermont, senior class, this past NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 winter, put together an energy plan and they went up 2 to Montpelier and introduced the plan before the House 3 Natural Resources Committee. We had opportunity in 4 the Vermont Energy Partnership, myself and Amanda 5 Eiby, got to visit with the students and offer a 6 critique of their remarkable work, but what we learned 7 is this. These students in their analysis of 8 Vermont's energy future included that nuclear energy 9 is "clean, reliable, affordable and long lasting."
10 And in opting for renewal of the license issue before 11 us tonight and beyond, to describe the "cultural 12 negativity about nuclear power as unjustified." That 13 was the students' view in their words.
14 The point is this. People of all ages and 15 perspectives are entitled to participate in this 16 debate and maybe, just maybe, our kids might teach us 17 a lesson or two on this important subject.
18 Now this Commission will travel many miles 19 before it sleeps on these issues. You begin the 20 process here in Brattleboro tonight and I for one wish 21 you well in your profoundly important work.
22 (Applause.)
23 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Governor Salmon.
24 And next, we're going to go to Deb Katz of Citizens 25 Awareness Network.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 MS. KATZ: The NRC is here tonight to talk 2 about it's environmental impact study. Now you'd 3 think this is a no brainer, right? To store toxic 4 waste along the banks of the Connecticut River is 5 dangerous and vulnerable and to store more of this 6 waste would be even more dangerous and vulnerable for 7 another 20 years. And yet, that's exactly what 8 they're talking about doing.
9 And the waste confidence rule of the NRC 10 which at this point is a commitment that this waste is 11 going to move somewhere is basically bankrupt, giving 12 the legislative problems with getting waste anywhere.
13 And it's a no brainer, isn't it, to store 14 toxic waste, 35 million curies of cesium alone, 70 15 feet in the air, outside of containment. That seems 16 pretty dangerous and vulnerable as well, and yet, they 17 want to do more of this. And they don't have a 18 solution to what to do with the stuff they have now.
19 This all seems like a no brainer, but it 20 doesn't seem to be a no brainer to Entergy or the NRC.
21 They think all of this potentially makes a lot of 22 sense and in this post-9/11 world, this isn't just 23 dangerous, this is irresponsible and unconscionable.
24 And although the NRC continually says we can't talk 25 about terrorism, we can't talk about terrorism because NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 they're dealing with it every day.
2 The truth is the California Appellate 3 Court said we can and we must and they rejected NRC's 4 arguments that looking at a terrorist attack in terms 5 of licensing was too speculative, that it was looking 6 at a worse case scenario, that it was secrecy and so 7 we couldn't ever talk about it.
8 The truth is we better start talking about 9 it be cause if this reactor is here and it's a prime 10 target for terrorism, we're all affected by it and 11 even if it's not attacked by terrorism to have nuclear 12 waste that will be dangerous for 250,000 years stored 13 on this site for decades, if not hundreds of years is 14 something that should not be allowed. Without a 15 solution to the waste problem, there should be no 16 relicensing. And that should be it, cut and dry.
17 The truth is the 9th Circuit, in its 18 decision won't save us. It acknowledges our fears and 19 our concerns, but remember, the NRC is in the 20 permitting business. It believes in safe nuclear 21 power. We do not.
22 To create a sustainable energy future, we 23 can't just put ourselves in the hands of the NRC 24 although we want to thank New England Coalition, the 25 Massachusetts AG and the State of Vermont for, in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 1 fact, intervening to hold Vermont Yankee and the NRC 2 accountable. It is the Vermont legislators that will 3 decide our future. They will decide what is best for 4 all of us and we must keep this process open and 5 honest.
6 In New York State, Congresswoman Nita 7 Lowey commissioned a study by the National Academy of 8 Sciences about whether Indian Point could be replaced, 9 the Indian Point reactors. And it, in fact, found 10 that Indian Point reactors could be replaced in the 11 State of New York. It wouldn't be easy, but it was 12 possible.
13 But why don't we have a National Academy 14 of Science study here? Why haven't our legislators 15 called for that so that we can have an independent 16 look at what it would take to replace Vermont Yankee, 17 not done by the NRC as part of their environmental 18 impact study which is set up to permit Vermont Yankee 19 to go ahead, not done just by the Public Service 20 Commission which has mixed loyalties in terms of this, 21 but a real independent study. It is the will that we 22 have to exert on our legislators to do what's right.
23 We need a clear vision at this point of a safe energy 24 future, a future that we know is safe for our 25 children.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1 I want to end with this notion of a 2 vision. We envision a future of safety, prosperity 3 and health for all. People generate their own 4 electricity in their own homes. Local energy 5 production is easy and accessible for all. We live in 6 a world where safety, prosperity and human health are 7 what we value above all and it is something that we 8 have to hold sacred for all of us, not relicensing 9 Vermont Yankee.
10 Thank you.
11 (Applause.)
12 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Deb Katz. We're 13 going to go to Sunny Miller now. Then we're going to 14 go Mike Flory and Shawn Banfield.
15 Sunny?
16 MS. MILLER: Thank you, neighbors, for 17 coming. I note that the relatively sparse number of 18 people here. A large number of us, willing to come 19 out on a dreary night, but many others unwilling to 20 come and hear a charade because we don't believe that 21 this environmental review will adequately investigate 22 the details that need to be investigated.
23 First of all, a point of order. These are 24 plants. On the shores of the Connecticut River, we 25 have a nuclear power station and if our friends in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 Washington aren't willing to notice that plants are 2 green, we, in Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts 3 are going to revise our language and quit calling the 4 nuclear power station a plant, because it's a 5 euphemism that obscures the reality.
6 Smell them. They are sweet.
7 Secondly, radiation monitoring is now 8 inadequate and will be inadequate. In Western 9 Massachusetts, the Department of Health is doing no 10 radiological monitoring. When I called them and asked 11 how long would it take to find out my levels in 12 Deerfield, they said well, one to two hours. But of 13 course, that's a theoretical possibility. If the call 14 comes in the middle of the night, will the response be 15 prompt? If there's uncertainty about whether the 16 person who called was a little daft, will the response 17 be prompt? It will not be adequate because government 18 likes for us to remain calm. Government likes for us 19 to conspire with the illusion that everything is under 20 control.
21 And we tolerate and are polite to listen 22 and to consider things together, but there will come 23 a time when the process is failing, that the people 24 arise and insist as they did on Cochibamba, Bolivia, 25 when Bechtel came and announced that they had made a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 deal and owned all the water. The people of 2 Cochibamba came to the streets and asserted 3 successfully using little more than conch shells, that 4 the water belongs to the people. This air, this land, 5 this water belongs to the people and with all due 6 respect, former Governor, I don't know where you went, 7 Salmon, the 250,000 years of radioactive waste storage 8 and management which, of course, will be fraught with 9 problems has an untold greenhouse effect. So please 10 don't imagine that nuclear power is saving us from 11 greenhouse effects.
12 Thirdly, health monitoring is inadequate.
13 And it will be inadequate, except that where there's 14 a will, there's a way and we have been successful in 15 collecting a number of baby teeth. At Traprock Peace 16 Center, at the Radiation Health Project, Radiation and 17 Health Project -- radiation.org is their website.
18 Ours is traprockpeace.org. You can download a form to 19 mail in baby teeth. We need more baby teeth from the 20 10-mile radius and we can assess Strontium-90 levels 21 to actually see the differences. Mothers who were 22 carrying their children while they lived within the 23 10-mile zone and breastfeeding while they lived in the 24 10-mile zone are particularly important. Please ask 25 your neighbors if they've been saving baby teeth and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 there are forms outside. If all of you who care, even 2 if you work at the reactor, please, I invite you to 3 participate in this science project to see what our 4 levels are. I don't expect the environmental group to 5 be doing that for us. We have to do it for ourselves.
6 Fourth, thank you, Deb, for mentioning the 7 future because down in Franklin County, Massachusetts 8 and the rest of Western Massachusetts, there's a group 9 called Co-op Power is working to form a biodiesel co-10 op and you have a chance to invest, so that the people 11 own this co-op and determine that after the biodiesel 12 factory, not a plant, is successful, those investments 13 will turn to solar and wind power because where 14 there's a will, there's a way, whether government sees 15 it or not.
16 Fourthly -- that was number four. Number 17 five, do we have an in-depth -- defense-in-depth? Do 18 we expect environmental impact in detail and in depth?
19 No, I'm sorry, I don't expect it, but I do expect that 20 on father's day when Citizens Awareness Network and 21 Traprock Peace Center and probably the New England 22 Peace Pagoda, I hope and others will join together in 23 a walk to the Entergy Headquarters. Some will gather 24 at Entergy, the reactor site. Others will gather 25 beginning at 10. Others will gather at noon at the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 Brattleboro Common and come together to the Entergy 2 offices. Let's bring our plants, our strawberries and 3 anticipate the success of our people who are willing 4 to endure and persevere for what is right.
5 Thank you all for envisioning that bright 6 future together.
7 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Sunny, 8 and --
9 (Applause.)
10 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. And I wanted to 11 switch the order to allow two people to come up next 12 who perhaps need to leave early. One is Beth McElwee 13 and the other one is Ellen Cota. So if we could have 14 Beth come and then Ellen.
15 Beth? And Ellen, you're right there.
16 Okay, good.
17 MS. McELWEE: Good evening. My name is 18 Beth McElwee and I'm here tonight to share a unique 19 perspective on the socio-economic benefits of Vermont 20 Yankee to our surrounding communities. I was born and 21 raised in Brattleboro and have had the opportunity to 22 interact with Vermont Yankee in a variety of 23 capacities over the past 24 years.
24 As a young teenager, I worked alongside 25 other kids my age at Vermont Yankee functions, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 preparing rooms, serving meals and distributing 2 materials to attendees. By providing these 3 opportunities to responsible youth, Vermont Yankee 4 introduced us to a high standard of work, while 5 encouraging us to further develop our interpersonal 6 communication skills.
7 As an active member of my high school 8 class, I approached Vermont Yankee on several 9 occasions to request their sponsorship of various club 10 activities and events, including Register to Vote Day 11 and High School Day Under the Dome. With enthusiasm 12 and generosity, Vermont Yankee went above and beyond 13 my requests with their donations to both of these 14 community-oriented activities.
15 As a college business student, I served as 16 a part-time summer intern for Vermont Yankee Nuclear 17 Power Corporation during their transition to Entergy 18 Vermont Yankee. The internship and co-op 19 opportunities provided by Vermont Yankee are highly 20 utilized and greatly beneficial to students of all 21 disciplines throughout many regions of the country.
22 The contacts and experience gained in this internship 23 helped me to excel academically and gave me the 24 credentials to obtain a highly sought position in the 25 Boston area following graduation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 Two years later, I've made the decision to 2 return to the Brattleboro area and pursue my 3 professional and personal aspirations in this 4 beautiful rural community. As I suspected, the job 5 market in this area is significantly different than 6 that of Greater Boston and I found it difficult to 7 find professional employment opportunities, to utilize 8 the experience and skills I've worked so hard to 9 obtain.
10 Vermont Yankee is one of the few 11 organizations in this area at which these skills could 12 be fully realized. In addition, Vermont Yankee 13 provides the needed infrastructure to attract other 14 businesses to this area, so that young adults like me 15 will be able to stay in Vermont and enjoy the area 16 we've grown to appreciate.
17 We need to make sure that there are jobs 18 available here to support those who wish to make this 19 area our home. Vermont Yankee goes a long way in 20 helping to secure this future for Vermonters.
21 Vermont Yankee should stand tall in this 22 community. In addition to providing the most 23 reliable, clean and safe source of energy throughout 24 New England, their commitment to community 25 involvement, youth development, and vast employment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 opportunities makes them a crucial and highly 2 beneficial component of this community. A renewal of 3 their operating license is integral to the 4 continuation of the flourishing New England rural 5 communities that we've all come to love.
6 Thank you.
7 (Applause.)
8 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Beth. We're 9 going to go to Ellen Cota. Then we're going to 10 continue with Mike Flory, Shawn Banfield, Claire Chang 11 and Ray Shadis.
12 Ellen Cota.
13 MS. COTA: Yes, I'm Ellen Cota. I am a 14 mother. I work at Vermont Yankee and I live in the 15 Emergency Planning Zone and it make sense to approve 16 the license renewal.
17 Entergy is committed to being 18 environmentally and socially responsible and has given 19 a lot to this community.
20 The financial impact of not extending the 21 license would affect Vermont negatively for many 22 years. But more importantly, the environmental impact 23 of closing Vermont Yankee would pose even greater 24 threat. People have been told not to eat the fish out 25 of the Connecticut River because of the mercury NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1 levels. Well, Vermont Yankee and other nuclear power 2 plants do not emit the poisons or greenhouse gases 3 which are slowly devastating our environment.
4 In addition, Vermont Yankee has a proven 5 record of safe operations. Safety is and has been its 6 number one priority. Entergy is a business.
7 Corporate Entergy is a business. And I can assure you 8 that Corporate Entergy would not put money into this 9 license renewal process if they did not believe that 10 Vermont Yankee was a well run, well maintained, safe 11 facility.
12 Vermont Yankee is committed to safe 13 operation and if I did not believe this, I would not 14 work there.
15 The environmental benefits of generating 16 electricity without emitting greenhouse gases is a 17 wonderful legacy for our children and our 18 grandchildren. I believe that we should approve the 19 license renewal process.
20 Thank you.
21 (Applause.)
22 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Ellen. Please, 23 you're going to hear opinions that are different than 24 yours and just, you know, just respect those opinions, 25 that's all. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 Next four speakers, Mike Flory, Shawn 2 Banfield, Claire Chang, Ray Shadis.
3 Mike Flory.
4 MR. FLORY: Thank you for the opportunity 5 to be here and speak this evening. My name is Michael 6 Flory. Some of you may have read about me a few weeks 7 ago. I was the fire brigade member reported as 8 injured in our unusual event and I'm happy to say that 9 reports of my demise were just a bit exaggerated.
10 (Laughter.)
11 I am the chairman of Unit 8, Local 300 of 12 the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
13 I work at Vermont Yankee along with more than 120 IBEW 14 members. I'm proud to say that I was born and raised 15 here in Vermont and I currently live just a few 16 hundred yards from the front gate.
17 We are proud to work at Vermont Yankee 18 because of the essential power it produces. We know 19 that our work at the plant helps to make Vermont a 20 cleaner, more prosperous place to live. Without 21 Vermont Yankee, the 620 megawatts that we currently 22 supply to the New England grid would have to come from 23 a fossil fuel power plant. Wind power, the 24 Connecticut River hydro project and energy 25 conservation, while all nice ideas, simply cannot NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1 replace the steady, reliable, baseline power that we 2 produce.
3 Since opening in 1972, Vermont Yankee has 4 prevented more than 100 million tons of fossil fuel 5 emissions from entering the atmosphere. This has been 6 prevented not only by rendering an in-state coal plant 7 unnecessary, but also from reducing the amount of out-8 of-state electricity that we have to purchase, most of 9 which would come from coal plants, as coal still 10 accounts for half of the power produced in America 11 today.
12 In 2005, Vermont Yankee avoided the 13 emissions of 7,700 tons of sulphur dioxide; 2,000 tons 14 of nitrogen oxide and 2.5 million metric tons of 15 carbon dioxide. Emissions of sulphur dioxide lead to 16 the formation of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides are a key 17 precursor of both ground level ozone and smog and 18 greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide contribute to 19 global warming.
20 The 2,000 tons of nitrogen oxide prevented 21 by Vermont Yankee last year is the equivalent of what 22 would have been generated by 105,000 vehicles. For 23 comparison, in Vermont, we have 280,000 registered 24 cars. Let me repeat. We at Vermont Yankee are proud 25 of what we do, proud to produce power cleanly and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 1 safely and safety is our highest priority.
2 We would not work in the plant, let alone 3 live near it with our families, if we felt that that 4 place was not safe or that safety was not a priority 5 at Vermont Yankee.
6 We have seen and been instrumental in the 7 plant's continued enhancements and upgrades, most 8 recently during the power uprate process. The cost of 9 Vermont Yankee's power to Vermont consumers like 10 myself is also far below regional market prices. As 11 a baseload generator, we are able to provide lower 12 cost power which is so critical for this state.
13 I respectfully submit that if you like 14 having lights that go on at the flick of a switch, if 15 you like computers that don't fry as a result of 16 rolling brownouts, if you enjoyed air conditioning 17 during last week's heat wave or heat during last 18 month's cold snap, you should like Vermont Yankee's 19 low cost, clean, safe power.
20 Vermont Yankee's value to my home state 21 can only become more valuable as time goes on. As 22 global warming becomes more and more destructive, we 23 can remain an environmentally friendly source of power 24 with zero greenhouse gas emissions. As the world 25 energy market has become more competitive, we can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1 continue to be a source of reliable, economic, 2 baseload power and that is why we encourage the NRC to 3 renew Vermont Yankee's license.
4 Thank you.
5 (Applause.)
6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Mike. And 7 is Shawn -- Shawn is here. Shawn Banfield. And I 8 would just encourage everybody -- I would thank 9 everybody for following the guidelines and just 10 encourage everybody to be as brief as possible. Thank 11 you.
12 Shawn.
13 MS. BANFIELD: Thank you. Good evening.
14 My name is Shawn Banfield. I'm here tonight as an 15 active member and officer of the board of directors 16 for the Vermont Energy Partnership. I'd like to thank 17 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for holding this 18 hearing tonight.
19 The Vermont Energy Partnership was founded 20 in January of 2005, shortly after the state report 21 warned of a serious energy challenge facing us in the 22 near future.
23 Our founding members came together, 24 because they recognized the importance of making sure 25 that adequate electricity was available so Vermont NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1 could continue to be a great place to live and work.
2 The partnership is a diverse group of more than 50 3 business, labor and community leaders, committed to 4 addressing the immense electricity supply gap issues 5 facing Vermont. Our members include a cross section 6 of experts in the energy sector. Our members employ 7 thousands of Vermonters. They run businesses, large 8 and small. And represent union workers, some of whom 9 devote their professional lives to the operation of 10 Vermont Yankee in a safe manner.
11 The partnership fully supports the 12 relicensing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant 13 in Vernon and I will explain why. It is no secret 14 that Vermont's demand for energy is continuing to 15 grow. But it may be a less known fact that Vermont 16 faces uncertainty over its future energy supply.
17 Currently, one third of Vermont's electric supply 18 comes from the Hydro Quebec -- from Hydro Quebec. And 19 these long-term contracts will begin to expire 20 starting in 2014. There is no guarantee that the 21 contracts will either be renewed or renegotiated, 22 given the other more local business opportunities 23 Hydro Quebec has in the province.
24 Another approximate one third of Vermont's 25 electric supply is made up of a wide array of both in-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 state and out-of-state renewable sources and 2 nonrenewable sources. The Partnership supports the 3 in-state development of renewable energy supplies, 4 encourages the increased use of energy efficiency and 5 the expansion of conservation measures. However, the 6 fact remains a reliable energy portfolio must be made 7 up of a baseload source of power.
8 Vermont Yankee accounts for the last one 9 third of the Vermont portfolio, energy portfolio.
10 About 34 percent of Vermont's total electricity supply 11 needs are met by Vermont Yankee today.
12 So let me put this debate in further 13 context. Vermont has not brought online a significant 14 power generating facility in over 20 years and there 15 are no plans to date to do so in the near future. To 16 make matters worse, proposals to develop small-scale 17 generation in Vermont have been met with sharp 18 criticism and severe opposition.
19 In a time when energy costs are at their 20 highest, the Vermont Yankee plant will not only play 21 an essential role in our state's energy portfolio, it 22 is critically important to Vermont's economy and 23 environment.
24 From an economic standpoint, a stable, 25 relatively low-cost power provider helps to maintain NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 and expand businesses in Vermont, while at the same 2 time providing an opportunity to attract new business.
3 In a time when Vermont faces an increasing, aging 4 population the plant provides employment to 600 highly 5 skilled men and women. Those individuals in the 6 company provide more than $200 million in economic 7 benefits to the Wyndham County region and the State of 8 Vermont as a whole.
9 According to the Vermont Public Service 10 Department, the company through the power purchase 11 agreement, will provide Vermont customers 12 approximately $250 million in savings over the life of 13 the contract. This estimate, it should be noted, was 14 made when energy prices were far lower than they are 15 today. And in fact, at 3.95 cents per kilowatt hour, 16 Vermont Yankee power today costs Vermonters 40 percent 17 less than other sources of electricity. This matters 18 most to Vermont's elderly and the poor.
19 But aside from the important economic 20 benefits of Vermont Yankee's continued operation, 21 there are also relative environmental benefits from 22 this in-state generation source. Today, we live in a 23 country where half of the electricity generated comes 24 from coal-burning sources, yet Vermonters can be proud 25 to say that that is not true here. Vermont Yankee is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 a clean, emissions-free facility. Unlike fossil fuel-2 generating facilities, nuclear power does not release 3 harmful greenhouse gases and other toxins into the 4 atmosphere that are the primary cause for global 5 warming.
6 It is becoming abundantly clearly that 7 nuclear energy is the only emissions-free source that 8 can meet consumers' demand for reliability and at a 9 reasonable cost.
10 Leading environmentalists around the 11 world, like Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of 12 Greenpeace, have come to the conclusion that nuclear 13 power is the only source that can help remedy and save 14 the planet from catastrophic climate change. Just 15 last month, Dr. Moore said in the Washington Post 16 "nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-17 effective energy source that can reduce these 18 greenhouse emissions while continuing to satisfy a 19 growing demand for power. In these days, it can do so 20 safely."
21 He went on to say, "the extremists who 22 fail to consider the enormous and obvious benefits of 23 nuclear power also fail to understand that nuclear 24 energy is practical, safe and environmentally 25 friendly."
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 In closing, without Vermont Yankee, 2 Vermont utilities will be forced to buy additional 3 power on the spot market that would be less reliable 4 and considerably more expensive.
5 Do Vermonters really want to pay more and 6 be dependent on power from fossil fuel sources such as 7 natural gas and coal which now contribute to global 8 warming and the earth's degradation? The Vermont 9 Energy Partnership thinks not.
10 Vermont Yankee has an important and 11 crucial to play in the future of our state. It is 12 both economically and environmentally appropriate to 13 grant the plant's license extension. We know there's 14 a wide array of support for the continued operation of 15 this plant for the reasons I have articulated here 16 tonight: its essential economic benefits, its 17 environmentally sound operations and its important 18 role as a component in the Vermont energy portfolio.
19 On behalf of the Partnership, I'd like to 20 thank you for the time here today and I appreciate the 21 opportunity.
22 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Shawn.
23 (Applause.)
24 MR. CAMERON: Claire Chang is going to 25 join us down here and then we're going to go to Ray NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 Shadis and then to Sky Churchill.
2 This is Claire.
3 MS. CHANG: Hi, I'm Claire Chang. I 4 recently saw a very interesting movie. It was called 5 "Enron, the Smartest Guys in the Room." And in this 6 movie, the movie was based on a book that was written 7 called The Smartest Guys in the Room and these --
8 Enron is an energy company. They were dealing with 9 originally natural gas and then they moved into a 10 number of other energy sources including electricity.
11 And what they were doing was -- I don't know how to 12 explain it. It's very complicated. But the 13 California energy crisis, quote unquote, which we all 14 knew a little bit about, but didn't really know a lot 15 about, is covered pretty heavily in this film in which 16 Enron, Duke Energy and a number of other utilities, 17 which Entergy is also a utility -- it is a power 18 company that sells energy, electricity and other forms 19 of energy at the highest cost that it can possibly get 20 to reap the highest profits that it can possibly get.
21 However much they're paying their workers 22 or they spend on publicity or community groups or high 23 school soccer clubs or whatever else, Entergy is a 24 profit-making company.
25 (Applause.)]
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 So in this movie, it turns out that the 2 utilities colluded with the electrical generating 3 plant to restrict and divert and artificially reduce 4 the demand -- I mean reduce the supply causing an 5 increase in costs and therefore an increase in profit 6 to the amount of $9 billion in one year. California 7 paid out $9 billion that it didn't need to pay out.
8 Entergy, because it's also a public -- not 9 a public, but a privately-owned utility company, also 10 sells its electricity out on the market and trades.
11 Traders buy it and compete for whatever can be 12 generated. So for Vermont Yankee, all of its 13 electrical generating capacity has been planned out 14 for 2006. That's the rest of this year and for part 15 of 2007. All that electricity has already been sold 16 and paid for, speculatively, by traders, by the 17 national grid, by whoever Entergy can sell the power 18 to.
19 So there isn't any way that they can now 20 change the cost of that electricity that they've sold 21 it for and I don't know the numbers. I just know that 22 it was sold.
23 So it's committed to this generation of a 24 set price of baseload power and baseload power means 25 that it's running 24/7 at a very even amount and I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 think Vermont Yankee is now at 650 kilowatt hours or 2 something -- huh? Megawatt hours, right, sorry.
3 So they've already sold all this to the 4 grid and the grid has already agreed to a price, but 5 the national grid or the regional grid actually for 6 New England currently has a surplus. There's extra 7 electricity out there. We don't actually have to have 8 part of the electricity that's coming from VY right 9 now. And I don't know the technical aspects of how 10 the grid works, what happens to this extra 11 electricity. But what we need to do is to investigate 12 other ways of producing this electricity and to make 13 it economically unfeasible for Entergy to continue 14 running Vermont Yankee at its rate right now, which 15 does not mean firing all the workers.
16 All the workers at Vermont Yankee right 17 now will be employed for decades when Vermont Yankee 18 gets shut down, whether it's tomorrow, in 2012 or 19 whatever year it is because there is decommissioning.
20 The plant doesn't just -- nobody just goes through the 21 plant and turns out the lights and says "we're done, 22 goodbye." No, there's an awful lot of work that needs 23 to be done at that power plant.
24 So anyone who says that by turning off 25 Vermont Yankee means losing your job, it's not true.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 1 There's no need for that to happen. So one of the 2 ways that we can economically make it unfeasible to 3 Entergy to not run Vermont Yankee is to reduce our 4 energy demand.
5 Energy efficiency and conservation are the 6 easiest and lowest cost ways of reducing that energy 7 demand. It's already been estimated that even in 8 Vermont, if we replace five lightbulbs with compact 9 fluorescents and a refrigerator or other major 10 appliance like an air conditioner or home heating, 11 other large electrical demand with energy-efficient or 12 EnergyStar-rated appliances, we could reduce the 13 demand in Vermont by 25 percent. Now this does 14 require the participation of every household or double 15 participation by half the households. But I don't 16 think that that's an unreasonable goal to have, 17 especially since it would mean that we would no longer 18 have to depend on Vermont Yankee's electrical 19 generation.
20 Another thing that you can do is you look 21 at your electric bill. The average kilowatt hour per 22 day usage is approximately 21 kilowatt hours a day.
23 So 25 percent of that would be about 5 kilowatt hours 24 a day. This is on your electric bill that you get 25 every month. So if you look at that, that would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 about 16 kilowatt hours. You can use that monthly 2 bill that you get to gauge how well you're doing in 3 reducing your energy demand. It's not something 4 that's impossible. It's not something that's so 5 beyond our own personal efforts, we can all take it 6 upon ourselves to make something, to effect a change 7 here and to do something different.
8 Lots of simple things that you can do, 9 just changing your light bulbs, putting your 10 appliances on power strips and turning them off when 11 you're not using them. A lot of television sets and 12 radios, stereos and appliances have a pre-heat on them 13 which means that they instantly turn on with the 14 remote control. But if you put them on a power strip, 15 it's amazing how much electricity you'll actually save 16 by not having these appliances warming 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, 17 7 days a week.
18 The power strip also, amazingly enough, 19 can save your appliances because you're then no longer 20 susceptible to power surges and lightning strikes. I 21 know that we don't get those around here very much, 22 but -- you can turn your hot water down to 125 degrees 23 or 120 degrees and if you have an electric hot water 24 heater, it will also reduce your demand.
25 So in order to think about what other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 choices we have and what we need to do, as 2 individuals, it's really hard to think about wind 3 power and solar power and what can we do as 4 individuals.
5 The best thing that I can think of that we 6 need to do is to read. Read books, read magazines, 7 read articles, go to the web and Harvey Wasserman has 8 a wonderful book out called Solar Topia which is a 9 fantasy, but it gives you something to hold on to and 10 something to dream about and something to think about 11 of how you can apply it to your every day life. In it 12 he says that basically wind power right now, as it is 13 technologically developed is capable of replacing a 14 majority of the electrical generation in the United 15 States from fossil fuels and nuclear power. We're not 16 just talking about only nuclear.
17 Now some of the complaints about wind 18 power are that it kills birds. Well, the first wind 19 towers that went up and I can't remember where the 20 path in California where they went up, those wind 21 towers were placed -- yes -- those wind towers were 22 designed without thinking about the birds. They were 23 like the erector set towers that have lots of braces, 24 four legs and cross bracing and then finally the wind 25 turbine at the top. Well, what was happening was that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 the birds were resting on these bracings and then when 2 they'd see a squirrel or a chipmunk or whatever they 3 wanted to get, these birds of prey would then fly down 4 and get knocked out by the blades as they were coming 5 around.
6 Well, now the towers are not built like 7 that. They're single pole structures, so there's 8 nothing the birds can rest on. The other thing is 9 that the turbines turn so slowly now that you'd really 10 have to have a suicidally-depressed bird to fly into 11 one of these and get knocked out. So the arguments 12 about birds is really un -- my brain is fried, I'm 13 sorry. Unfounded. Good.
14 And the other thing about nuclear power, 15 not nuclear power, wind power is that it's not 16 something that's just a dream. In 2002, the 17 Conference on American Wind Power Generating 18 Association, was attended by maybe 1500 people. Last 19 year, it was attended by more than 5,000 people. It 20 had grown so much that it is not something that's just 21 a pipe dream. You can go and visit wind towers that 22 are installed in Vermont, in New Hampshire and in 23 Massachusetts right now and see how they operate.
24 You can listen that they're not noisy and 25 you can talk to the residents there who live next to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 them who really like their wind power and really like 2 that they are in charge of and they are the ones who 3 control their own electricity generation which is 4 another issue here, is that Entergy is the company 5 that's owned and operated out of Louisiana. It's not 6 local. It's not based in Vernon. It's not based in 7 Vermont. It's very far away and they own nine nuclear 8 power plants. So they're not some little small 9 player. But we need to take control of our lives here 10 in our local area and decide for ourselves how we're 11 going to live, how we're going to generate our 12 electricity and how we're going to control it because 13 we don't want somebody else from far away saying what 14 we're going to do and how we're going to live.
15 And I think that that's really important 16 to think about those kinds of issues.
17 MR. CAMERON: Claire, are you done? Could 18 you sum up for us, please?
19 MS. CHANG: Sure. I can be done. I sense 20 there's some -- I have nothing else.
21 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much.
22 (Applause.)
23 We're going to go to Ray Shadis and then 24 Sky Churchill and then Eesha Williams.
25 Ray?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1 MR. SHADIS: My name is Raymond Shadis.
2 I work for the New England Coalition. From 1982 to 3 1997, I served on the New England Coalition Board of 4 Trustees and from 1997 through to the present, I had 5 served as their Staff Technical Advisor.
6 I was very concerned in presenting some 7 scoping issues earlier that they met strict criteria 8 for examination by the NRC and the criteria are 9 strict, no active components and so on. But then 10 after hearing the presentations this evening, I feel 11 a little more at ease to address them and to address 12 at least one externality.
13 In the uprate proceeding before the 14 Vermont Public Service Board, Entergy presented quite 15 a remarkable witness, Dr. Ernest Moniz, M-O-N-I-Z, 16 from MIT and he is a former Assistant Secretary of 17 Energy and I had the privilege of cross examining the 18 good doctor and he made some startling admissions.
19 Number one is that all of the fuel, commercial nuclear 20 fuel produced in the United States to his best 21 recollection was produced at the Portsmouth enrichment 22 plant and the Paducah enrichment plant and both of 23 those plants, which absorb enormous quantities of 24 electricity in the process, are supplied by coal-fired 25 stations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 My question for Dr. Moniz was well, then 2 the pollution gets here ahead of the fuel, doesn't it?
3 And in fact, the mercury that some speaker referred to 4 earlier, those heavy, heavy coal-fired plants in Ohio 5 and the ones that provide electricity to enrich 6 nuclear fuel, among the dirtiest, do send their 7 mercury to our waters and our fish.
8 The other thing that I brought to Dr.
9 Moniz' attention and got his say on, were two 10 publications from the early 1980s when a lot of us 11 were beginning to be real concerned about global 12 warming, greenhouse gases. One, a book by Senator 13 George Mitchell and I want to call it The World is 14 Burning, but then again I keep thinking of Billy 15 Graham's, World Afire and I can't remember which one 16 is which. And the other was a publication by World 17 Watch Institute and their numbers more or less 18 reconciled. And it was this, that in order to offset 19 the growth in greenhouse gases, the world would need 20 to undertake an unprecedented construction of nuclear 21 power stations amounting to about a thousand on an 22 average of one every three days for start-up, over the 23 next 20 years.
24 And their net effect would be to reduce 25 the growth in greenhouse gases by 20 percent, not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 1 reduce greenhouse gases by 20 percent. Please 2 understand the difference. Reduce the rate of growth.
3 And I asked Dr. Moniz if he thought that 4 was correct and he did a little bit of back of the 5 envelope calculation and he said yeah, that would be 6 approximately correct. The other figure that was 7 astounding was that if we were to undertake that type 8 of programming, we would then require the launching of 9 another Yucca Mountain every two to three years. We 10 can't seem to get the first one off the ground in 50 11 or 60. So those are some externalities, environmental 12 effects that I regret to say I don't think NRC can 13 consider them.
14 Going to some elements for potential 15 scoping in the environmental impact statement, in the 16 afternoon session I presented on spent-fuel pool 17 accident off-site consequences, much, much worse than 18 a reactor meltdown; much worse because the amount of 19 fuel accumulated is much more than the fuel in the 20 reactor. And what I neglected to mention in my 21 summation on that was that NRC Staff in their study, 22 NUREG-1738, said it really didn't make any difference 23 how old the fuel was. You could not eliminate 24 completely the potential for a nuclear fuel fire, 25 zirconium-cladding fire. And that's of critical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1 importance here because Vermont Yankee, like so many 2 plants, has undertaken to checkerboard their fuel to 3 segregate new and old fuel.
4 However, with the uprate, the fuel going 5 in the fresh offloads are so hot that they have to 6 integrate their reactor cooling system with the spent-7 fuel pool cooling system and actually run the residual 8 heat removal pumps for the reactor at least for the 9 first several days that they put the new fuel in. And 10 this is a borderline critical situation. And I don't 11 mean critical in the nuclear sense, but I mean 12 critical in terms of the thermal considerations.
13 The other thing that NRC Staff said which 14 goes to earlier conversation on this was that you 15 could not assign probabilities to an act of terror or 16 an act of malevolence. And the conservative 17 regulator, protector of human health and safety, would 18 then have to assign a probability of 1, absolute would 19 be the scenario you would work under. Not one in a 20 thousand or one in 250 or some other made up number, 21 but if you can assign probabilities and you want to be 22 proactive and protective of human health, then you go 23 to 1. And it's absolute and you must protect 24 absolutely.
25 And now I will get to the two scoping NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 issue items that we reserved for this evening. Number 2 one, I want NRC Staff to be aware and take into 3 consideration that the science of seismic assessment, 4 seismology has evolved to a remarkable extent since 5 1971 when the plant was licensed. And to that effect, 6 we're going to leave them a letter from Mr. Lawrence 7 Becker, who is the Vermont State Geologist. This was 8 a letter provided to our State Nuclear Engineer and 9 entered into evidence in the Vermont Public Service 10 Board case. But Mr. Becker points out that there are 11 a number of new reports including among the more 12 recent, 1995, a report on seismic vulnerability of the 13 State of Vermont and then 1996, we have the real 14 emergence of probabilistic risk assessment for seismic 15 events.
16 NRC loves probabilistic risk assessment 17 ever since Three Mile Island and here we have this 18 risk assessment being developed for seismic events.
19 NRC has in its routine inspection activities 20 acknowledged the emerging changes in the science. In 21 1987, they issued a notice on an unresolved Safety 22 Item A-46 which is essentially the beginning of 23 applying this kind of risk assessment to various 24 components within the plant and I want to direct their 25 attention to a couple of critical components. One is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1 the core shroud at Vermont Yankee. Like so many 2 boiling water reactors, the core shroud after a decade 3 in service began to crack and at Vermont Yankee, like 4 other plants, it has this single monolithic, if you 5 will, structure has not been bolted back together. If 6 you can imagine large threaded pipe clamp-type 7 structures. It's been gerry-rigged, bolted together.
8 The question is has it been reanalyzed seismically 9 using the new seismic investigation regimen?
10 The other item that I want to point to 11 very quickly is the torus -- torus is a huge water 12 tank shaped like a donut. It sits underneath the 13 reactor. The task of the torus is to receive steam in 14 the event of an accident and condense that steam and 15 reduce pressure on the primary containment.
16 The torus at Vermont Yankee has been 17 modified many, many times. The modifications began 18 with an issue called torus lifting back in the very 19 early days of this plant. Since then we have 20 anecdotal accounts from workers, people in in-service 21 inspection, who describe the welding of gussets on 22 that torus and the abandonment of that project and the 23 grinding away of those gussets.
24 We don't know if the torus has been 25 properly heat treated and annealed to relieve stresses NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 1 that are induced whenever you weld anything on a big 2 steel structure like that or not. We don't know if it 3 has been seismically reanalyzed, given those 4 modifications or not.
5 One of the problems that citizens have and 6 citizen-intervenors have is that when issues like this 7 are found within a plant, typically a condition report 8 will be written. That is not public. That does not 9 go into the NRC public document room. And then the 10 item may or may not be entered into the company's 11 Corrective Action Program. That's a place where NRC 12 buries a lot of issues too. They sort of hand it back 13 to the company and say you guys fix it and make sure 14 you keep records. But those records are not public 15 and there's really no way to access them unless you 16 get involved in a legal proceeding and then maybe you 17 can touch them.
18 MR. CAMERON: Ray?
19 MR. SHADIS: Yes sir?
20 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let him 21 speak.
22 MR. CAMERON: I just want to talk to Ray 23 and not to the waffle man. Ray, it's been about 15 24 minutes and we have about 25 people left to go. So if 25 you could just give us your point. I mean it's all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 wonderful, wonderful on-point stuff and we appreciate 2 it.
3 MR. SHADIS: We will provide written 4 comments. NRC really needs to delve into the 5 seismicity issues for all of these components and that 6 would include switch yard stuff as well. We had our 7 problems.
8 The other thing I wanted to point to very 9 quickly is the cumulative off-site impact of chemical 10 releases. The cooling towers that you're familiar 11 with at Vermont Yankee put out those huge clouds of 12 vapor and for our purposes that is not the issue or 13 the problem. Clouds of vapor are clouds of vapor.
14 It's pretty much clean stuff. However, the cooling 15 towers are not 100 percent efficient. There are big 16 fans. There is water tumbling down corrugated 17 material called fill. Fans blow across it and the 18 result is that a lot of droplets are blown sideways 19 out of the towers. When you tour the plant, you can 20 feel these little droplets hitting your skin as you 21 walk around the plant. People wonder if it's 22 drizzling or what.
23 The company uses an oxidizer called 24 glutaraldehyde in small parts, two-tenths of a part 25 per million. It triggers asthma. Two-tenths of a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 part per million exceeds California's occupational 2 exposure standards. In all the regulation, we don't 3 find any place that the regulation anticipates spray.
4 It anticipates fumes. It anticipates skin contact, 5 but I don't think any regulator ever figured you would 6 spray people with this stuff.
7 The glutaraldehyde plus, surfactant, anti-8 rust compounds, other pesticides, other biocides, and 9 fluorine and bromine compounds are used by the 10 company. The water gets circulated in the cooling 11 towers. It flows out in spray. It goes up to a mile 12 downwind. And I just want to point out that in terms 13 of concentrations as those droplets travel, they dry 14 and we don't know what the concentrations are when 15 they land on the skin, but unless it's quantified, we 16 have to assume that it's toxic. Unless it's 17 quantified, we have to assume that there are health 18 effects and those things need to be measured in the 19 Village of Vernon and across the river in Hinsdale.
20 And that's my comments and thank you.
21 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Ray. Thank you 22 very much.
23 (Applause.)
24 MR. CAMERON: Sky Churchill and Eesha 25 Williams. Is Sky here? How about Eesha.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 Bob Catlon? How about Joyce, Joyce 2 Warren. Mandy Arms. I see people leaving when I call 3 your name. Hopefully, they're not the people I'm 4 calling.
5 Bill Whitmer. Bernie Buteau?
6 This battery is going, so we'll do our 7 best.
8 MR. BUTEAU: Bernie Buteau, good evening.
9 Nuclear engineer by training. Worked up at Vermont 10 Yankee for 30 years in a number of different jobs.
11 And a citizen of the planet, along with all of you.
12 Inhaler of fossil-fueled effluence, 24/7/365.
13 Thank you for the opportunity to speak 14 tonight on the operation of VY beyond its current 15 license lifetime.
16 I see your consideration of Vermont 17 Yankee's request for license renewal as very straight 18 forward and to some degree we've done the same 19 homework and so I'm going to repeat a few of the 20 things that you mentioned earlier because I'd like to 21 recite a couple of excerpts right from your own 22 website, that I think help support the position to 23 allow Vermont Yankee to consider operation.
24 It's the NRC primary mission to protect 25 the public health and safety and the environment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 That's what we're talking about tonight is the 2 environmental effects. In the environment, the 3 effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials 4 and waste facilities and you also regulate these 5 nuclear materials and facilities to promote the common 6 defense and security.
7 There's also a section there that talks 8 about reactor license renewal overview. And it states 9 that the Atomic Energy Act and the NRC regulations 10 limit commercial power reactor licenses to an initial 11 40-year -- 40 years, as you said, but also permits 12 such licenses to be renewed. That original 40-year 13 term for reactor licenses was based on economic and 14 anti-trust considerations and not on limitations of 15 nuclear technology.
16 Due to this selective period, however, 17 some structures and components may have been 18 engineered on the basis of a 40-year service life.
19 The NRC has established a timely license renewal 20 process which we've heard something about tonight and 21 clear requirements codified in 10 CFR parts 51 and 54 22 that are needed to assure safe plant operation for 23 extended plant life.
24 The timely renewal of licenses for an 25 additional 20 years, where appropriate to renew them, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1 may be important to ensuring an adequate energy supply 2 for the United States during the first half of the 3 21st century.
4 In surfing the web recently, I found an 5 interesting article. It was an excerpt from Physics 6 Today. It was dated June 4th. It states, "Some two 7 dozen power plants are scheduled to be built or 8 refurbished during the next five years in Canada, 9 China, several European Union countries, India, Iran, 10 Pakistan, Russia, South Africa. In the U.S. and U.K.,
11 government preparations are underway that may lead to 12 15 new reactor orders by 2007. The new interest in 13 civilian nuclear energy results from attempts to 14 reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increasing 15 concerns about energy security."
16 Considering what I've presented, the 17 worldwide recognition of the need for additional 18 nuclear power to help save our environment from the 19 effluence of fossil fuels and to help establish energy 20 security and I would go on to say world peace, and 21 considering the existing guidance for granting license 22 extensions, I would submit that it would be arbitrary 23 and in defiance of the rules and guidelines already in 24 place to not grant Vermont Yankee an operating license 25 extension if all requirements established in 10 CFR NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 Parts 51 and 54 are met.
2 Finally, I'd just ask that when all the 3 input that you receive is considered, you separate the 4 facts from the rhetoric. Thank you very much.
5 (Applause.)
6 MR. CAMERON: We're going to go to Marian 7 Kelner and then Ted Sullivan, John Dreyfuss and Mike 8 Hamer.
9 This is Marian Kelner. Marian.
10 MS. KELNER: Hi. This is just one brief 11 point that I'd like to make. Nobody knows what's 12 going to happen in the future. There are people who 13 believe that this plant is safe. There are other 14 people who believe that its not safe. There's no way 15 to determine this, I guess. Time will tell, but the 16 criteria that I'd like to present is what happens for 17 each side if that side is wrong? If the people who 18 believe the nuclear power plant is safe and they're 19 wrong, the land becomes polluted, thousands of people 20 die. This will be an effect that will be in effect 21 for hundreds of thousands of years. If the people who 22 believe that the nuclear power plant is unsafe and 23 they're wrong, what will be the effect? The effect 24 will be that there will be other sources of power, 25 conservation and nobody gets hurt.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 So since nobody on the planet knows which 2 side is correct, I think that using this criteria 3 might guide us in the right direction. That's all, 4 thank you.
5 (Applause.)
6 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Marian. Mr.
7 Sullivan? There he is. This is Mr. Ted Sullivan, and 8 then we'll go to John Dreyfuss.
9 MR. SULLIVAN: Good evening, thank you for 10 the opportunity to speak. My name is Ted Sullivan and 11 I'm a resident of West Chesterfield and I do work at 12 the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and West 13 Chesterfield is within the 10 mile emergency planning 14 zone. So what goes on at that plant is very important 15 to me as a professional and me as a family man because 16 my family lives in West Chesterfield.
17 There's a couple of things, a couple of 18 points I want to talk about tonight. One is that the 19 economic impact of shutting down or not granting a 20 license extension for Vermont Yankee is very, very 21 severe. To take one third of the electricity out of 22 the state, one third of what it needs to run, that 23 electricity has to be generated somewhere and come 24 from some other means. And if it is a fossil means, 25 whether it's oil, coal or gas, it's going to increase NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 the pollutants that are going in the air. It will 2 affect the environment, much, much, more worse than 3 what the effect is of nuclear power.
4 The 100 million tons that the government 5 talked about, that is a very, very significant amount 6 of pollutants in the air and there's empirical data 7 that supports that that has caused global warming and 8 that is now causing the oceans to heat up and that is 9 having a dramatic effect on things like hurricanes.
10 The number of hurricanes that we're having now is a 11 direct result of this global warming.
12 Go talk to the people that lived through 13 Katrina and Rita, and the intensity of that storm.
14 There's empirical data that proves that that effect 15 made those hurricanes much more severe than what they 16 really are. That's one point I want to make.
17 Another point is that we are regulated in 18 this industry and when you're regulated, there's rules 19 that you have to follow and those -- and we are 20 governed by the NRC and we have to follow all those 21 rules. As we apply for this application, the look 22 that is given to the site and to all the processes 23 that it has is exhaustive. It's a mess. And all of 24 those rules have to be met. So let's let the facts 25 decide what it is. If the NRC after their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1 investigation into what's going on at the plant and 2 whether or not we're following the rules, if they 3 conclude that we will have an effect on the 4 environment that are of such a nature that it doesn't 5 meet the regulations, then they need to not approve 6 this license application. But if it does meet the 7 rules and regulations, then it needs to be approved.
8 That's the last thing I really want to 9 say. The facts will speak for themselves and all the 10 rhetoric and all the scare tactics and all the threats 11 and things have to come out of that. Just let the 12 facts speak for themselves. Thank you for the 13 opportunity.
14 (Applause.)
15 MR. CAMERON: This is Mr. Dreyfuss.
16 MR. DREYFUSS: Good evening, my name is 17 John Dreyfuss. I also work at Vermont Yankee. I'm 18 the Director of Engineering at the plant. Thanks 19 everybody for coming out. The rain kept probably a 20 few people away, but it's good to see a lot of faces 21 out here expressing opinion as well as, you know, 22 quite a few more people I think in support of renewing 23 the license of Vermont Yankee.
24 You know, we're very proud of the 25 impeccable environmental record that this plant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 1 currently enjoys. We've had a sustained, safe, 2 operational record with excellent environmental 3 stewardship. We pledge to continue that going 4 forward. I'm also very proud of the people and the 5 processes we have in place that helps sustain that 6 environmental performance. The scope of the 7 environmental audit conducted by the NRC was very 8 broad. It touched on many subjects. There were many 9 people here, both NRC staff and the contractors. They 10 were very challenging. They were very rigorous. They 11 were very thorough. And we've resolved the issues and 12 we're answering questions, many questions that came 13 up.
14 Again, I am satisfied that the process 15 will hold true and the questions will be answered.
16 And if we can provide satisfactory record and good 17 answers to the questions that came up, the license 18 should be renewed.
19 Another thing I wanted to touch on here, 20 just very briefly, is that there was a report by the 21 National Academy of Sciences that talked about Indian 22 Point. One of the key conclusions of that report are 23 that the economic and environmental impact of closing 24 those plants, shutting those plants down, was very 25 significant. And that was the key conclusion of it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1 So I urge you to educate yourself, read about it, and 2 understand, you know, the impact of closing down a 3 plant like Vermont Yankee. Thank you.
4 (Applause.)
5 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Mr.
6 Dreyfuss. We're going to go to Mike Hamer, Mr.
7 Peyton, and then to Chris Nord from Citizens Awareness 8 Network. Is this Mike Hamer coming down? All right.
9 MR. HAMER: Good evening. First I'd like 10 to thank the NRC for putting on this meeting tonight 11 for giving us all a chance to come out and talk about 12 our community and the future. I'd also like to thank 13 the police officers here tonight that are missing 14 dinner with their families to come out here and ensure 15 our safety. And for all of you, I mean, we had a lot 16 more people in this room when we started tonight, it's 17 gone down a little bit, but for everyone who stayed 18 here to the bitter end to speak out about the 19 community, round of applause for all of us. Come on, 20 here we go.
21 I have one point, one simple point to talk 22 about, 620 megawatts thermal. It's a lot of power.
23 That's not what I'm going to talk about. I'm going to 24 talk about the evolution of technology. When we first 25 started making power in this country, a lot of heavy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 polluters. We're all ruining the environment. We're 2 damming up rivers for hydro, a lot of coal-fired power 3 plants, the most abundant source of electricity in 4 this country is coal. Fifty-eight percent of our 5 power in the United States is made from coal. We're 6 the largest coal burning country in the world, as a 7 matter of fact.
8 We're starting to see a lot of the results 9 of that over the years. You can't take a hike into 10 the mountains without finding a little mountain stream 11 or a little run-off on the side. You'll see 12 fluorocarbons, you see little rainbows in the water.
13 My daughter pointed it out to me one day and said 14 "Daddy, look at the pretty rainbows". I said "well, 15 that's pollution, honey, at its best."
16 We're looking at 20 more years of 17 operation from this facility right here. I believe 18 that there will be a better technology one day and 19 than our current technology for making power. I 20 honestly believe that. We're on the verge of a lot of 21 those things right now to this. Hydrogen cell power, 22 but scientists are predicting right now that maybe ten 23 years, possibly twenty years to be able to make 24 megawatts of hydrogen cells. Ironically, nuclear 25 power plants produce hydrogen. But then we use some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 more energy to take that hydrogen and re-combine it 2 back with the oxygen and make water out of it and put 3 it back to the power plant.
4 So imagine if you have a hydrogen cell 5 sitting outside a nuclear power plant to make power 6 from that hydrogen. Stepping stones of technology.
7 I think that we can't get from one point to another 8 point to being completely nuclear free without going 9 through that process. We started out with plants 10 years ago, but we've improved on those technologies.
11 We've made them more efficient. We've learned from 12 our lessons of the past and made better plants to 13 continue on in the future with.
14 Our station here, I work for Entergy by 15 the way. Our station here we made significant 16 upgrades to the station since I've been here in the 17 last eight years and worked as a contractor for four 18 or five years before that, including major jobs like 19 replacing the entire LP turbine 10 years ago, 20 replacing the HP turbine. Those things are the size 21 of football fields and we did that safely with no 22 injuries on the job, employing a lot of people in the 23 surrounding communities to help do these things.
24 One day, we'll reach that point where we 25 can probably start shutting down these plants. But NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 that day isn't today. Six hundred twenty megawatts of 2 power electric. What scares me is how are going to, 3 if we shut this plant down in 2012, where are going to 4 produce that power from right now? That's baseload 5 electricity. That's not wind power with a 20 percent 6 efficiency factor. Those numbers you can look them up 7 on NEPAX. It's a website that tells how much power 8 the capacity, how much those places actually stay 9 online.
10 I'll support any power made from any 11 source that's safe like that. I believe Vermont 12 Yankee is a very safe plant having worked there for as 13 long as I have. But I don't believe that we're going 14 to be ready in the next 10 or 15 years to get away 15 from nuclear power. It's not feasible. We're not 16 going to be able to produce 620 megawatts without 17 going to coal, without going to gas power, which gas 18 has been touted as being the clean source of energy, 19 it's not. It produces half of the amount of waste 20 that our coal plants produce.
21 Oil is out of the question. Oil is like 22 less than 10 percent, less than 5 percent of the 23 entire production of power in this country, just 24 because of the unavailability of it and that we need 25 it for automobiles and other things like that, other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1 smaller, small-type things. But consider that.
2 Consider where we're going to get our power from if we 3 shut this plant down. We have to get it from 4 somewhere. It's not in my back yard. It's here.
5 It's safe. We have a proven track record of being 6 safe. Why not continue for 20 more years.
7 This license renewal team, the application 8 can be viewed at any library and online. It's huge.
9 They have a very, very large team of inspectors 10 looking at every possible aspect you can look at for 11 aging management, for how we're going to handle aging 12 management. It's the future replacement of certain 13 parts that wear out, things like that, based on 14 operating experience, etcetera and everything. It's 15 a very involved process. It's not taken lightly by 16 the NRC or Vermont Yankee.
17 Something you can consider also too is if 18 you look at Entergy, go to their website. You can 19 look at their portfolio of all the power they have.
20 You probably heard about nine nuclear plants that 21 Entergy has? We have percentages in wind power, coal, 22 gas, oil, you name it, right across the board and once 23 solar takes off or anything like that, believe me, 24 Entergy as a power company, will be on it,one of the 25 first companies on it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 1 So consider that when you think about it.
2 Look at the facts. Have we been operating safely?
3 And where are we going to get our power in the future 4 if we shut this plant down now in 2012.
5 Thank you.
6 (Applause.)
7 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mr. Hamer. Is 8 there a Mr. Peyton here? Then we're going to go to 9 Chris, Chris Nord from Citizens Awareness Network.
10 MR. NORD: Well, thank you to those who 11 have stuck around. My name is Chris Nord. I'm the 12 vice president of the Citizens Awareness Network. I'm 13 also on the board of the C10 Foundation over in 14 Newbury Port, Massachusetts which runs one of the two 15 state-of-the-art real-time radiation monitoring 16 systems in the United States.
17 I wanted to address first an issue that 18 has come up over and over again that Governor Salmon, 19 I think was the first to speak to the issue of global 20 warming and how nuclear is purported to be a solution, 21 a near-term solution for global warming, just to say 22 that it has been shown in numerous studies, chief 23 among them, out of Rocky Mountain Institute which is 24 run by world renown Emory Lovins and his wife, Hunter, 25 a couple of researchers back in the late 1990s looked NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 1 at global carbon mitigation strategies, using nuclear 2 and using renewables as two alternative paths. And 3 they discovered a finding that they put two different 4 ways which I think are provocative. One, that for 5 every $100 spent on nuclear that could otherwise have 6 been spent on what we call renewables, an extra ton of 7 carbon is released to the atmosphere that would have 8 otherwise been prevented. And that's because, as Ray 9 Shadis pointed out earlier, it's going to take many, 10 many years of many, many hundreds of nuclear plants to 11 begin to cut back on the acceleration of global carbon 12 using nuclear. And the energy efficiency and 13 renewable strategy is a much simpler, more direct, 14 cost-effective way to go about it.
15 The other way that they put it, I'm 16 drawing a blank on it. I'll leave it alone. Let's 17 see. Someone mentioned nuclear as a method of 18 retaining world peace and maintaining world peace in 19 the world and I just had to speak to that because it's 20 obvious to all of us, if we allow ourselves to think 21 about it because of current controversies on the 22 international scene where there is a country that is 23 claiming that they just want to have a nuclear power 24 system, that it is impossible to separate the 25 production of electricity through the fission process NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1 from nuclear bomb technology. And we are engaged in 2 a long-term Faustian bargain to think that nuclear is 3 a way to a cleaner environment and that it's going to 4 somehow protect world peace.
5 In fact, if we are to go that way, then we 6 would be nothing but hypocritical to not allow other 7 nations of the world to do that, but that is precisely 8 what we're attempting to do in the international 9 sphere right now.
10 Okay, as to my original plan, I really 11 wanted to address my comments tonight to the Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission and that's why we're here. I 13 have no doubt that the workers of Vermont Yankee 14 believe that they're doing the absolute best job that 15 they can and I applaud that. I do the best possible 16 job I can at my work as well, so I have no doubt that 17 you're proud of what you do and you deserve to be 18 proud of what you do.
19 The NRC has returned to the homeland of 20 the democratic process, to come to New England.
21 They're in New England at Plymouth for the Pilgrim 22 plant. They're in New England at Seabrook for the 23 Seabrook nuclear power station. And they're here for 24 Vermont Yankee. And I really have one question and I 25 think that many people who are concerned citizens have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 one question that we can create permutations for and 2 that is who do you work for? And who do you serve?
3 Who do you actually serve?
4 The permutations that I'm talking about 5 have to do with many things that fall within this 6 larger category of design basis. And the first one I 7 want to mention is the design basis for spent-fuel 8 pools. Okay, the design basis for the spent-fuel pool 9 at Vermont Yankee originally was what is called low-10 density racking. Now low-density racking was created 11 originally as a way to configure spent fuel because it 12 guaranteed a redundancy in the safety system for spent 13 fuel.
14 Now I hope that the NRC is actually paying 15 attention because I drove all the way over here from 16 Newton, New Hampshire, in order to speak to the NRC 17 hoping that the NRC would, in fact, take these 18 comments seriously. You have high-density racking at 19 Vermont Yankee because the NRC was willing to 20 sacrifice the redundant safety system because there's 21 no place to put the fuel.
22 What that has meant though is that were 23 there a fire -- I'll back up. Were there to be a loss 24 of coolant accident by any means in the spent-fuel 25 pool that is racked in high-density racking, that fire NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1 cannot be put out. A fire in a high density pool will 2 burn until it burns itself out. And when you're 3 talking about radionuclides that extend as much as 20 4 times the extent of radionuclides that were released 5 during the Chernobyl accident, sitting in a spent-fuel 6 pool 70 feet off of the ground, not within a concrete 7 dome, but underneath sheet metal, we're looking at a 8 terrorist catastrophe in the making.
9 So first step, design basis. I call upon 10 the NRC to return nationally to the original design 11 basis configuration for spent fuel. Spent-fuel pools 12 should not be allowed to be racked in high-density 13 racking. You're giving away the safety system that 14 was originally built in that would allow that spent 15 fuel to be cooled with ambient air were there a loss 16 of coolant accident. That no longer exists at Vermont 17 Yankee. So that's number one, design basis.
18 Following that, and because of this 19 extraordinary threat of terrorism in this post 9/11 20 world, and because of the unusual way that Vermont 21 Yankee sits in relationship to the top of this country 22 right along the Connecticut River that goes all the 23 way to the Canadian border, there's a scenario that we 24 need to consider. And along with that scenario comes 25 my second request that we need in this new age of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 1 terrorism to remake the emergency planning zone so 2 that it is not ten miles, that it extends to the full 3 extent of the ingestion pathway.
4 That means a 50 mile radius. And that is 5 too little, but it's a start. We need to have 6 contingency plans for what is going to be done out to 7 the city of Keene, and actually all the way out to the 8 city of Concord and out to Rutland, in many different 9 directions, because were there a loss of coolant 10 accident at that spent-fuel pool for any reason, the 11 calamity that would be created as a result of that 12 would definitely reach major cities far away depending 13 on which way the wind blows. So point two, extend the 14 emergency planning zone.
15 At Plymouth, at a license extension 16 meeting before the NRC earlier this year, I asked the 17 NRC for any features concerning their emergency plans, 18 emergency response plans, for the greater Boston area 19 in light of the possibility of an awful event, a 20 terrorist attack, catastrophic event, at their also 21 highly densely racked, highly overfull 35 million 22 curies of just Cesium in their spent-fuel pool at 23 Pilgrim, and there was no answer. I got blank stares.
24 That's because there are no contingency plans for the 25 children, for the mothers, of the greater Boston area.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 1 And in this age of terrorism, it's only going to take 2 one terrorist attack against one U.S. nuclear reactor 3 for this to all be a very bad idea. And we need to 4 wake up, smell the coffee, and start to do something 5 about this.
6 Remember that a 20-mile an hour wind 7 blowing out of the south from the Pilgrim plant would 8 reach the greater Boston area in two hours. At 9 Hampton, in New Hampshire earlier this year, I heard 10 an NRC on-site inspector say to the audience that when 11 he puts his children to bed at night he realizes, he 12 believes, that he and his children are as safe as they 13 can possibly be. And so I had to point out to him a 14 scenario that I'm going to bring up tonight, because 15 it bears directly on the plant that we are talking 16 about, the Vernon plant that the workers here and the 17 owners and those that work for Entergy are so proud 18 of. And that is a terrorist cell hijacking a plane in 19 airspace Canada. They don't have to be able to 20 navigate very well. All they got to do is follow the 21 river under radar, 500 miles an hour, straight down 22 the Connecticut River right into the spent-fuel pool 23 of Vermont Yankee. It would happen so fast and so I 24 said to him I want you to not go to sleep at night 25 thinking how safe you are.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104 1 I want you to be lying in bed at night 2 awake being worried about this stuff until you, the 3 NRC, decides to actually take the public health and 4 safety into consideration and start making good on all 5 of these promises that you're making of protecting the 6 environment and protecting public health. We can't go 7 on like this any longer. This has to change. So 8 that's the third one.
9 We need to revise the design basis threat 10 as the 9th Circuit Court has indicated. And I think 11 it's actually, I have to say, NRC members, that it's 12 deplorable that you're considering appealing it. Like 13 why is it not in your interest to just assume the 14 responsibility? In other words, the way that we need 15 to be living, en masse, is by what is known as the 16 precautionary principle.
17 We need to learn the precautionary 18 principle, we need to teach the precautionary 19 principle, and we need to act the precautionary 20 principle on the part of our regulators so that we can 21 hand off a clean, safe, healthy environment to future 22 generations. If we don't act the precautionary 23 principle, one day, one bleak day we're going to wake 24 up and some awful event is going to happen and we will 25 have gotten caught not having been prepared for it, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1 and that's what this is all about.
2 I don't know how to state it any more 3 strongly. I'll go back to my original question, who 4 do you actually work for? Are these meetings, these 5 public meetings, merely an appeasement so you have the 6 general public come up to the microphone, make a few 7 statements, and then they go away and you get to go on 8 your merry business and decide in collusion with this 9 industry how it's going to go. Or are you actually 10 taking into account the real concerns that are 11 obvious, if you just sit and think about them, we're 12 talking about 35 million curies of Cesium-137 sitting 13 in that spent-fuel pool.
14 It's deplorable that there's nothing being 15 done. And I think that it's high time that something 16 be done and the license extension hearings for Vermont 17 Yankee are a great time to do it.
18 I will finish by saying that once that is 19 returned to low-density storage, what that 20 necessitates is that the fuel that is taken out of the 21 spent-fuel pool must be put in interim storage that is 22 robust which means that it is a hardened, cast 23 structure. It is a dispersed structure so that they 24 can't be all hit with one terrorist attack and it 25 probably should be put in a berm. I mean there's a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 1 technology for this and you're going to be hearing all 2 about it because the State of Massachusetts is 3 bringing their contentions on the Vermont Yankee issue 4 exactly on the basis of what I've been describing, 5 robust storage for spent fuel at Vermont Yankee and 6 the rest of the boiling water reactors for a start, 7 for a start.
8 Those are my comments. Thank you for 9 listening.
10 (Applause.)
11 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you very 12 much.
13 Is Dart Everitt still here and Bill 14 Pearson? While Dart is coming down and Bill Pearson 15 still here?
16 Let's go to Dart. This is Dart Everitt 17 and then we're going to go to Emily Tinkham.
18 MR. EVERITT: I will be brief. According 19 to Rich Smalley, who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner for 20 chemistry in 1996 for his work on nanotechnology by 21 mid-century the world will require a doubling of its 22 current world-wide energy demand of 14 terawatts of 23 power. To achieve this demand will require the 24 equivalent of one 1,000 megawatt power plant going 25 online every day for nearly 38 years. And this is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
107 1 from Discover of February 2005 and I have it in the 2 testimony here.
3 Although I assume the initial mandate of 4 the NRC regarding environmental issues 30 to 40 years 5 ago concerned the rather micro impact that is of the 6 areas immediately surrounding a nuclear plant, 7 certainly now the issue is equally a global concern of 8 greenhouse gases, foremost carbon dioxide.
9 I'm not an expert. I am a concerned 10 citizen, concerned about the future of energy for the 11 State of Vermont, the future energy requirement for 12 the world, and the environmental impact the sources of 13 that energy will have.
14 Dr. Arthur Westing, a resident of Putney, 15 Vermont, 10 miles up the road, is an expert. He has 16 served on the faculty or been a research fellow at 17 several education institutions, including Harvard 18 University, the Stockholm International Peace Research 19 Institute. He has served as the director of the 20 United Nations Environmental Program Project, Peace, 21 Security and the Environment, and is the author of 22 many articles and several books on the environment.
23 At the moment, unfortunately, he is in Sweden.
24 He told me he wished he could be here to 25 testify on the importance of Vermont Yankee to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1 energy future of Vermont and give his wholehearted 2 supported to the relicensing. I am submitting an 3 email from him to me giving me the authority to give 4 you two letters he has written on energy and the 5 environmental issues, as well as his résumé. His 6 latest letter cites a British report on the role of 7 nuclear power and low carbon economy which he uses to 8 calculate the impact shown on the following page.
9 Thank you for beginning this lengthy 10 process for the relicensing of Entergy and Nuclear 11 Vermont Yankee Power Plant. I hope the evidence 12 supports a positive decision.
13 I think this is very important. It shows 14 that for CO2 production from various sources of power, 15 that kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt of electricity for 16 cradle to grave or a full production cycle. Coal, 17 it's 891. Natural gas is 356. Photovoltaics, 18 interestingly enough is 50, while wind and nuclear are 19 16. Nuclear power is very important to the future 20 energy of this world and this state and please, I hope 21 you consider relicensing it.
22 Thank you.
23 (Applause.)
24 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. If you could 25 just give that to Eric and we'll try to -- for those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
109 1 of you who might be interested in reading these 2 documents, we'll see if we can get put on the 3 transcript for people to look at for their 4 information.
5 Bill Pearson. Bill.
6 MR. PEARSON: Bill Pearson. I live in 7 Brattleboro. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
8 Can you hear me now?
9 Bill Pearson. I live in Brattleboro. I 10 appreciate the chance to speak tonight.
11 I went to Brooks Memorial Library in 12 Brattleboro to read Entergy's environmental impact 13 statement. I found a six-page glossary of 14 abbreviations and acronyms. I couldn't find any 15 section on ethics and morality.
16 We are fixated on Vermont Yankee's 17 production of 30 percent of Vermont's electrical 18 energy needs without comprehending that Vermont Yankee 19 also produces high level radioactive waste that will 20 be hazardous for thousands, tens of thousands, 21 hundreds of thousands of years. Is there something 22 genetic about our mental makeup that causes us to not 23 take this into account?
24 The typical commercial reactor contains 25 around 15 billion curies of radioactivity during NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110 1 operations. Those dry-cask storage units can hold 2 hundreds of thousands to millions of curies. Smaller 3 truck-sized casks for highway use each contain 40 4 times the radiation released at Hiroshima. After 60 5 years of blustering by the Federal Government, there 6 still is not any safe way to deal with dangerous spent 7 fuel from nuclear power plants.
8 How ethical is it then to continue making 9 it? What system of morality allows us to condemn 10 hundreds, perhaps thousands of future generations the 11 worry and expense of safeguarding radioactive waste 12 material? Also protection from natural disasters or 13 terrorism. Replacing those Holtec dry casks every 20 14 years or is it 50 years, I don't remember, for 100,000 15 years? That's not going to be cheap.
16 That consideration alone ought to be 17 enough to shut down our nuclear power plants. One 18 product of the Iranian enrichment process is so-called 19 depleted uranium. The United States has been using it 20 by the thousands of tons in munitions in Iraq. The 21 United States has now sold depleted uranium to 29 22 other countries. When DU explodes, it produces tiny 23 ceramic uranium oxide particles that easily invade the 24 body. And eventually produce a variety of cancers and 25 other illnesses. Human DNA is affected. Deformed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
111 1 babies are born.
2 The United Nations has called DU a weapon 3 of mass destruction. How ironic.
4 It is also genocidal. Global winds are 5 wafting DU dust all over the world. It's half-life is 6 4.5 billion years. How much DU was produced over the 7 years in enriching uranium for Vermont Yankee's fuel 8 rods? How complicit is Vermont Yankee, and are we, in 9 the weapons industry?
10 Vermont Yankee routinely emits radioactive 11 material into the air, soil and water. Presumably 12 these emissions are permissible. But who knows?
13 Permissible emissions are not the same thing as safe 14 emissions.
15 In July of 2005, and this has already been 16 brought up tonight, the U.S. National Academy of 17 Sciences released its latest biological effects of 18 ionizing radiation report, otherwise known as BEIR 19 VII. Basically what it pointed out was that no amount 20 of radiation can be considered safe.
21 How ethical and moral is it then to site 22 an elementary school directly across the street from 23 Vermont Yankee? Children are far more vulnerable to 24 radiological damage that adults.
25 Nuclear power plants, especially geriatric NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
112 1 ones like Vermont Yankee, are prone to accidents and 2 leaks. We've seen this in recent history. Let me 3 give you a quick review of some results from accidents 4 at other nuclear facilities.
5 A 400 percent increase in leukemia 6 incidents in the population living downwind of the 7 Pilgrim nuclear power reactor in Massachusetts in the 8 first five years after fuel was known to have leaked 9 excess radioactivity.
10 Three to 400 percent increase in lung 11 cancer in the general population within the plume of 12 the Three Mile Island accident.
13 Six to 700 percent increase in leukemia in 14 the general population within the plume of Three Mile 15 Island.
16 Eight thousand percent increase in thyroid 17 cancer in Belarus children living near Chernobyl, 18 reported six years after the meltdown.
19 Further effects found in victims of the 20 Chernobyl accident, less than 10 years after the 21 meltdown include the following. A 500 percent 22 increase in thyroid cancer in children in Ukraine. A 23 75 percent increase, incidence of heart disease.
24 A 200 percent increase in respiratory and 25 digestive disease. A 200 percent increase in birth NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113 1 defects.
2 Among atomic workers, a 250 percent 3 increase in all cancers. And finally, a 1200 percent 4 increase in all cancers exist around the Sellafield 5 reprocessing facility in England.
6 I would urge us not to take too seriously 7 Entergy's environmental impact statement. Despite the 8 hard work of lots of people--and this is the point--
9 they forgot to deal with ethics and morality.
10 They were also in error to dismiss as, 11 quote, inadequate, alternative energy sources.
12 We need to understand that solar wind, 13 biomass, geothermal and others are safe, clean, 14 dependable, and most important, sustainable.
15 Conservation and efficiency should also be added to 16 the list.
17 If given the billions in Federal subsidies 18 that nuclear has enjoyed over the years, these 19 alternative energies could easily meet our energy 20 needs without harming the environment.
21 Until and unless we can ensure the health 22 and safety of human beings, and of all the 23 environment, and all forms of life, we shouldn't even 24 be using nuclear power. Let me register my vote as 25 not being in favor of a 20 year extension of Vermont NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114 1 Yankee. Thank you.
2 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mr. Pearson.
3 We're going to go to Emily Tinkham, if she's still 4 here, and then to Mr. Turnbull.
5 Emily.
6 MS. TINKHAM: Good evening. My name is 7 Emily Tinkham and I live in Keene, New Hampshire. I 8 am a daughter, a sister, and an Entergy Vermont Yankee 9 employee. I truly believe that the only way to keep 10 this amazing area that we live in environmentally 11 friendly, while producing 34 percent of Vermont's 12 electricity is to continue the safe and reliable 13 operation of Vermont Yankee.
14 PARTICIPANT: (speaking from an un-miced 15 location) 16 MS. TINKHAM: Vermont Yankee produces 17 enough--
18 MR. CAMERON: Could you just let people 19 talk. Okay? Thank you; thank you.
20 MS. TINKHAM: Vermont Yankee produces 21 enough electricity to power about 620,000 homes and it 22 does not burn fossil fuel. Over the years, this has 23 avoided millions of tons of fossil air pollution. If 24 Vermont Yankee were to close, it would be replaced 25 with large amounts of fossil fuel generation and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 1 greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming.
2 Thank you.
3 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.
4 Mr. Turnbull.
5 MR. TURNBULL: After a while it starts 6 feeling like a family reunion at these meetings, and 7 I extend that to everyone here.
8 Hi, my name is Clay Turnbull. I'm a 9 resident here of Windham County. I own a home in 10 Townsend. There's some level of emotional energy 11 around the environment impacts of operation of Vermont 12 Yankee, and I know that emotions can lead to unclear 13 and unobjective thinking.
14 Global warming. Are you concerned about 15 global warming? Twenty years ago, folks were, 16 scientists were making quite a bit of noise about it, 17 and the administrator at the time said, nah. Do you 18 believe it? And if you do believe global warming is 19 an issue, and you think it's upon us, do you want your 20 power coming from coal-burning facilities that 21 generate greenhouse gases and smog?
22 We know that our use of electricity 23 contributes to global warming. If you believe we can 24 fulfill our electric needs in Vermont without Vermont 25 Yankee's baseload electricity, if you want economical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
116 1 power, then please listen closely.
2 If you are concerned about greenhouse 3 gases, we can't afford this distraction of dangerous, 4 dirty, expensive source of electricity. Low cost, 5 safe, clean power, zero greenhouse gases emissions.
6 That must be wind and solar.
7 Slide 17. Can we get slide 17, or is that 8 all torn down?
9 MR. CAMERON: I think it probably would be 10 difficult. If you could just summarize what was on 11 it, Mr. Turnbull.
12 MR. TURNBULL: Sure. It was an image of 13 a nuclear power station with some green grass and blue 14 river, and puffy white clouds. It was a very serene 15 place you'd want to go picnicking, and I thought 16 because we're looking at environmental impacts, the 17 slide would be more appropriate to show what are the 18 forms of effluent from a nuclear power station.
19 You know, through the effluent discharges, 20 emissions, radiation, chemicals, other pollutants.
21 Now that's just my opinion. I'm not 22 saying anyone in this room is bad or anyone in this 23 room is better than someone else. We are all in this 24 together. From my perspective, I want to share 25 something with both sides of the aisle, if we're gonna NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
117 1 play politics and be like so much of the rest of the 2 world.
3 I look in these white boxes up top, these 4 lights, and I assume that they're incandescent lights 5 because I see that there's a number of them burned 6 out, and they probably are a hassle to replace, and 7 the two lights on top of each box I can see are 8 clearly incandescents.
9 That light's incandescent. We're in a 10 room filled with incandescent lights. The most 11 inefficient light source that you can use. The only 12 thing inefficient way to light this room would be to 13 have torches. And actually that might be more 14 efficient, to tell you the truth.
15 So we need more power. We won't be able 16 to survive without the nuclear power station!
17 Well, geez, you know if I look in my sap 18 bucket and I see there there's a hole in the bottom of 19 it, most Vermonters aren't gonna look at that and say, 20 oh, there's a hole in the bottom of the bucket, I 21 better tap more trees.
22 They'll say, well, I should start by 23 plugging the hole. That's not to say that we could 24 shutter Vermont Yankee tomorrow. But I do believe 25 that in the long run, we really need to embrace safe, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118 1 clean energy--wind, solar, and other sustainable long-2 term renewables.
3 And I see him walking up to the side here.
4 Let me just take a quick scan. A reliable source of 5 power must include baseload power, so let's buy 6 windpower from New York, if Governor Douglas won't get 7 out of the way and let the public get their wind 8 generation in Vermont, when the wind's not blowing 9 we'll use hydro, and as a last resort, we'll use the 10 power that we get off the open market, not spot 11 market, though.
12 Vermonters overwhelmingly embrace 13 renewable energy. 75 percent want wind. There's 14 probably even more that want solar. Small-scale 15 renewables. When the first incentive program came out 16 in Vermont two years ago, they thought it would last 17 for two years. In seven months, it was all used up.
18 People wanted solar. People wanted wind.
19 Our elderly, who must choose between 20 electricity, or food, or medicine, they need solar hot 21 water systems. They need energy audits. They need 22 efficiency upgrades of their homes and their 23 apartments.
24 And there's jobs in doing that. Lots of 25 jobs. Vermont needs jobs. We need plumbers, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
119 1 carpenters, engineers, concrete workers, electricians, 2 energy planners, and that's exactly why we need to 3 implement a clean, renewable energy program today, 4 putting nice tradespeople to work.
5 Thanks for listening. Those are my 6 thoughts.
7 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Mr.
8 Turnbull. Thank you.
9 How about Hattie Nestor and Joan Horman, 10 Vedrana Wren? Karen Murphy? Shaun Murphy? George 11 Clain. Dennis Girroir? George?
12 MR. GIRROIR: Good evening. My name is 13 Dennis Girroir. I will try to keep it simple and 14 relatively brief. This is pretty familiar to me here.
15 Tom Salmon is pretty familiar. I'm a Vermont Yankee 16 employee for better than 30 years, almost like Bernie 17 Buteau is. But my roots are here in Brattleboro. I 18 was born in this town, frequented this theater, 19 graduated from the local schools here, and never 20 really left. Came back after going off to school.
21 I know the area exceptionally well; 22 intimately. I grew up north of here. I raised a 23 family a little bit south of here, all within the EPZ.
24 I've observed how the environment has changed over the 25 last 50 years.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
120 1 In many areas it hasn't changed at all.
2 In many areas it's quite improved. Being down in 3 Vernon, working for Entergy, I've watched how we've 4 conducted business down there and the effect on the 5 very local environment down there, the changes taking 6 place and the effect on the plant.
7 I've watched as we've operated very, very 8 well, and have witnessed the very, very exceptional 9 operation we have down there.
10 I see the impact on me personally, the 11 impact on my family and friends, and my peers.
12 I look at the overall impact of Vermont 13 Yankee, environmentally, economically, and very 14 personally, and I've got some pretty significant 15 observations over the last 30-35 years, and I'm still 16 waiting to identify one that is truly negative, truly 17 negatively impacting all of us. All of us. My 18 family, my friends, all of you, and me, personally.
19 I don't plan on leaving this area. I love this area.
20 This is home. It's beautiful everywhere but it's 21 really beautiful to me here, and because of that, I 22 have that very vested interest.
23 I'm very much in favor of alternate 24 powers, power generation. I'm very much in favor of 25 conservation. I'm very much in favor of acknowledging NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
121 1 reality, and the reality is that Vermont Yankee has a 2 very, very positive influence on this area, and all of 3 us. I need this continued operation of Vermont Yankee 4 for myself, for my children that are grown now, and 5 most certainly for my grandchildren. I thank you 6 very much.
7 MR. CAMERON: Thank you; thank you, 8 Dennis. Is Emma Stamas? And then we'll go to George 9 Iselin and Michael LaPorte. This is Emma.
10 MS. STAMAS: I'm a citizen of this area, 11 actually in Massachusetts, I live just outside the ten 12 mile limit, and I know dozens of farmers, retired 13 people, students that live in that area, some within 14 the ten mile limit, that are very concerned about 15 allowing the plant to have its life extended even five 16 more years, let alone twenty.
17 And the reason is this. If I had been 18 driving a car for 32 years, which is the life of this 19 plant, and I had never had an accident, would that 20 mean that over the next five, ten, fifteen, twenty 21 years, you could guarantee that that same car would 22 drive me safely through life without a single mishap 23 or accident? I do not think that we are being very 24 logical if we think that our technology is so 25 wonderful, that we can stand here and say we are not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1 gonna have any problems over the next 20 years, 2 because we know exactly what we're doing, how we're 3 going to present any kind of crack or malfunction from 4 developing into something more serious.
5 I don't think any of you could make that 6 bet, that I'm gonna be fine in my 32 year old car for 7 the next 20 years, and we're all sitting here betting, 8 if we approve this plant to be, have its license 9 extended for 20 years, we'll all making that bet, not 10 just with my life but with the lives of every single 11 citizen, child, mother, father, whatever, and every 12 plant and animal that lives in this area.
13 We're making that bet, and I think that 14 that's a foolish bet because I think we're not so 15 dumb, that we're willing to take that risk, and I also 16 think we're not so dumb that we can't create better 17 technologies, safer technologies, other than 18 continuing to rely on fossil fuels and nuclear power 19 and all the old standbys that we've continued to try 20 to pretend are our only choices.
21 We have lots of choices to make, lots of 22 decisions to make, and they can create jobs, they can 23 create energy, they can create a better life for the 24 future inhabitants of this region.
25 If we're so smart to create this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123 1 technology, so well, that we can be positive it's 2 gonna be safe over the next 20 years, why aren't we 3 smart enough to make it better, to create safer 4 nuclear power plants with safer designs, and to close 5 those that are no longer capable of operating safely?
6 And why aren't we capable of beginning to 7 create more wind and solar and conservation 8 technologies that could create immediate jobs for many 9 more people who wouldn't have to be as highly educated 10 as the people who build nuclear power plants or 11 decommission them?
12 I don't think we are so dumb, that we have 13 to sit here and listen to, oh, the plant has worked 14 great for 32 years, and believe that we're never going 15 to have any problems in the future.
16 I think we're smarter than that and I 17 think we can do better than that, and I think that in 18 every meeting that the NRC is a part of, they had 19 better rethink who they're working for and start 20 thinking about the children and grandchildren who are 21 going to have to get out of this technology of nuclear 22 energy and nuclear waste proliferation, and get into 23 something safer and more sustainable.
24 And I ask everyone to go home and urge 25 people to write letters, those of you who left early, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
124 1 or those that know people who left early, write 2 letters, get them in by June 23rd, make your comments 3 known.
4 This isn't about, oh, the plant is great, 5 let's just continue it. It's about a lot more than 6 that. Thank you.
7 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Emma.
8 George Iselin, Michael LaPorte, and 9 Sherry? Okay. This is Mr. Iselin? Okay; great.
10 MR. ISELIN: We live just 17 miles 11 downwind of the nuclear plant. Anyways, I'm concerned 12 mainly about the effects of waste storage of the 13 nuclear industry not having any known way to not have 14 to have this material guarded for, virtually forever.
15 And the dry cask storage, the new way of storing it, 16 isn't something that's really viable to continue 17 renewing and guarding for the next 250,000 years, and 18 it's being stored in an unstable situation.
19 The cement pad it sits on has a geologic 20 formation that's virtually mud underneath it, and it's 21 on the edge of a river, and this is considered the 22 solution.
23 Meanwhile, we have the problem of re-24 racked spent fuel storage. Anyway, I think the 25 solution, even better than soft-path technology of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
125 1 windmills and solar and photovoltaics, which we need, 2 is conservation.
3 Like Clay said about the incandescent 4 lights, if anyone's flown in an airplane at night down 5 on the Eastern seaboard, just the streetlights alone, 6 that we don't need to keep burning everywhere. I 7 mean, certainly it's nice to have some in the inner 8 city for safety, but there's just so much lifestyle 9 change that we need, like mainly outfitting our own 10 homes to be energy efficient.
11 And get away from the economics of 12 centralized power, which these large power stations 13 lend themselves to, get more into diversified means of 14 sustaining ourselves.
15 Anyway, I think that the main issue is 16 whether we are gonna let this outfit produce more 17 waste, contributing hot water to the rivers, and 18 things that actually do contribute to the global 19 warming, and we need to decide whether it's suicidal, 20 actually murderous, to allow these wastes to be put on 21 to future generations. Thank you.
22 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Mr. Iselin.
23 Is Mr. LaPorte here? we're going to go to 24 Sherry and then we're going to go to Gary Sachs.
25 Sherry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
126 1 MS. ZABRISKIE: Hello. I'm Sherry 2 Zabriskie. I live in Guilford, Vermont. I've come to 3 many hearings regarding the sale of Vermont Yankee, 4 the operator, the license extension. I feel like I've 5 spoken many times against nuclear power and I'm at the 6 point where I feel like nobody's listening as far as 7 Vermont Yankee or Entergy.
8 The government, the NRC for sure. And so 9 I'm not here to speak to those people. I'm here to 10 speak to the people. I feel like it's time--it's 11 wonderful when ten people get arrested protesting 12 here, and five people on Tuesday got arrested, 13 standing up for what we believe in. But we know that 14 this is not clean, there's no answer for the waste.
15 You know Vermonters don't want this. We know there's 16 other answers.
17 I, for one, live off the grid. I don't 18 rely on this power, we don't need it, and like Clay 19 said, 75 percent of Vermonters know this, and we can 20 move on.
21 So what I'm here to say is it's time for 22 us to gather as the masses, people, like a thousand of 23 us at the same time, in the same place, to stand at 24 Vermont Yankee's doors or wherever. I don't know what 25 the answer is but let's make a date with thousands of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127 1 us, because I know, personally, hundreds of people in 2 this community that are fed up, that don't want this.
3 So let's get together. Let's make a date 4 with thousands of people. I don't know where we're 5 gonna be but we're gonna like block the road at the 6 power plant, or something, for days, and stand 7 together, until they're willing to sign something 8 saying they'll close, at least in 2012.
9 It takes massive--like in the sixties, or 10 whatever--it takes us altogether at the same place, at 11 the same time, to say we don't want this, and stand 12 together. I know Citizens Awareness Network gets 13 together every other Thursday night at Greenfield's 14 Market in Greenfield, Mass., 5:30 tomorrow night.
15 5:30, they have a meeting and it happens every other 16 Thursday.
17 And I don't go. I send them money and I 18 get their newsletter, but I'm fed up and I'm ready for 19 us all, hundreds, thousands of us to be at the same 20 place at the same time, to be strong together at once.
21 So let's do it, people. I'm going tomorrow night, 22 5:30, Greenfield. That's it. Thanks.
23 MR. CAMERON: All right. Thank you.
24 Gary. Is Gary still here? Here he is.
25 Gary Sachs.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
128 1 MR. SACHS: Well, I'm gonna briefly 2 respond to the woman from the Vermont Business 3 Partnership who spoke earlier and mentioned the 4 Department of Public Service, and how they said how 5 much money we would lose if Vermont Yankee were to 6 close.
7 So let's take Commissioner David O'Brien 8 who's the head of the state department of Public 9 Service. He put a $60 million figure on the cost that 10 would come to Vermont ratepayers if VY closed in 2008.
11 Vermont Yankee provides roughly 250 megawatts to 12 Vermont. That represents one-third of our Vermont 13 total energy demand, which is about 750 megawatts.
14 A recent PSB study determined that energy 15 efficiency measures could reduce Vermont's total 16 electricity use by 20 percent, or 150 megawatts.
17 Let's apply that savings to what VY provides. Then 18 we'd reduce the amount of power needed to replace VY 19 to 100 megawatts. That's 250 minus 150.
20 If it would cost Vermont 60 million bucks 21 to replace the 250 megawatts over four years, it would 22 cost us 40 percent of that or $24 million to replace 23 the 100 megawatts that would remain, if we implemented 24 all the efficiency measures we could.
25 Now we're down to $24 million. Spread NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
129 1 that over four years. That's $6 million a year, 2 divided by 250,000 households in Vermont, and the 3 increase in each household's electricity bill for the 4 entire year would be roughly $24.00. That's not even 5 considering the contribution from industrial and 6 commercial users.
7 That doesn't sound like a lot of money to 8 invest in freeing Vermont from this role in the 9 production of hundreds of tons and millions, hundreds 10 of tons of radioactive waste, millions of curies of 11 deadly nuclear substances created by the Vermont 12 Yankee nuclear reactor, stored on the banks of the 13 Connecticut River. It doesn't sound like a lotta 14 money to spend to get rid of Vermont Yankee.
15 Now I'm gonna repeat what I said earlier 16 today for the few of you who are left in this 17 evening's event. Richard Monson, Harvard School of 18 Public Health, stated: "The scientific research base 19 shows that there is no threshold below which low 20 levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be 21 harmless or beneficial."
22 There is no threshold below which low 23 levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be 24 harmless or beneficial. The health risks, 25 particularly the development of solid cancers in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
130 1 organs, rise proportionally with exposure.
2 At low doses of radiation, the risk of 3 inducing solid cancers is very small. Low doses. It 4 sounds like what the NRC was giving me earlier in 5 tonight's case.
6 As the overall lifetime exposure 7 increases, so does the risk. Every nuclear reactor 8 emits small amounts of radiation, even so-called zero 9 emission reactors.
10 3-29-2004 was two days before the NRC 11 arrived in Vernon, when they came to inform us that 12 they would not be performing the independent 13 engineering assessment which had been considered a 14 requirement on the proposed uprate by the Vermont 15 Public Service Board, the state's regulatory body.
16 5-4 of 04, the NRC changed its tune and 17 announced that it had long been planning such an 18 independent engineering assessment. They must have 19 been planning it since at least March 15th.
20 You, the NRC, say that Three Mile Island 21 was a wake-up call for the industry. That was March 22 28th, 1979. That is the same year the NRC publicly 23 stated there was no such thing as a safe amount of 24 radiation.
25 Since 1979, these are some of the events.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
131 1 February 11th, 1981, Tennessee Valley 2 Authority's Sequoia One Plant in Tennessee, a rookie 3 operator caused a 110,000 gallon radioactive coolant 4 release.
5 February 25th 1982. The Ginna Plant near 6 Rochester, New York. Its steam generator pipe broke, 7 15,000 gallons of radioactive coolant spilled, small 8 amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.
9 January 15th and 16th, 1983, the Browns 10 Ferry Station, nearly 208,000 gallons of low-level 11 radioactive contaminated water was accidentally dumped 12 into the Tennessee River.
13 1981, 1982, and 1983, Salem One and Two in 14 New Jersey, 90 seconds from catastrophe when the plant 15 was shut down manually, after the failure of an 16 automatic shutdown system. A 3000 gallon radioactive 17 water leak in June of '81, a 23,000 gallon leak of 18 mildly radioactive water, which did splash on to 16 19 workers in February of '82, and radioactive gas leaks 20 in March of '81 and September of '82.
21 Let's go to 1996. NRC Chairperson Shirley 22 Jackson, speaking of Millstone in Time magazine.
23 Quote. "Clearly the NRC dropped the ball. We won't 24 do it again." End quote.
25 1997. Yankee Row, 20 miles from here, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
132 1 roughly, out west, was closed. It's in Rome, 2 Massachusetts. The NRC had allowed Yankee Row to dump 3 radiation, for about 30 years, into the Deerfield 4 River.
5 February 15th, 2000, New York's Indian 6 Point Two, aging steam generator rupture, venting 7 radioactive steam. The NRC initially reported no 8 radioactive material to have been released. Later, 9 they changed their report to say that there was a 10 leak, oh, yes, but not enough to threaten public 11 safety.
12 2004. New NRC Chairman Nils Diaz, about 13 Davis Besse, said--catch this--"The agency," quote, 14 unquote, "dropped the ball," end quote. Again. Hmm.
15 I thought you said it wouldn't happen again. I guess 16 it did. Accidents do happen. That's our NRC.
17 If Three Mile Island was a wake-up call, 18 what exactly was happening at Davis Besse? I do, I 19 would like to know that. Oh, so here we are in an NRC 20 meeting. The environmental impact of Vermont Yankee.
21 We have virtually an ineffective evacuation plan, 22 untested in its entirety. What about those people 23 without vehicles? What about day care centers and all 24 the schools together? What about the transient hotel 25 guests?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
133 1 A worst-case scenario accident at VY would 2 lead to an area the size of western Mass., Vermont, 3 and New Hampshire being uninhabitable for possibly 30 4 years or more.
5 The plumes, from the National Oceanic and 6 Atmospheric Administration, shows plumes going as far 7 north as deep into Canada. That's over Montpelier.
8 As far south as deep into North Carolina and as far 9 east as over Cape Cod, into the ocean.
10 Then in 2001, on top of that, there's 11 this, something called an Operational Safety Response 12 Evaluation. This was just a test--Operational Safety 13 Response Evaluation test. It occurred about a month 14 before 9/11. In this test, the NRC would stage mock 15 attackers to test the security of nuclear reactors.
16 They came up here to Vermont Yankee and they let the 17 security system at VY know where the people would be 18 attacking from, when they'd be attacking.
19 But that of course is to make sure that if 20 there were some real attacks at the same time, the 21 security agents would know. That's not what they 22 said. So they knew the whereabouts of where these 23 attackers were coming from.
24 And the test was to make sure that the 25 attackers could not get into the control room.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
134 1 Obviously, stop them at the fence line would be the 2 logical thing to do.
3 Vermont Yankee failed. Oh, I'm sorry.
4 The NRC doesn't use that word. I think there's some 5 jargonistic terminology, I can't get my grip around.
6 They certainly had a low security rating on that one.
7 So the mock attackers were able to enter 8 the control room, and VY, one of the least secure 9 nuclear stations in the country--notoriety.
10 Around Vermont Yankee, numerous engineers 11 looked at me and said after 9/11, we fortified our 12 security, we invested $8 million into our security 13 system. Well, here's a question for an environmental 14 impact. Has anybody, any other reactors invested 15 after 9/11? Did everybody have to invest $8 million?
16 And if that is the case, let's say that's a given--if 17 everybody's adding $8 million to their security 18 systems but yet VY was already behind the eight ball, 19 where does that put us today?
20 I think we're still behind the eight ball because we 21 saw the same amount invested.
22 I wonder if the fact that there have been 23 no legislators to speak here tonight, speaks to the 24 futility of this event.
25 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 1 Larry Lukens. I live in Vernon, in the emergency 2 planning zone, and I work at Vermont Yankee. We've 3 heard a lot tonight, there've been a lot of really 4 eloquent speakers. I'm not going to try to match 5 that.
6 This is about the scoping for the 7 environmental review, as I understand it, and we've 8 heard a lot of things that weren't really about the 9 environment. One of the tests says, I recall from the 10 slide, is that NRC has to look at environmental 11 effects and determine whether these environmental 12 effects constitute a new and significant change in 13 things that have already been evaluated.
14 I haven't heard anything tonight that says 15 there's anything new and significant. Actually, I 16 haven't heard anything new, and I haven't heard 17 anything that sounds significant.
18 We have met all the requirements. We have 19 exceeded many of them. We continue to meet the 20 environmental requirements. We continue to be, as 21 John Dreyfus said, good stewards of our environment.
22 This plant emits no carbon dioxide. In fact it emits 23 nothing that would be considered a hazard. We don't 24 emit radioactivity.
25 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
136 1 have, as far as I can tell, not raised a substantive 2 issue that identifies a new or significant 3 environmental impact that would be an obstacle to the 4 renewal of this plant's license.
5 Thank you.
6 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
7 Lukens.
8 Joan, and then we have Beth, and is there 9 a Mr. Bosquet, Paul Bosquet? Okay.
10 Joan, thank you, and then Beth, and then 11 I'm going to ask Frank Gillespie to close out the 12 meeting for us.
13 MS. HORMAN: I'm just a concerned citizen 14 and I'm here in the interest of safety, as I hope we 15 all are. I don't want to talk to you as a group or 16 corporation but as people, people who have a choice in 17 how we will proceed in a world that often has 18 conflicting interests.
19 Although I value my comfort and the ease 20 nuclear power provides, my concern about our safety 21 and the safety of our future generations brings me 22 here.
23 It is easy to slip into denial, or pray to 24 God to take care of our problems. What is more 25 difficult is to take responsibilities for what we, as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137 1 a group, and as individuals, are doing.
2 At what point do we take responsibilities 3 for the damage we are doing with nuclear energy and 4 radiation? At what point do we say to ourselves, that 5 we have gone too far, and that this is not about 6 profit or power or comfort but about safety for us, 7 our world, and its future?
8 Do we want to risk another Chernobyl, or 9 another Three Mile Island? Safety is defined as a 10 state of being safe, freedom from injury or damage, 11 the quality of ensuring against hurt, injury, danger 12 or risk, or the state of being protected from harm.
13 Do we want to risk our safety with toxic 14 nuclear byproducts that jeopardize our future 15 generations and ourselves? Please. I hope you can 16 take a moment and hear me from my heart to your heart, 17 and then act from that place.
18 Do our personal comforts, and your 19 profits, justify the risk of proceeding with nuclear 20 power, particularly at this staging facility? Thank 21 you.
22 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Joan.
23 Beth, would you like to come up.
24 BETH: Hi there. Thank you very much for 25 holding this public comment session 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
138 1 I am a citizen of, a new citizen, 2 actually, of Greenfield. I moved from Maine, where I 3 lived eight years, and prior to that I lived in 4 Princeton, Massachusetts, for 18 years, and just going 5 back to the beginning of my time in Massachusetts, in 6 18 years in Princeton, all those years we have a 7 windmill, thanks to the citizens of that town, and 8 they've now decided to improve on the windmill that 9 has been there, and it has provided well for, without 10 any pollution at all, for 30 percent of the energy 11 needed for that community.
12 And I believe they're adding another 13 windmill. I'm not sure of the statistics. But I then 14 went to Maine. Maine got rid of its nuclear power 15 plant, Maine Yankee, I'm not sure what year, and the 16 governor of Maine has led the people that work for the 17 government to create a plan, a 50-point plan of 18 creating renewable energies in the state of Maine.
19 They're encouraging cities and towns to 20 develop renewable energies that they will market 21 elsewhere, that universities can use, that can provide 22 jobs for people, that can be safe and viable for the 23 next generations.
24 Why don't we go that direction? I 25 attended a recent conference at Smith College at which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
139 1 there was all different kinds of renewables presented, 2 and for the first time, I found out about geothermal 3 energy and that people in Massachusetts, at least 4 there, I'm not sure about Vermont or anywhere else, 5 are utilizing geothermal energy for commercial 6 buildings as well as residential properties, either by 7 going straight down to the center of the Earth, not 8 the center, but down where it's hotter than it is on 9 the surface--I'm not sure how many feet down you have 10 to go--but going straight down or else spreading out 11 along a piece of land next to your building and 12 creating energy right from the Earth itself, with of 13 course no pollutants in that process at all.
14 I believe that this problem of renewables 15 has to be regional and that we do need to contact our 16 legislators and take actions in our cities and towns, 17 and together that we can change the dependence on 18 nuclear and fossil fuels, and gas that have caused 19 such terrible devastation all over the world and in 20 our own communities.
21 I was a nuclear activist back in 1979, in 22 Princeton. We were asking the same questions then 23 that we're asking the NRC now, and that is, why 24 produce power when you don't know what to do with the 25 waste? When you don't know what to do with the waste.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
140 1 When you don't know what to do with the waste. When 2 the waste, now, has become subject to the possibility 3 of a terrorist attack.
4 We can do better than this. We can join 5 together and do better than this, and I think we 6 should and I think this plant should be closed as soon 7 as possible, and that planned into the closing of it 8 should be planning for jobs for the people that have 9 worked so well at Vermont Yankee.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Beth.
12 I'm going to ask Frank Gillespie, who's 13 the director of the Division of License Renewal to 14 close the meeting for us, and I think he has some 15 important things to say to all of you.
16 Frank.
17 MR. GILLESPIE: I think besides thanking 18 the few that have struggled through, the people I 19 really wanted to thank actually had to leave early, 20 and that's people who exercised the system from the 21 first day we came out here.
22 We got three sets of petition with 23 contentions from the state of Vermont, state of 24 Massachusetts, and from the New England Coalition, and 25 it actually is gratifying, as hard as this may sound, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
141 1 to see people actually exercise a system where we came 2 out and talked to these people and talked to the 3 governments, way before the application even came in, 4 to make sure that they were fully aware and had full 5 knowledge of what was going on, to make the time frame 6 to get those contentions in. Which leads me to 7 tonight's meeting.
8 Please give us your comments after this 9 meeting, in writing. We've got them on a transcript, 10 we'll try to pick them out, and I think I got two 11 things from this. Besides the concerns of the 12 citizens who came to talk is also potentially the 13 NRC's ability to communicate why we do what we do, to 14 some extent.
15 Questions on the BEIR VII report, we've 16 looked, as an agency, at the BEIR VII report, and done 17 written evaluations on it.
18 Obviously you haven't read those written 19 evaluations, but that's not your fault, if we hadn't 20 made them available. So in answering some of the 21 questions, I think we're going to have to string 22 together these references. We may not agree, but all 23 we can do is at least understand and see the basis for 24 why we're coming to those conclusions we come to.
25 So we may not get to agreement but we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
142 1 should at least achieve understanding and read each 2 other's justification and backgrounds.
3 So with that, thank you for the about 4 twenty people who are still left in the room. Yeah?
5 PARTICIPANT: (speaking from an un-miced 6 location) 7 MR. GILLESPIE: Okay. It'll be sent out, 8 but how is it available to him?
9 MR. EMCH: I got it. First, it'll be on 10 our Web site, or it'll be in the ADAMS, but the other 11 thing is, we'll make copies available, we'll send it 12 out to anybody. If you're interested in us sending it 13 to you, we can do that. If you give us your address, 14 you gave us your address when you signed in. If you 15 send me an e-mail or whatever, and I'll make sure that 16 you get it. But it will be publicly available through 17 the NRC's Web site.
18 PARTICIPANT: (speaking from an un-miced 19 location) 20 MR. EMCH: RLE@NRC.gov.
21 PARTICIPANT: (speaking from an un-miced 22 location) 23 MR. CAMERON: We're going to have to go on 24 the transcript; okay.
25 PARTICIPANT: (speaking from an un-miced NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
143 1 location) 2 MR. CAMERON: You want to close. Let's 3 close down and you guys can talk.
4 MR. EMCH: I'll talk to you, sir.
5 MR. CAMERON: Yeah; he can let you know.
6 Okay. With that, thank you very much, everybody.
7 [Whereupon, at 10:36 p.m., the proceedings 8 was closed.]
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
DART W. EVERETT 41 Sycamore St., Brattleboro, VT 05301 802-254-9258 deverettosover.net 802-257-2627 FAX TO: Nuclear Regulatory Commission DATE: June 7, 2006 FROM: Dart W. Everett It is estimated that by mid-century, the world will require a doubling of the current worldwide energy demand of 14 terawatts of power. To achieve this demand will require the equivalent of one 1,000 megawatt power plant going on line every day for nearly 38 years (article from Discover, February 2005, pp 16-17 attached).
Although I assume the initial mandate to the NRC regarding environmental issues 30 to 40 years ago concerned the rather micro impact, that is of a limited area surrounding a nuclear plant, certainly now the issue is equally the global concern of greenhouse gasses, foremost carbon dioxide.
I am not an expert. i am a concerned citizen, concerned about the future of energy for the State of Vermont, the future energy requirement for the world and the environmental impact the sources of that energy will have.
Dr. Arthur Westing, a resident of Putney, VT, 10 miles up the road, is an expert. He has served On the faculty of, or been a research fellow at several education institutions; including Harvard University and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, served as the director of the United Nations Environmental Programme project on 'Peace, Security, & the Environment," and is the author of many articles and books on the environment. At the moment, Dr. Westing is in Sweden. He told me he wished he could be here to testify on the importance of Vermont Yankee to the energy future of Vermont, and give his wholehearted support to the relicensing. I am submitting an e-mail from Dr. Westing to me giving me the authority to give you two letters he has written on energy and environmental issues, as well as his resume'-. His latest letter cites a British report on The Role of Nuclear Poserin a Low Carbon Economy which he uses to calculate the impacts shown on the following page.
Thank you for beginning this lengthy process for the relicensing of the Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant. I hope the evidence supports a positive decision.
C0 2 PRODUCTION FROM VARIOUS SOURCES OF POWER Kilograms of CO 2 per, kiloWatt -of Electricity for "Cradle-to-Grave" Or a full production cycle COAL 8 NATURAL GAS 356 PHOTO-VOLTAICS 50 WIND" 16 NUCLEAR 16 Source:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
DISCOVER DIALOGUE chemist nck smalley I interviewed by edward rosenfeld A Chemist's Plan to Save Planet Earth
'We are used to a world where we are
'rich inenergy, driven by low-cost oil: -
That will not go on for much longer' f
RICK SMALLEY SIARED THE NOBEL PRIZE IN Chemistry in 1996 for his pioneering re-search in nanotechnology. He discovered carbon 60, which he named buckminster-fullerene-buckyballs for short--because the molecule carries the structure of geo-desic domes created by Buckminster Fuller. Buckyballs have led to the devel-opment of carbon nanotubes, used in
- many contemporary developments in nanotechnology. Smalley, who teaches at Rice University in Houston, is using his Nobel Prize as a bully pulpit to dis-cuss energy, an issue he calls the most important problem facing humanity.
What is the energy problem, and why are you, a chemistry professor, so concerned about it?
S: The core of the energy problem is that we have a lot more people on this planet than we used to have. Right now most of the billions of people In Why are you the right person to take this on? ment and ultimately replace oil, natural gas, and the underdeveloped world are not consuming en- S: The answer to these problems has to come out *eventually coal. Wts a huge enterprise. Worldwide, ergy at any significant rate, yet they certainly will of the physical sciences and engineering. IfI can't energy is a $3-trillion-a-year operation, twice the as time goes on. Either we find a way of enabling see the answer, who can? " - size of global agriculture and four or five times larger energy prosperity for everyone on this planet, or than all the world's military expenses.
we will inherit a plague of troubles. Why don't more people seem to care about this? What about the energy companies?
Such as? S: Cheap oil. Our biggest problem for the past 20 S: Many people working in the big energy com-S: Prosperity Is determined by the abundance, years has been low oil prices. panies have great hopes that there are vast re-quality, and cost of energy. We are used to liv- sources of natural gas around the planet that will Ing In a world where we are incredibly rich in Do you think it will require another keep us going for many decades, I share their energy, driven primarily by low-cost oil. That will shocking event like the 1970s oil crisis? hope, but I believe it is wishful thinking.
not go on for much longer. It cannot because S: I'm afraid it will. Ihave dedicated much of my time rapid economic development in China, India, and to trying to bring this issue to the top of the agenda, So where should research be focused now?.
Africa, combined with Increasing demand for hoping that the Bush administration would realize S: One area is in the transmission and storage of fuel in the developed world will soon outpace the political poetry of launching a grand new chal- electrical energy. It would be transforming to have worldwide oil production. lenge to solve the energy problem. If that doesn't much more efficient electrical energy transport by happen, then we will have to wait for events to bring wire over continental distances in hundreds of giga-What will happen as energy costs climb? this issue to a raging crisis. watts, It would also be transforming to have elec-S:The cost of energy going up will cause pros- trical energy storage on a vast scale. I believe it's perity to go down. There will be inflation as billions What should we be doing? best to do this locally in our houses and small busi-of people compete for insufficient resources. There S: We should concentrate on finding a new energy nesses. We need to be able to pull electrical power will be famine. There will be terrorism and war. resource and a new energy infrastructure to aug- off the grid when it is cheapest and tuck it away 16 DISCOVER FEBRUARY 2005
01-1 somewhere so that it is available for use later, program, we can have the necessary enabling sci- inthe 1980s. The challenge we face is to provide whenever that home or business needs it. Long- entific discoveries-little miracles and big mira- for a doubling of worldwide energy production by distance electricaf power transfer would allow pri- cles-within the next 10 to 15 years. midcentury. Right now the world runs on about mary energy producers to market their energy 14 terawatts of power, the equivalent of 220 mil-thousands of miles away. Imagine vast solar farms Solar doesn't work very well now. - lion barrels of oil per day. By midcentury, most inthe deserts. You know, Ifyou look at the planet, Why are you so keen for t?. analysts agree you have to at least double that to Virtually every continent has deserts. Those deserts S: ifyou survey the sources for primary energy at more than 440 million barrels of oil equivalent per have tremendous energy resources inthe form of the massive scale that we're going to need, there day, or 28 terawatts.
sunlight Even if we find a way of generating the are only a few places you can find energy of that electricity, you've got to transport that energy from magnitude. Nuclear fission power plants, if you Can we do that?.
the deserts, where people don't live, to other places were willing to have thousands of breeder reac- S: Not by burning things that put C02 into the at-AN Z .- -. *
'Carbon nanotubes are capable of 1 handling incredible levels of electrical current, as much as a billion amps per square centimeter' on the continents where they do live, and you've tors around the world, would be perfectly ade- mosphere--too much risk to the planet. What we got to shift the time when the energy is available. quate. Hydrogen fusion would be perfectly ade- need is clean energy that is cheap enough to per-I'm confident that the best answer is going to be quate. Both are probably going to be too expensive, mit the development of India, China, sub-Saharan enabled by nanotechnology. but we ought to push them anyway. Africa, and South America. We need it at no more than three cents a kilowatt hour. IfI knew how to What can nanotechnology do? Can any other energy sources help us until do that now, and I turned on one such new car-S: Lets talk first about transmission. The angle I've we develop solar better? bon-free 1,000-megawatt power plant tomorrow, been devoting my efforts to is a new kind of con- S: Coal. But we cannot bum coal much longer with- and then the next day another plant and the next ducting cable made of what are called armchair out somehow sequestering the resultant C0. Un- day another plant, I would have to do that for 27 quantum wires: single-walled carbon nanotubes fortunately, I doubt that we will ever be able to do years each and every day in order to just get 10
[buckytubes] with a particular structure. These are that on a global scale ina praclical, reliable way at more terawatts. And we need more than that quantum wave guides for electrons. I am confi- the required rate of tens of billions of tons per year, dent overtime we will be able to find new ways year after year. That sends us right back to solar. It seems hopeless....
of spinning continuous cables using such tech- There is thousands of times more solar hitting the S: Addressing this challenge will be good for us.
nology. This approach could yield cables with the earth than we will need to power 10 billion people. Even if we fail to find the miracles that allow us conductivity of copper but with a strength greater The only way to do it cheaply is with photovoltaics to make and then transport hundreds of gigawatts than steel at one-sixth the weight Carbon nano- or a photocatalytic agent that isas cheap as paint, of power over 3,000 miles at pennies per kilowatt-tubes are capable of handling incredible levels of There's a lot of buzz around about nano entities that hour, and even if we can never find photovoltaics electrical current, as much as a billion amps per can be coated onto photovoltaic films cheaply. that are as cheap as dirt, the enterprise of trying square centimeter. That's compared with conven- to do it will push our science and our engineering tional cabling material, which can carry only a cou- So research dollars should go to solar first? so far forward that we'll generate a cornucopia of ple thousand amps per square cenlimetei Instorage, S: Yes, together with electricdl power transmission unexpected new technologies that will be the ba-our hope is to develop new batteries. The chem- and local storage. We ought to stomp on it. I real- sis of vast new industries.
istry of batteries needs to be improved at the nano Ize that we'll need miracles to get there, and we level and brought up to the macro level. The best can't guarantee that all those miracles are possi- What will inspire us to do It?
candidates include buckytubes in lithium ion bat- ble within the laws of physics and chemistry as S: Presidential leadership. Apresident could inspire teries, flow cells, and hydrogen fuel cells. we now know them, but Ihave faith that somehow a new generation of scientists and engineers, a new we will find a way to make it work. Sputnik generaton that would be of tremendous How far away are we from being able to benefit to this country and to the world. This bold store and transmit energy these ways? How much time do you think we have? new enterprise would be good business, good pol-S: I believe if we launch a major national research S: Well, we should have dealt with all of this back itics, and most important, good for the soul. E]
PHOTOGRAPHS BY BETH PERKINS DISCOVER FEBRUARY 2005 17
In Page 1of1 From: "Westing" <westing@sover.net>
To: "Dart W. Everett" <deverett@sover.net>
Subject:
Energy matters Dr Arthur H. Westing Westing Associates in Environment, Security, & Education 134 Fred Houghton Rd; Putney, VT 05346; USA T&F: 1-802-387-2152; E: westing@sover.net
Dear Dart,
Thank you for your call of this morning. As requested, attached (in WordPerfect) you will find three items: (1) My very recent letter on global warming and C02 (Brattleboro Reformer, 1 Jun 06); (2) My earlier letter on electricity for Vermont (Brattlebor Reformer, 22-23 Mar 03); and (3) a brief Vermont-oriented bio.
As requested, you are welcome to submit these on my behalf to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or similar Vermont energy-related hearings and meetings.
I shall be out of town and unreachable from 4 to 24 June.
Sincerely yours, Arthur AHW blurb 13 (Local).wpd ms - Electrical op-ed.wpd Ltr - C02.wpd Printed for Dart Everett <deverett(),sover.net> 6/3/2006
WESTING ASSOCIATES IN ENVIRONMENT, SECURITY, & EDUCATION 134 Fred Houghton Rd Putney, VT 05346 USA ARTHUR H. WESTING, M.F., Ph.D. 1/802-387-2152 (ph. & fax)
CAROL E. WESTING, M.Ed. '.westing@sover.net' ARTHUR H. WESTING - BIOGRAPHY Westing's undergraduate training was in botany (Columbia, AB, 1950). After two years in the United States Marine Corps (serving asan artillery officer in the Korean War) he became a forest ecologist (Yale, MF, 1954; PhD, 1959). He has been a Research Forester with the United States Forest Service, has taught forestry, ecology, and conservation at various colleges and,:.
universities, has twice been a Research Fellow at Harvard, and has been a Senior Researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the Peace Research Institute Oslo. For eight years he directed the United Nations Environment Programme project on.'Peace, Security, & the Environment', a position which took him to many countries throughout the world; and is the author of numerous articles and several books in that subject area..
Westing has been on the faculty of the European Peace University, a member of the World -
Conservation Union (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas, Vice-President of the International Society of Naturalists (INSONA), and also a member of or advisor to a number of other international environmental nongovernmental organizations and scholarly journals. He has been awarded an honorary doctorate (DSc, Windham, 1973) and a medal from the New"York Academy of Sciences (1983); and he is one of the 500 individuals worldwide to have been appointed to the United Nations 'Global 500 Roll of Honour' (1990). He has been a Consultant in Environmental Security since 1990, variously to the World Bank, UNEP, UNIDIR, and UNESCO, to the International Committee of the Red Cross, to the International Organization for Migration, the Government of Eritrea, and to several other national and international agencies.
Westing moved to Vermont in 1965, and has been on the faculties of Middlebury and Windham Colleges, and an outside examiner at Marlboro College. He has served on the Governor's Environmental Control Advisory Committee, has been a Contributing Editor of the Vermont Freeman, and on the statewide Boards of the Vermont Wild Land Foundation, Vermont Academy of Arts & Sciences, and Vermont Coverts. Locally he has served on the Boards of the Windham Regional Commission, Windham World Affairs Council, Brattleboro Museum & Art Center, Woodland Owners' Association, and Windmill Hill Pinnacle Association.
-AHW/060603
- - E
ELECTRICITY FOR VERMONT Arthur H. Westing Putney (20 March 2003)
According to the Vermont Department of Public Service, roughly 40% of Vermont's electricity currently derives from hydro-power, 35% from nuclear power, 15% from fossil fuels, and 5% from wood (the remaining 5% being imported with source unspecified). Wind and solar power currently contribute negligible amounts to Vermont's electricity (each under 0. 1%).
Moreover, the use of electricity in Vermont has in recent decades been rising quite steadily -
since 1980 at the rate of about 2.6% per year, and the State projects that this trend will continue.
In this regard it is important to note that the increase in electrical use has been three times as rapid as Vermont's increase in population during that same period.
Various of my friends and acquaintances in the area are outspoken in their opposition to nuclear power plants, and seem baffled that I do not join them in their anti-nuclear activities.
There is no denying that a nuclear power plant has a risk associated with it, namely the exceedingly remote possibility of catastrophic releases to its surrounding area of airborne radioactive contamination, either from faulty operation or malicious act. However, under normal operation the radioactive releases of a nuclear power plant are below those of a fossil fuel plant (especially so when coal is used, which generally contains more thorium and uranium than oil);
and its contributions to greenhouse gases and immediately dangerous air pollutants are virtually non-existent. In terms of the energy obtained, uranium mining is orders of magnitude less environmentally intrusive than coal mining or oil extraction. The ultimate disposal of spent fuel and other radioactive wastes does present a problem that remains to be solved to complete satisfaction, presumably by a combination of reprocessing and burial at some remote and tectonically stable site, either in this country or elsewhere.
By contrast, the use of fossil fuels inevitably results in huge ongoing insults to the human and natural environments in, at least two major forms: acid precipitation and greenhouse gases.
The former seriously debilitates our terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and the latter is a major contributor to the global warming that is on its way to becoming the ultimate insult to both the global biosphere and global sociosphere. Moreover, the oil (which now accounts for about one-third of the fossil fuels used for generating Vermont's electricity) leads our country to deal with such ruthlessly totalitarian states as Saudi Arabia and Iraq, or, might well lead to the despoliation of Alaska's still relatively pristine north shore.' And then to consider are the blighted lives and landscapes where the-coal we use originates. As to hydro-power, more than two-thirds of what Vermont now uses comes from Canada, for which the James Bay region has paid dearly.
That electricity comes to us with the legacy of a devastated environment over huge areas of the taiga ecosystem, and the utter disruption and social breakdown of the indigenous Cree population.
If nuclear-generated electricity is curtailed, this will be at the inexorable expense of almost comparable increases in the use of fossil fuels. Substitution by wind turbines - a non-polluting source of electricity that could replace modest amounts of the loss - is currently being fought
with extraordinary vehemence, especially for aesthetic reasons, wherever attempts in Windham County and elsewhere in Vermont are now being made to introduce them (and this despite the largely trouble-free Searsburg pilot operation). Vermont is already using wood to a larger extent:
than any of our neighboring states. Indeed, greater use of wood (now plentiful in Vermont) should be encouraged, but if substantially increased our air must be monitored for the possibility of significant contributions to its pollution.
Substitution by water power generated in Vermont could in theory replace another modest amount of the loss. However, to obtain the electricity for Vermont from the eight Connecticut and Deerfield River dams now available for sale (if not dismantled, as environmental considerations might suggest) would require a fundamental change in the State's relationship with the New England Power Pool, or even withdrawal from it. And any construction of new dams (if suitable sites could be found) would be at the expense of further disruptions to what relatively little remains of Vermont's free-flowing stream ecosystems.
Efficiency, frugality, retrenchment, and population limitations could alleviate some of the strains of any electrical deprivation - and should certainly be encouraged by all means at hand.,
But the simple fact remains that most of the electricity lost by eschewing nuclear power is sure to be made up by. fossil fuels - and thus at a terrible continuing actual (not hypothetical) cost to, humans and nature, in both the short and long terms. Regrettably, I do not have much hope for significant help from this direction, given that per-capita use of electricity in the State has increased by about 40% since 1980 despite a huge amount of publicity urging us all to be more conservative in our use of electrical (and other) energy. It is no slip of the lip that "energy use" is usually referred to as "energy demand". And even the thought of population limitations for Vermont (or the nation) is anathema to many people.
In short, I would be ready to support the phasing out of nuclear power plants in the unlikely situation that such action were unfailingly linked to replacement - as needed beyond savings from efficiency, frugality, retrenchment, and population limitations -- by sources that were medically and environmentally benign(fossil fuels certainly not among them). Moreover, it is useful to recognize that electricity makes up less than one-fifth of the total energy currently being used in Vermont - transportation and space heating together accounting for the lion's share - so any energy conservation efforts must certainly take this differential into account.
Finally, it is clear that Vermont does not, and cannot, act in isolation regarding many of the energy challenges we face. today. Even if we direct a blind eye toward the distant unpleasantries, associated with the sources of the electricity we import, we cannot forget that we alsoimport most of our air pollution from electrical-generation plants more or less distant from Vermont.
[This appeared in the BrattleboroReformer 91(18):S; 22-23 March 2003, under the title "'WhyI support nuclear power", and also otherwise slightly edited.]
GLOBAL WARMING, ENERGY PRODUCTION, AND CARBON DIOXIDE The most serious long-term threat to the well-being and survival of the plants and animals with which we share the earth is global warming. And the major cause of global warming is the carbon dioxide gas we humans release into the atmosphere. That carbon dioxide is largely a byproduct of our profligate use of coal, oil, and natural gas (and, among other lesser sources, the manufacture of cement). Our output of carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing since the late 19th century, and about 50 years ago surpassed the earth's ability to absorb it.
None of the ways in which we produce energy is fully benign, so clearly the most sensible way to address the problem of global warming is some combination of using less energy and of using the energy we do need more efficiently. Next it becomes important to know how the several ways of producing energy compare in their production of carbon dioxide. To be meaningful, such comparison must take into account the full production cycle, including fuel extraction, plant construction, routine plant operation, energy distribution, ultimate decommissioning, and so forth (a "cradle-to-grave" analysis); moreover, the comparison must be done on an energy unit basis (for example, per kiloWatt-hour of electricity generated).
It turns out that, on top of its staggering immediate environmental and health impacts, coal is by far the worst carbon dioxide- that is, global-warming - culprit. An authoritative study comparing several means of producing electricity throughout western Europe was published in March of this year by the British Sustainable Development Commission (see pages 21-22 at www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/ downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2O06.pdf). For each kiloWatt-hour generated, coal produced, on average, 891 kilograms of carbon dioxide; natural gas 356 kilograms; and wind turbines and nuclear power stations each about 16 kilograms. In other words, in a cradle-to-grave analysis nuclear produced only about 2% of the carbon dioxide of coal, only about 4%
of natural gas, and about the same as wind. I might add that a recent separate German report found that nuclear produced about 30% of that produced by photo-voltaics (solar panels).
There is no denying that nuclear power has drawbacks associated with its use, including the remote possibilityof a catastrophic accident, the safe disposal of the still radioactive spent fuel rods, and the potential facilitation of nuclear-weapon proliferation. But to suggest that nuclear contributes significantlyto our awesome global warming crisis - more so than wind or even natural gas, as recently reported by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group of Montpelier (VPIRG) on page 11 of its booklet "Global Warming in Vermont" - is slovenly if not disingenuous advocacy.
Finally it should be of interest to note that the electricity we currently obtain from our local provider, Green Mountain Power, contributes relatively little to global warming. About 92% comes from low carbon dioxide producers (45% nuclear, 43% hydro, 4% wood) and the remaining 8% from high carbon dioxide producers (5% natural gas, 3% oil) - our local low/high breakdown being about twice as favorable as for the state as a whole.
Arthur H. Westing Putney, Vermont
[Published in: Brattleboro[Vt] Reformer94(78):4. 1 June 2006]
Union support for Vermont Yankee Re-licensing Brattleboro, VT/June 7, 2006 - Mike Flory, Chairman of Unit 8, Local 300, of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which is also a member of the Vermont Energy partnership, issued the following statement at this evenings re-licensing hearing.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
My name is Michael Flory. Some of you may have read about me a few weeks ago. I was the fire brigade member reported as injured in our Unusual Event, and I'm happy to say that reports of my demise were a bit exaggerated.
I am the Chairman of Unit 8, Local 300 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I work at Vermont Yankee, along with more than 120 IBEW members. I am proud to say that I was born and raised in Vermont, and I currently live just a few hundred yards from the front gate.
We are proud to work at Vermont Yankee because of the essential power it produces.
We know that our work at the plant helps to make Vermont a cleaner and more.
prosperous place to live.
Without Vermont Yankee the 620 megawatts that we currently supply to the New England grid would have to come from a fossil fuel power plant. Wind Power, Connecticut River hydro power and energy conservation, all nice ideas, simply cannot replace the reliable, steady, baseline power we produce.
Since opening in 1972, Vermont Yankee has prevented more than) 00 million tons of fossil fuel emissions from entering the atmosphere. This has been prevented not only by rendering an in-state coal plant unnecessary, but also from reducing the amount of out-of-state electricity we have to purchase, most of which would come from coal plants as coal still accounts f6r half the power produced in America today.
In 2005, Verrnont Yankee avoided the emission of
- 2.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Emissions of sulfur dioxide lead to the formation of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides are a key precursor of both ground level ozone and smog. Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, contribute to global warming.
The 2,000 tons of nitrogen oxides prevented by Vermont Yankee last year is the equivalent of what would have been generated by 105,000 vehicles. In Vermont, we have 280,000 cars.
2 Let me repeat, we at Vermont Yankee are proud of what we do - proud to produce power cleanly and safely.
Safety is our highest priority. We would not work in the plant, let alone live near it with our families, if we felt that the plant was not safe or that safety was not a priority at Vermont Yankee. We have seen, and been instrumental in the plants continual enhancements and upgrades, most recently during the "power uprate" process.
The cost of Vermont Yankee's power to Vermont consumers like myself is also far below regional market prices. As a base-load generator we are able to provide lower-cost power which is so critical for the state.
I respectfully submit that if you like having lights that go on at the flick of a switch, if you like computers that don't fry as a result of rolling brownouts; if you enjoyed air conditioning during last weeks heat wave, or heat during last months' cold snap you should like Vermont Yankee's low-cost, clean, and safe power.
Vermont Yankee's value to my home state can only become more valuable as time goes on. As global warming becomes more and more destructive, we can remain an environmentally friendly source of power with zero greenhouse gas emissions. As the world energy markets become more competitive, we can continue to be a source of reliable, economic baseload power.
That is why we encourage the NRC to renew Vermont Yankee's license.
Thank you.
flY&-. sA Ab&1/A ______
IJV ~Sh12* _____ t f2{-fI L{~,r
_____ _________ __ _____ Li -
KPAvAA-eW I)11,A \A~ 0 ew kdi _____________
Nce4-7Yx d'
_at____
v~Q S~ - ___ __o__e_
c J- k-l
-7 - -A
~
___ __ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~
_;_kxNLL ~ 1 _ _
F ~it
-- t t en c '4ZVI A-
2 -~ ii
-o
-' 6A~YA7
\*~\ __ I .- ~
-I-
~ -1{~Q -t~QI. j Cs U J77~ 1Ž'
S~~J7 __ _V b~4.0
____ - _ _ _ -~ N1O
~~Ij
__ __ __ _ _ ____ ____ A ___
_ _C-a_ ___ __ I'
-, c~ 2
____________________________ t~.AQCAyC ~L~~AA - ________ ____________________
DII)-/ AAA v 70Th
- l AI.
'~I. (C]
AM'(
V~u~e-~- E Dw Av_ vr-b.
I "1
~X.e kWC-
- .June 7 2006 The Town of Marlbopro Vermont hereby (again) formally requests that Marlbor be included in thje EPZ for tyhe Vermont nuclear power plant. Marlboro is the only Town with property within the ten-mileradius of the power plant which is not included, and in all other cases where part opf a town falls Within the ten-mile radius ther entiretown is included in the EPZ.
A map showing this discrepancy is a part of the original Vermont Yankee license with the NRC. I have made a similar but less detailed map for inclusiuon with his request.
c,, and V Weare be-inr-excluded entitled to thefrom same theprotections EPZ does as WMIAO not other'residents allow u wh ._ive-nearthe power plant protections. Items such as
,..potification, tr ,-.iut into environmenta and etc. will all be addressed when
-- "Marlboro is included in the . a sts that as the NRC looks over the license V -,
-,extension, a change mandaf arlboro's inclusion heb oly-reasonable'\. ;
,stance for the'NRC to er all, the NRC issues the license and risk. the goal of the NRC is t o t c utr fro undue exposure to to protect the cCi CLe~It, i c st - ct._
Thanks.... an MacArthur Marlboro VT 05344 . Emergency Management director.
45-9 7 -:-\ .. .. J I'
I r _Lk\ V? &
OL'% eAP -CVt1eJ *0(_
~ VAC.ACX ; CIVT"--1 -
V-0 %IV L01*'
ýJ7~A'r-.~' v - -
I- %eA q /7 C 3 "
I ~e egli OI-r ýV"es-rV4s vj ~'
ek e- -Lr ~; eer 60 ~f\ 4e~o~c I;? ~
eAj CIi2 r.,.-
vv Cc.
'U
\-e... T wet-1>\ e_
A
\IV %Apav W.A - CL~~54~5 A ~eCtr; G Apte. 4I C4 ri .,.,- *7* * .. r** **
-A-~ tc ~WtK IVew
p 0-~
.. . . r*
- i -* * * * * * . * *.
4 ...........
/j
.! ,/**-
OF-C.'-
bc 01V ~ '~T CAL NC.: ~j~ ePAjee Ol 6Oct V,
V'~iCCol-A1 A{'I~~~f I .
1 O~ r ev7e~
%air,
\&,-A. ,- V kAo \ 'le
?keA4 - 4 ,in,
- w e tx a I I 1/2~:fr#,L ~s2 ~ e4 i~~, Al-
-- ---- i.a-.
A.
-I -WA-
%All %A~- 'n 0 S~A I-u -* %A.,k
~Ai-> t~ '
ec, 1-C-a %AV%
V" or ePv%&i IL f
V~ \~C ev4~-J%
Pt O-ILs7 koK
-4 PC QI
)~~~~ LXOA VI&
, '7u
"*-A/ C7.' %oo\ el Ile, \.1 ct &V rvrl.,, ý kvý C-If C, Wu JIGWr
\A"-3e,- \-0-k cA- ~~Vv~A1~
~,q.A ~~"-
v~-K CAý
\orc e\l\\
\-\
t VCv
A A L 1= A JL w .,U,I -JOLU; poweran a,'lo'w woma -kb on P
introauction Since then, there has been mixed success with 1.1 Why the SDC the policy measures put in place to deliver is re-examining these goals. Carbon emissions have been rising for the past three years, mainly as a result of its nuclear increased use of coal in power stations due to high gas prices, but also due to increased position demand for energy, despite the effect of a number of energy efficiency measures.
Progress with renewables has been reasonably The SDC's previous position on nuclear power was agreed in 2001 as part of our encouraging, and despite concerns over delays in the offshore wind sector, it isstill considered input into the Energy Review conducted possible for the UK to meet or get close to its by the Performance and Innovation Unit 10% renewables target by 2010.
of the Cabinet Office. This formed the basis of our input to the Energy White However, rising oil and gas prices have put Paper (EWP) process. pressure on consumers, and there is increasing concern that, over the longer term, the The 2003 Energy White Paper was a watershed inevitable decline in the UK's North Sea in energy policy, and was unique internationally reserves will lead to energy security problems.
for committing the UK to a 60% cut in C02 emissions by 2050. Although it is now possible In the electricity sector there are worries that the decline of the UK's nuclear power capacity, that this target will need to be increased, inorder to meet the international obligation to avoid due to scheduled closures, will reduce total generating capacity and could increase CO 2 dangerous climate change, the EWP contained emissions unless this capacity is replaced by a bold vision for future energy supply and carbon-free generation.
demand. The four primary goals were:
In response to these concerns, the Government
" Putting the UK on a path to cut Co2 has announced a new Energy Review, which emissions by 60% by 2050, with real will report after the Climate Change Programme progress by 2020 Review finishes, inmid 2006. As the Government's
" To maintain the reliability of energy supplies. advisor on sustainable development, the SDC
> To promote competitive markets in the decided during 2005 that it needed to revisit UK and beyond its position on nuclear power so that it was well placed to advise the Government on this
> To ensure that every home is adequately important and controversial issue.
and affordably heated.
The EWP outlined a vision for energy supply in 2020, which saw electricity supplies still based on a market-based grid, but with increasing 1.2 Nuclear commitment to more local generation and microgeneration. With a strong focus on power in context energy efficiency, renewables, and greater use of combined heat and power (CHP), Nuclear power currently provides around 200/a the EWP stressed the need for technological of the UK's electricity. This translates into 8%
and economic innovation to help bring new of the UK's energy needs once other sources of technologies to the market, thereby creating energy, such as transport fuel and non-electric future options. heating, are taken into account. Our evidence base shows how this contribution is scheduled to decrease over the next 30 or so years, assuming no plant lifetime extensions.
Since the 2003 Energy White Paper the fundamentals have not radically changed, and many of the measures introduced since 2000
polarised, with heavily entrenched positions SLw iJ W UJL on both sides. This does not help with a considered analysis of nuclear power, and approach tends to result in reports that seek to justify a pre-determined position. Such reports are In March 2005 the UK Government and the easily dismissed by opponents and will be Devolved Administrations jointly published regarded with suspicion by those that are truly a shared framework for sustainable
'neutral'; they are therefore of limited value development, .'One future - different paths',
to the public debate. in which five new principles of sustainable development were agreed across Government Our stand-alone evidence base is published for all policy development, delivery and alongside this paper, as a separate resource. evaluation -see Figure 1. Based on these principles, the UK Government published its Sustainable Development Strategy, 'Securing the future' to guide its policy-making process across different departments. We have therefore examined new nuclear development against these five principles.
In this paper we have not followed the five principles slavishly, as some are more significant for the nuclear issue than others.
We have dealt with 'environmental limits' and
'sound science' together; we have looked in considerable depth at 'sustainable economy';
we have covered 'good governance' in relation to public engagement and in conjunction with
'a healthy and just society'.
In examining the evidence base, and taking into account the context of the five principles and the 2006 Energy Review, we have Figure 1: UK sustainable development principles Securing the Future - delivering UK sustainable development strategy
z zustainanze Development Analysis This section will look at the case for nuclear power based on three areas of analysis, and using the five principles of sustainable development. The analysis below draws exclusively on the SDC's evidence base, which consists of eight separate reports that are published alongside this paper.
However, emissions from decommissioning and 2.1 Environment the treatment of waste also need to be assessed but this is difficult for two main reasons:
2 2.1.1 Low carbon status > in the UK, decommissioning of existing No energy technology is currently carbon free. plant is highly complex and involves plant Even renewable technologies will lead to that was not designed with fossil fuels being burnt at some point in their decommissioning in mind construction due to the high levels of fossil > the UK has not decided on its approach fuel usage in almost every transport mode to waste management, which makes and industrial process, including electricity it difficult to assess the associated generation. For example, wind turbines are C02 emissions.
built of steel, and fossil fuels are therefore consumed in their construction either directly, The carbon impact associated with the 'back-during manufacture, and also from petroleum end' of the nuclear fuel cycle is spread across all of the UK's nuclear power plants (active usage when the parts are transported to the construction site. However, the fossil fuel used and decommissioned) and includes all of the over the life of the turbine is 'repaid' in less electricity generated over their lifetime. Newly than 10 months, as the turbihes themselves commissioned plants are likely to have lower generate zero carbon energy3. lifecycle carbon emissions than for previous reactor designs, because of improvements in Nuclear power stations are no different, with plant design (for example, smaller size, and large up-front energy requirements during improved thermal efficiency and use of fuel),
construction', although this is balanced by the and because new plant is designed so that high power output of each plant. However, it can be dismantled and decommissioned nuclear differs from many renewables in its more easily.
requirement for mined fuel (uranium ore).
Although the total volume of fuel used is low A number of commentators have expressed compared to the volumes of fossil fuel required concerns that any move to low-grade uranium in gas or coal plants, uranium mining and ores could substantially increase the carbon the subsequent fuel processing is an energy intensity of nuclear power. Our evidence on intensive activity that must be included for full uranium resource availability' shows that lifecycle emissions analysis. Decommissioning predicting if and when this might happen is and waste activities are also likely to require very difficult to do with any accuracy. Resource Paper 2 - Reducing CO, emissions:
nucleor and the olternotives energy inputs, and therefore their long-term availability is discussed in more detail below,
'Sustainable Development but it is by no means certain that all the high impact on nuclear power's CO 2 emissions will Commission (2005). Wind Power depend on the carbon intensity of future grade ores have been discovered, and any in the UK. increase in the price of uranium could trigger In addition to carbon emissions energy supplies.
renewed interest in uranium prospecting.
from the production of concrete. Our evidence shows that taking into account
'These figures are for carbon (C) the emissions associated with plant It is worth noting that the CO2 emissions rather than CO,. They have.been associated with many of the construction inputs converted from the data used in construction and the fuel cycle, the emissions associated with nuclear power production are into a nuclear power plant could be subject our evidence base by multiplying the C02figures by 12/44. relatively low, with an average value of to emissions trading schemes, depending on 4.4tC/GWh, compared to 243tC/GWh for coal their country of origin. This presents a possible
programme would deliver sizeable reductions long-term so as to protect people and the in C02 emissions. However, it is also important environment. Adominant challenge of much to realise that cuts of at least 50% would still nuclear waste is the period of hundreds of be needed from other measures to meet the thousands of years over which it must be 2050 target, even with a doubling of nuclear effectively isolated from people and the capacity from current levels. Nuclear power environment. This raises issues that are unique can therefore be seen as a potential carbon to nuclear waste, such as the long-term reduction technology, but this must be viewed stability of our civilisation and climate, and the within the context of the much larger challenge extent to which future technological advances we face. We will need a wide variety of might bring forward solutions so-far unknown.
solutions; those that decrease our demand for Nuclear wastes in the UK are divided into three energy, and those that can deliver low or zero categories:
carbon energy supplies.
" High level wastes (HLW) are those in which the temperature may rise significantly as 2.1.3 Waste and decommissioning issues' a result of radioactive decay. This factor has There is a need to distinguish between the to be taken into account in the design of legacy impacts of decommissioning and waste storage or disposal facilities. HLW comprises management of the existing nuclear capacity, the waste products from reprocessing spent to which the UK is already committed, and nuclear fuels.
the impacts that would result from a new " Intermediate level wastes (ILW) are those nuclear programme. exceeding the levels of radioactivity for Low The current legacy for decommissioning Level Waste (LLW), but which do not require existing nuclear power plants is not directly heat production to be taken into account relevant to decisions about whether to progress in the design of their storage facilities.
with nuclear new-build. However, such a legacy ILW include nuclear fuel casing and nuclear is one of public concern, particularly in relation reactor components, moderator graphite to the cost. A recent review by the NDA from reactor cores, and sludges from the suggests that their accelerated approach for treatment of radioactive effluents.
the decommissioning of existing sites will cost > Low level wastes ([LW) are wastes not approximately £56bn. Much of this covers a suitable for disposal with ordinary refuse large number of non-power producing facilities, but do not exceed specified levels of but certainly the costs of decommissioning old radioactivity. Most LLW can be sent for Magnox reactors are substantial. Our evidence disposal at the National Low Level Waste points to costs of £1.3bn and £1.8bn in two repository at Drigg. LLW that is unsuitable cases, and this is before waste disposal. for disposal is mostly reflector and shield The proposed new nuclear plant designs are graphite from reactor cores, which contains expected to require much less expensive concentrations of carbon-14 radioactivity decommissioning, as unlike most existing above those acceptable at Drigg.
plants, decommissioning has been given Spent fuel, which contains uranium and more consideration in the design process. plutonium, is currently not classified as waste They are also expected to produce less in the UK because it contains resources that waste by volume. Our evidence estimates can be reprocessed and used again as fuel decommissioning costs at between £220m or for other uses. If,however, the UK decided and £440m per GW of capacity, but this to abandon reprocessing as part of its waste is before long-term waste disposal costs. management strategy, then spent fuel would Anew-build replacement programme (10GW) need to be reclassified as HLW.
would add less than 10% to the total UK The Committee on Radioactive Waste nuclear waste inventory (by volume). Assessing Management (CoRWM) has established a the increase in radioactivity, of the inventory baseline inventory, based on planned closure is complex and depends on reactor design and of existing plant, no new-build, reprocessing use, and the time chosen for the comparison. of spent fuels, and continuation of current Thus, ten years after removal, the increase in practices for the definitions of waste. All activity could be a factor of nine, declining to radioactive wastes, including spent fuel, are a factor of 0.9 of current total activity 100 years packaged so that they are in a form suitable after final fuel removal. for storage, volume estimates are based on The role of reprocessing as a waste packaged wastes. The baseline inventory management tool is complex because of the includes all wastes both in existence and Paper 5 - Waste management forecast to arise in the future (for example and decommissioning costs (relative to the price of primary uranium) and safety and security issues (for example, from decommissioning). The baseline inventory the risks of proliferation - this is discussed shows that over 90% of radioactivity is arnrintpd with HI-IW *nd npnnt fimlc hit
self-regulation is appropriate for tackling climate change, but as we state
> ongoing surface and ground-water in Section 1.3, for the UK it is a choice whether pollution issues both for current it is part of the overall energy supply mix, and future activities. rather than a necessity.
Some of these problems can be managed Nuclear waste and decommissioning raise a through regulation and management, but this set of complicated issues with very long-term can be compromised by, for example, poor impacts. Considering the impact of nuclear governance, short-term cost considerations new-build in isolation, we accept that future and possible conflict with economic goals and nuclear plant designs will be far easier to development aims. This can result in products decommission and that it is possible to do this being brought to world markets at prices that in a way that limits the environmental impacts.
do not reflect the full social and environmental However, the long-term management of costs of their production. nuclear waste poses significant environmental problems that are difficult and costly to resolve.
However, any mining impact from nuclear power activities needs to be balanced against We look at intergenerational considerations the potential environmental and health impacts in Section 2.3.6, but on the environmental of the energy sources it might displace. The side it is difficult to be completely confident health and safety impacts of coal, for example, that the solution proposed for long-term are significant, as are coal's environmental waste management will avoid any adverse impacts in the form of air and groundwater environmental impacts over the time pollution. Oil and gas exploration also have periods involved.
environmental and health impacts. On reprocessing; there remain serious concerns There is general agreement that any new over the long-term security and economic nuclear power programme would try to make viability of this form of waste management, use of existing nuclear sites, thereby limiting with many in the industry now calling for a
'once-through' fuel cycle. The evidence would landscape and visual impacts. It is also the case that nuclear power plants are very similar to seem to support this conclusion, although there conventional fossil fuel plants in terms of local remains the question of dealing with the UK's environmental and landscape impact, so the plutonium stockpile.
net impact of additional nuclear capacity is Other environmental impacts from nuclear likely to be minimal1". power centre on uranium mining, which can However, some coastal sites may not be have a number of adverse effects in producer suitable for new nuclear power stations and countries. However, such impacts must be flood-risk criteria may lead to a preference for balanced against the environmental and health new inland sites. This is because of the need Er safety concerns related to alternatives to 'climate change-proof' decisions on where sources of energy, especially fossil fuels.
to locate new plant to be sure they take into account changes in climate that are already in the pipeline. The criteria that were used to select the current mainly coastal locations 2.2 Economy are up to 50 years old and will need to be reviewed, as many nuclear power stations What is the public good for our economy?
and other facilities are vulnerable to sea-level (Achieving a sustainable economy) rise, storm surges and coastal erosion over the 2.2.1 Total cost of nuclear power's next few decades.
Our evidence strongly suggests that attempts In view of the need to reassess the suitability to estimate the cost of a new nuclear of existing sites, further consideration needs to programme are unlikely to be accurate. This be given to their viability over the longer term. is primarily because there is not enough reliable, independent and up-to-date 2.1.6 Summary information available on the nuclear plant designs available for such calculations to be Our evidence shows that nuclear power could made. In addition, waste and decommissioning theoretically make a substantial contribution costs are, at present, not fully known. "Paper 5 - This is under the to efforts to reduce CO, emissions, as a viable assumption that nuclear capacity low carbon technology. However, the evidence The levelised cost of nuclear power (the p/kWh would most likely be replaced by cost of output) is heavily dependent on capital fossil fuel plant, with or without also shows that even by doubling our existing carbon capture and storage nuclear capacity, a neW nuclear power costs. This makes the cost of nuclear output technologies.
programme can only contribute an 8% cut in very sensitive to both construction costs, and IPaper 4 - Economics of nuclear emissions on. 1990 levels, so a wide variety the discount rate used (the required rate of power of other measures will be needed. return for the project).
the next decade also highlights a'lpotential The concept of specifying the ideal proportion weakness in the uranium market: the long lead of each single technology in the UK's times for developing new resources. generating mix belongs to a previous regime, For domestic electricity supply, nuclear power where electricity supply was a nationalised may offer a hedge against high fossil fuel industry. Ifliberalised markets are to be the prices or temporary supply disruptions, but primary mechanism for the delivery of cannot offer complete security due to its electricity supplies, then this constrains the reliance on imported uranium. Inthis regard, ability of Government to centrally plan the fuel nuclear power is not a domestic source of mix, without major interventions in the market.
electricity in the same way as renewables. Energy policy aims such as CO 2 emission Uranium resources may also show price reductions and security of supply can be volatility, particularly in the short-term when delivered by markets if the right structures shortages are expected. However, evidence are put in place. The market has so far on portfolio theory suggests that greater performed well on security of supply, and diversification of supply sources tends to the incentives are in place to ensure that new reduce price risk, particularly when fuel costs capacity is developed before shortfalls in supply are zero (as in the case of most renewables) develop - this is done through a simple price or low (as in the case of nuclear)"8. mechanism. To deliver this new capacity whilst On balance, nuclear power has positive reducing CO 2 emissions requires the electricity attributes for security of supply consideration, market to take account of national or but these should be viewed on a portfolio international carbon constraints, and to factor basis and are not exclusive to this technology. these in to long-term investment decisions.
Diversification into any basket of electricity The current market for carbon is based on the generating options will help to reduce price EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS), which risk and increase security. iscurrently designed to run in three year it isalso frequently claimed that nuclear periods, with caps set by national governments power is necessary to provide baseload power. in advance of each commitment stage. This However, there is no justification for assuming inherently short-term system provides no that other plant cannot also perform a baseload long-term framework for investors, and function, and contrary to popular perception, iscurrently based on emissions cuts from the increased variability (sometimes termed projected baselines rather than absolute
'intermittency') of some renewable cuts from current levels.
technologies does not increase the need for The SDC believes that the EUETS should aim more 'firm', or baseload, capacity'. Therefore, towards total downstream emissions trading, nuclear plant will need to be assessed against which would eventually need to include the the long-term wholesale price of electricity whole economy - business, transport (including within the confines of a carbon constrained, aviation), the public sector, agriculture and, and environmentally sensitive, economy. very importantly, individuals. EU-wide caps on emissions should be determined by a long-term emissions reduction target, which should 2.2.3 Market delivery then be divided into annual decreases which Our evidence suggests that nuclear power would form the basis of the EUETS or its may find it difficult to compete in the UK's successor. This system would give near liberalised energy market without some form complete certainty of intention, and should of public sector support. This is due to the assist investors in taking long-term decisions long lead times of nuclear power and its high on low carbon investments.
risk profile, which may discourage investors. There are two alternatives to this approach: "Shimon Awerbuch (University of However, the Government has made it clear develop mechanisms which intervene in the Sussex) has done extensive work that any new nuclear programme will need in this area.
market to encourage specific technologies or A large percentage of variable to be delivered solely by the private sector. technology groups, or reform the current market renewables would increase the This does not rule out the possibility that design to allow for more centralised planning. need for 'balancing services" but the Government may decide to help support The Renewables Obligation is an example of would not lead to the need for the development of new-build plant, either additional baseload capacity, as market intervention, and was justified by the the increase in reserve requirement financially or through 'practical measures'. Government as necessary to promote the is met from remaining plant.
Our evidence points to a number of financial innovation and scale needed to create a viable, In addition, diversity of sources support options that the Government may large-scale renewables sector. In this regard, will always reduce the need for consider, but there is uncertainty over whether renewables were identified as suffering from reserves. This issue is explained they would be both legal (under EU state aid in detail in the soc's publication, market failure due to their lack of collective Wind Power in the UK (2005).
rules), or compatible with the Government's technological maturity. Can the same be said Paper 4 - Economics of nudear stated belief in liberalised markets. about nuclear power? power
disagreement over these costs, but if they are the price of carbon, which is likely to be central high, there is the potential for conflict. This is to their business case.
because the transmission and distribution of There are still a number of outstanding costs electricity in the UK is a regulated industry, and that, unless internalised, may not allow a full all investments need to be approved by Ofgem reflection of the cost of nuclear power in those as part of the district network operators' (DNO) investor calculations. There is also the issue of price control agreements. Faced with calls for moral hazard, and the impact that might have large investments across the network, Ofgem on reducing the apparent cost of nuclear power might have to prioritise what it allows, unless it by increasing the financial risks to the taxpayer.
is willing to accept higher costs for consumers.
The case for nuclear power tends to be viewed There is also the related problem that continued in isolation, but this takes no account of the reliance on centralised supply may exacerbate impacts that a nuclear development route the current institutional bias towards large-scale might have on other alternatives, and on generation, and the reluctance to really embrace the prospects for a level playing field for the reforms necessary to ensure a more all technologies. Although the measurable decentralised and sustainable energy economy. economic impacts may be limited, the political The role of Ofgem is central to this issue.
implications of a shift in emphasis towards The lack of flexibility, or 'lock-in', associated nuclear could be to further weaken the with investment in large-scale centralised commitment of Government, and therefore supply like nuclear power is also a concern. the investment community, to renewables This relates to the issue of sunk costs. A new and specifically microgeneration technologies.
nuclear programme would commit the UK On balance, the economic case for nuclear to that technology, and a centralised supply power is heavily dependent on its position infrastructure, for at least 50 years. in relation to other low carbon alternatives, During this time there are likely to be and the effect it might have on the long-term significant advances in decentralised ability of the UK to meet its emission reduction technologies, and there is a risk that continued targets. If nuclear power can prove itself to dependence on more centralised supplies be an economically viable competitor in a low may lock out some alternatives. Decentralised carbon economy, without leading to a drain supply is generally more flexible because it of investment for other alternatives, then its is modular, and can adapt quicker and at less contribution to a sustainable economy may be cost to changed circumstances. More locally- positive. If,however, nuclear power requires based energy provision may also be conducive public support (whether immediately or in the to the sustainable communities agenda, a long-term) and/or it diverts funds away from key part of the UK Government's Sustainable other viable alternatives, then its contribution Development Strategy. may well be negative.
Any bias towards one mode over another It is of little doubt where the UK's current essentially prevents a level playing field, and nuclear capacity stands. The burden of proof does not therefore encourage true competition. would now seem to be on the nuclear industry Itmay be hard for the microgeneration sector to'show that updated designs, combined to overcome such bias, and this may prevent with private sector financing and project or slow it from reaching the economies of scale management, could lead to a different necessary to show its full potential. outcome. However, this must take place on a truly equal and transparent basis, so that costs are internalised and the taxpayer is protected 2.2.6 Summary from long-term liabilities. An assessment of the Nuclear power may be able to make a useful cost - and public acceptance - of nuclear waste contribution to the UK's economy, by providing policy is essential for this to take place.
low carbon electricity at a competitive price.
However, our evidence shows that it is very difficult to assess the total cost of the available nuclear technologies, particularly as the only recent development that is relevant to the UK (in Finland) has a number of hidden subsidies that obscure its true cost.
In our view commercial investors are best placed to make a real assessment of the risks, Sustainable Consumption Roundtable and will have much better information on likely (2005). Seeing the light.
construction costs and therefore the final cost of power produced. They will also be able to
attack would not lead to significantly adverse of the implications of developing new nuclear consequences. capacity, particularly in the context of Use of nuclear fuel (reactor grade and spent international treaties such as the Framework fuel) by terrorists is raised as a concern. Reactor Convention on Climate Change. If nuclear grade fuel must be processed to produce power is part of the UK's chosen solution to weapons-grade material to raise it from 4-5% climate change, then it would be considered uranium-235 to over 90% uranium-235. Spent a suitable solution for all countries. The UNFCCC fuel is an even more difficult starting material explicitly encourages "the development, because it contains much less Uranium-235 application and diffusion, including transfer than fresh reactor fuel. of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic However shipments of spent fuel for emission of greenhouse gases" (Article 4.1c).
reprocessing could be attacked en route from the station to the reprocessing plant, either Reprocessing nuclear reactor fuel can raise it to with the intention to spread contamination over the quality required for nuclear warheads, most a wide area or to steal the material for future easily from light water reactors. Pressurised use in a nuclear weapon. Reactor grade fuel water reactors would have to be closed down could be used to make a 'dirty bomb'. for several months, but in a country that wishes to do this the only barriers are political, The industry assessment is that spent fuel as there is no engineering constraint.
containers are robust and undergo stringent testing and that the spent fuel pellets they Several international treaties have been contain are not easily dispersed even under concluded with the aim of making sure either severe impact and fire. But an alternative view that civil nuclear power is not used for military is that stolen spent fuel would be valuable as purposes or that any attempts to do so are a dirty bomb in itself and is therefore of value detected. The two principal treaties that to terrorists. It would appear, therefore, that concern the UK are the 1970 Treaty on the the potential use of nuclear fuels by terrorists Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) remains a risk, and therefore a concern. and the Euratom Treaty, to which the UK became a partner on joining the European Nuclear accidents are recorded and ascribed Community in 1973.
levels on a scale 0-7 (Chernobyl was level 7),
and most accidental releases in the UK are at Out of the 188 states that have signed the NPT, levels 0,1 or 2. While major accidents are rare, the UK is one of five declared Nuclear Weapons evidence from Sellafield and Japan reveals States (NWS), the others being France, the USA, that human error and management lapses are the USSR and China. The only states that have most often responsible - circumstances which not signed the NPT are India, Pakistan and undermine public confidence in the industry, Israel, all of which are known to have nuclear even in industrialised countries with tight weapons, while North Korea has chosen to regulatory regimes. withdraw from the NPT.
Public confidence in the regulatory regimes The provisions of the NPT are implemented for nuclear power stations in all countries, by the International Atomic Energy Agency not just the UK, is also important because (IAEA). Following the difficulties of carrying unplanned discharges can have serious out inspections in Iraq before 2003, additional transboundary effects. This raises a number protocols were developed giving IAEA of problems, including the difficulties of inspectors greater rights of access and requiring ensuring that the regulatory institutions in less administrative procedures to be streamlined developed countries are sufficiently resourced, so that, for instance, states cannot delay the and for identifying and dealing with poor issuing of visas as a means of delaying an health and safety practices which could lead to unwanted inspection.
transboundary environmental or health risks. States also have to provide significantly more information, including details of nuclear-related imports and exports, which the IAEA is then 2.3.4 Proliferation risks2' able to verify. The IAEA concludes that without Terrorist organisations, almost by definition, the NPT, there might be perhaps 30 to 40 operate outside national and international law, Nuclear Weapon States, whereas more states and therefore safeguards to protect against have abandoned nuclear weapons programmes proliferation are almost irrelevant to such than started them.
groups. Similarly it is very difficult to protect Nevertheless, a number of difficulties in against civil nuclear power being developed the relationship between civil and military 11Paper 6 - Safety andsecurity into a military nuclear capability where applications continue to cause concern motivations are strong enough, as has been among many commentators, including:
shown in a number of countries.
has to be taken in'the context of the current waste legacy, albeit that future waste arisings are likely to be considerably smaller than existing volumes.
2.3.7 Summary Our evidence shows that it is essential for the Government to allow the fullest public consultation in developing a policy on nuclear power. Not doing this would compromise the principle of good governance, and risks a huge public backlash against top-down decision-making. The Government needs to engage the public in a wider debate where nuclear power is considered as one of the many options that could be required for a sustainable energy policy.
We are satisfied that any new nuclear power plant in the UK would be built and operated to the highest safety and security standards.
However the same level of confidence cannot always be applied to other countries, and this remains a cause for serious concern. In addition, nuclear power facilities and processes are vulnerable to attempted exploitation by terrorist groups, and although standards may be high, this does not rule out the possibility of a successful strike.
The proliferation of nuclear materials is equally a cause for concern in this context. A decision to develop nuclear power in the UK essentially removes our ability, both morally and legally, to deny the technology to others. The widespread adoption of nuclear power would greatly increase the chances of nuclear proliferation, both through the efforts of nation states and possibly terrorist organisations.
Whilst the health impacts of a well-regulated nuclear power industry are low, the risk of a low probability, but high impact event must be considered, especially in the context of the international concerns raised above.
Finally, we remain deeply concerned about the intergenerational impacts of the legacy of nuclear waste. Considering the current uncertainties over total costs and the science of long-term waste management, we find it difficult to reconcile these issues with sustainable development principles.
renewables The UK's renewable resources are some of the power: our best in the world, and could provide all the UK's electricity over the longer term. Despite advice some significant developments, our current approach remains half-hearted, and the levels It is clear that nuclear power could generate of public investment needed to bring forward large quantities of electricity, contribute new technologies are inadequate when materially to stabilising CO2 emissions and compared to our international competitors. add to the diversity of the UK's energy supply.
However, even if we were to double our It is critical that the Government should now existing nuclear capacity, this would bring an invest far more (both politically and financially) 80/0 cut on total carbon emissions from 1990 in renewables, particularly microgeneration and levels by 2035, and would contribute little biomass technologies, and marine renewables before 2020. Nuclear cannot tackle climate and offshore wind, where the UK has a clear change alone.
natural advantage.
Akey issue that the Commission explored through the evidence base was whether the 3.2.3 The clean and more efficient use UK could have a viable energy future without of fossil fuels nuclear power. Or in other words, whether It is clear to us that fossil fuels will remain nuclear power is a choice, or whether is it an a necessary part of our energy mix for some absolute necessity.
time. We fully support the Government's stated The conclusion from the analysis was that the target for 10GW of good quality CHP by 2010 UK could meet our CO, reduction targets and as a way of increasing the overall efficiency energy needs without nuclear power, using a of energy supply. However, based on our lack combination of demand reduction, renewables, of progress on this target, the foundations for and more efficient use of fossil fuels combined expanding the use of this energy efficient with carbon capture and storage technologies.
technology are not strong. In this context, the Sustainable Development We also support the recent interest from Commission assessed whether nuclear power Government in carbon capture and storage has a role to play in future UK electricity supply.
(CCS) technologies, which could effectively We have a number of serious concerns:
remove the CO2 emissions that come from Intergenerational issues burning fossil fuels such as gas and coal. These could provide a bridge to a more sustainable The intergenerational impacts of a new nuclear energy future whilst providing the UK with programme are of great concern, particularly significant export potential in another area of with regard to decommissioning and the expertise. Of course we must recognise that disposal of nuclear waste. Even if a policy for CCS is as yet an unproven technology, and long-term nuclear waste is developed and its development could allow a future role for implemented, the timescales involved (many coal, about which we have concerns both for thousands of years) lead to uncertainties over reasons of sustainability and human health. the level to which safety can be assured. We
- are also concerned that a new nuclear programme could impose unanticipated costs on future generations without commensurate benefits.
Cost There is very little certainty over the economics of nuclear power. Anew nuclear power programme could divert public funding away from more sustainable technologies that will be needed regardless, hampering other long-term efforts to move to a low carbon economy with diverse energy sources. Nuclear power is also prone to moral hazard, which could lead to forced public subsidy regardless of the Government's original intentions.
A Forest Full of Wood Grows as a Major Fuel (hot spells and cold snaps), public policy makers at both the state and federal levels are once again encouraging development of in the Northeast renewable energy.
Biomass energy in the region By ERIC KINGSLEY In travels around the North Woods, it's hard not to occasion-ally end up behind a truck full of wood chips. Where are they ce the time of the first humans, wood going, and to what end? Most will shed their loads at one of many has served as an important fuel wood-fired power plants scattered across New England and New source. We relied upon it first for York, which each year turn millions of tons of low-grade wood heat, today for electricity, and into electricity to power homes and businesses.
0tomorrow maybe simply as for liquid a fuel fuels.
source Wood
- not as In the power grid that serves most of New England, biomass is
~used a small but important electricity source. Natural gas serves as the lumber, pulp, or other value-added fuel for almost 40 percent of the electricity generated in the products - is known as biomass and today still accounts for half of all wood harvested worldwide. The northeastern U.S. has long beern a leader in the use of wood as a source of energy, and efforts continue to keep the region at the vanguard of biomass energy and bio-product development.
Wood energy has been a meaningful part of our region's elec-tricity mix for about 20 years, and it was a part of many paper mills' electricity supply long before that. It has seen its ups and downs over the last decade, but today, wood energy is looking as attractive as ever.
The region's wood energy industry developed in response to the last energy crisis in the 1970s. Wood was recognized as a local, renewable, and abundant energy source, and facilities to turn this resource into power were built. When projections of oil shortages made in the late 1970s and early 1980s turned out to be wrong (or at least premature), these wood-fired plants became high-cost producers in comparison to nuclear, coal, and oil. Today, we are coming full circle, with biomass power plants around the region operating at full-tilt, long-idle plants back online, and developers scouring the region for suitable locations to build new facilities.
Why? While wood energy hasn't gotten any cheaper, the corn-petition (particularly natural gas) has become much more expen-sive. Faced with very real concerns about the current capacity to meet the peak electricity demand during extreme weather events. .
22 Northern Wohodlands / Spring 2006
region, with nuclear supplying a quarter. Coal-fired and oil-fired factors, it could cost nearly four times that.
power accounts for a little over 20 percent, leaving the rest- about In the present environment, wood energy is competitive, and 15 percent - to renewable types of electricity generation. Of this, many facilities are operating at or near capacity. Biomass energy hydropower makes up more than half, with the rest coming from facilities, long thought of as too expensive, are suddenly looking biomass, landfill gasses, and a few wind farms. attractive when compared to some of their competitors. Couple Five years ago, construction of new natural gas power plants this with a demand that isgrowing faster than supply, and there is was all the rage. Proponents argued that the use of natural gas clearly a spot for biomass power.
would significantly decrease the cost of electricity in the region, and a wave of new plants was built. just like previous forecasts of Public policy encourages biomass power cheap power, this one, too, was wrong. Today, natural gas pro- In addition to the underlying energy market, public policy vides some of the most expensive electricity and often sets the plays a significant role in the retention and growth of renewable price for the power you buy. power, including biomass. On the public policy side, the desire for The cost to produce electricity varies widely, depending on cleaner fiels, energy security, and local economic development is fuel costs, debt service, economy of scale, maintenance require- causing leaders to evaluate ways to encourage renewable energy ments, technology used, and emissions controls. It can cost development. Non-market benefits of wood energy include:
$40 per megawatt (MW) or, in a perfect storm of complicating Biomass power plants have very low emissions when com-pared with other fuels. At Public Service of New Hampshire's Northern Wood Power Project, conversion of an existing 50 MW, coal-fired unit to wood will result in significant reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury emissions. (In the interest of full disclosure, the company I work for, Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, has served as a consultant on this project.)
Clockivisefrom left: Adam Mock Logging chipping trees and tops for fuel; A&B Logging's log loader and chipping pile at Tw'in Mountain in the White Mountain NationalForest; some operations use delimbers in the woods.
NorthernWoodlands /Spring 2006 23
" As we station troops around the world, it's hard not to wonder Besides requiring renewable energy production, an RPS can which domestic fuels can help meet our energy needs. While oil improve the economics of the biomass power plants themselves.
is a very small part of our national and regional electricity mix, For example, a biomass plant that qualified for the Massachusetts adding renewables to the mix helps diversify energy supplies RPS in 2005 would have received around $50 per megawatt-hour and cushion price swings. Energy sources found here - wood, produced, in addition to revenue from the sale of the electricity wind, water, and some coal - are buffered from the complexi- itself. With some long-term electricity contracts paying producers ties of foreign trade and diplomacy. as much as $80 per megawatt-hour, adding the federal credit and
- Wood energy can provide a significant economic boost to our the RPS payment can combine to make biomass energy look region's rural areas and help support loggers, landowners, and attractive to developers.
wood-using industries. A 2002 study in New Hampshire found Of course, "look" is the key word in the previous sentence, and that the state's six then-operating wood-fired power plants pro- it is important to note that renewable energy payments are in vided up to 400 jobs and had an economic contribution of their infancy, and as in any developing market, prices can swing nearly $100 million. Wood fuel dollars stay in the local econo- quickly. In Connecticut, RPS payments dropped from near $40 to my; the same can't be said for coal, oil, or natural gas. near $2 per megawatt-hour in 2005 alone when a new supplier Recognizing the public benefits associated with biomass unexpectedly entered the market and helped create an oversup-power production, the federal and state governments have ply. Additionally, qualifying to participate in the Massachusetts responded with incentives. On the federal level, support for bio- RPS is not easy, with stringent technology and emissions require-mass comes in the form of a confusing mix of loans, grants, tech- ments that few plants can meet.
nical expertise, and tax credits. Dividing these programs between the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Energy, and others The next generation of renewables doesn't do much to clarify things, but one incentive - the Today, biomass electricity is generated with wood chips from Production Tax Credit - is easily accessible to a broad range of timber harvesting operations. With state and federal incentives, as biomass and renewable energy projects. This tax credit allows well as the rise in overall energy costs, we will generate even more power plant owners to receive $9 per megawatt-hour in financial tomorrow. But what's beyond that?
support, a significant help to the economics of a biomass facility. For decades; researchers and developers have heralded the Additionally, at the state level, New York, Massachusetts, "bio-refinery revolution," where the myriad of products made Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine have adopted a "Renewable today from oil (gasoline, chemicals, plastics, and more) will be Portfolio Standard," or RPS. In essence, an RPS requires electricity made from wood. In fact, production of ethanol from wood was providers (the folks you send a check to each month) to get a cer- common in World War II Germany, when access to oil was tain, and often growing, percentage of their power from renewable severely limited. In the U.S., a wood-ethanol project was active in energy suppliers. These programs vary widely from state to state the South during World War I. The technology exists, but it has-but have proven to be a true incentive for new and existing biomass n't yet proven competitive with oil in an open global marketplace.
power plants. The funding comes from electricity providers, who The U.S. economy. and to a lesser extent the world economy.
pay a little extra to comply with the renewable energy mandate and pass the cost on p to every customer, including the large ratepayers.
Clockwise from left: Night view of BurlingtonElectric's McNeil GeneratingStation, a wood-firedpowerplant.
Public Service of New Hanmpshire'sNorthern Wood Power Projectinvolves replacinga coal-firedpower plant with a wood-burning facility, shown here under construction.
This method gets chips out of trailers in ajiffl.
24 Northern o(odlands
runs on oil. Our ships, cars, trains, and even loggers' skidders The impact on forests and forest landowners rely on oil to operate. The U.S., ever the consumer, accounts for The resurgent biomass industry, and the prospect of a new and a quarter of global oil consumption, more than the next five growing bio-product industry, may have some forestland owners highest-consuming countries combined. This huge appetite is seeing dollar signs. It's important they not see too many. Biomass nearly all based on imports - we own 'only two percent of the as an electricity source has historically paid little (if anything) to world's known oil reserves. the landowner; this will likely continue for the foreseeable future.
In recent years, developers have proposed facilities making Landowner and logger profits are made on sawlogs and, to a less-ethanol, diesel additives, bio-oil, plastic, and other products that er extent, pulpwood. Biomass provides landowners with a low-would use wood as the feedstock. Many of these proposals died grade market for their tops, branches, and cull trees. It allows on the drawing board because investors were unwilling to take foresters to use an important management tool, and it can provide the risk with a new technology competing against low-cost oil. true benefits to landowners, making it possible to remove poor-With oil momentarily topping $70 a barrel in 2005, however, and quality growth that would otherwise dominate a stand's future.
no return to the days of $35 barrels in the forecast, many bio- Just don't expect to count the benefits in a large stack of bills.
product business plans are being dusted off and updated. For loggers, biomass prices are now as high as they have ever Biomass does have real potential to substitute for or compete been, even adjusted for inflation. However, input costs - includ-with fuels and products currently made exclusively from oil; the ing diesel to run the feller-buncher, skidder, chipper, and truck -
corn-to-ethanol industry has demonstrated that. We know that are at their highest levels in 20 years. Most increases in wood price some products can be made in the lab, so today's considerable have been quickly eaten up by cost increases, so loggers aren't challenge is moving these to commercial production. Maine, necessarily seeing increased profits.
Wisconsin, New York, New Hampshire, and others are racing to Add to this the increased competition from other wood develop this emerging industry, in the hope that this could revo- sources, including paper cubes (pelletized paper that can't be lutionize the region's forest industry. It may, but it's also clear the economically recycled) and construction and demolition waste, revolution will be gradual, will build upon existing industries and whose use is highly controversial, and it doesn't appear that infrastructure, and will see a large number of failures for each further price increases are coming for supplying biomass (at least commercial success. when adjusted for the cost of oil).
For bio-products, develop-ers have been heard to prom-ise they will pay untold fortunes to landowners.
- ,Without production facilities, these promises are worth little.
When factories are built, we can expect them to pay market price for wood, and - like everyone else - seek ways to limit wood costs. They may grow the market, and there-fore raise the price of wood, but don't expect $200 a cord on the stump.
i The Northeast has an abundant and sustainable sup-
= ply of biomass, a landowner and logging infrastructure pre-pared. to meet supply needs, public policy that favors biomass energy, and a population that recognizes the many benefits that wood-derived electricity and fuels can provide. As a region, we are well positioned to continue a leadership role in the adoption and advancement of biomass energy.
ERIC KINGSLEY, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE CONSULTING FIRM INNOvATIvE NATURAL RESOURCE SOLUrIONS LLC (www.INRSI.C.cOM), HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE SMNG, CONVERSION, OR UPGRADING OF A NUMBER OF BIOMASS POWER PLANTS IN THE REGION AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
Northernmbodlands I Spring 2006 25
Wood Chips Keep Schools Warm BY HAMILTON E. DAVIS ell before first light on an icy winter morn- total of more than $600,000, a figure that gets a lot of attention ing, a tractor-trailer unit wheels out of the in a financially strapped system.
yard at the Claire Lathrop sawmill in According to Cathy Hilgendorf, the school construction Bristol, Vermont, and heads for Barre Town coordinator for the Vermont Department of Education, several Elementary and Middle School atop Quarry more communities have approved or are actively considering Hill. Dawn is just breaking as the rig pulls installing wood chip systems in their schools. "It's such a slam into the still-empty school parking lot and dunk, especially for larger schools," she says. "These systems pay backs up to one of the twin bays in a small for themselves in a few years. They're an easy sell, particularly building adjacent to the school itself. When the since the state will reimburse the community for 90 percent of a bay door opens, the driver activates the moveable floor of the renewable energy system.' In contrast, the state pays just 30 per-truck, and 30 tons of wood chips cascade into the storage bin. cent of other elements of construction projects, including con-Throughout the week, the chips will move in a herky-jerky ventional heating systems.
fashion out of the bin onto a conveyer system, across the floor of the building, up above head height to a hopper, and then into a While Vermont is poised to take even greater advantage of the abundant fuel its extensive forests provide, other states across the
'3 huge boiler, where they are burned to heat water in a heat exchang- Northeast have thus far mostly ignored wood heat's potential for er. The hot water is then pumped through the school to heat the their schools. New York has no wood-heated schools; Maine, the main building. most heavily forested state in the country, has just one, in Turner, This system, which cost about half a million dollars, was in the middle of the state; New Hampshire has two, one of which installed in 1996 to replace electrical heat that had been installed is in a twin-state district with Norwich, Vermont.
in the 1970s, when electricity was so cheap that people said it was- Massachusetts has just one high school with wood chip heat, in n't worth metering. By the mid 1990s, however, electricity was Athol, in the northern part of the state. Cooley Dickenson ferociously expensive, so as soon as the wood chip system went Hospital in Northampton uses wood heat, as does the Mt.
online, the school's fuel costs dropped by 90 percent. They saved Wachusett Community College in Gardner. Joe Smith, who heads
$100,000 the first year; the system paid for itself in five years.
Ted Riggen, the principal at Barre Elementary, loves everything about the system. He likes the reduced heating bill, of course, but he is also a former forester, and the idea of a sustainable fuel source has tremendous appeal to him. Administrators considering wood heat in their schools often visit, and Riggen likes giving them the tour himself. He especially likes taking them out to the storage bin and smelling the raw chips.
"Sometimes I think I could pour milk over a bowl of these chips and eat them like cereal" he says.
The most powerful appeal, of course, is the relatively low cost of the chips. Twenty-five Vermont elementary and highschools, serving roughly 10 percent of the state's students, use wood heat.
In the last several years, they have saved 35 to 40 percent over oil heat, the most common alternative fuel. And that margin has 3
been rising with the run-up in oil prices over the last year or two.
According to the Vermont Superintendents Association, Vermont schools using wood in the last full school year saved a PrincipalTed Riggcn shows off his school's wood-chip boiler.
38 Northern \Thodlands / Spring 2006
the Forest and Wood Products Institute at the college, says that wood-heat advocates in his region had to overcome considerable original resistance to heating with wood.
There was the simple fact that they had to I cut trees, which some people thought was bad, he says. Moreover, the shift to wood heat entailed significant changes in infra-structure, especially retrofitting an electric-heat campus. Just the planning and implementation of the conversion required the addition of full-time staff. Yet the con-version has paid off handsomely. The proj-ect cost was about two million dollars, but according to Rob Rizzo, the facilities chief at Mt. Wachusett, the $35-per-ton cost of wood chips is just one-tenth the cost of electricity and a fifth the cost of oil. This performance, according to Smith, has
- inspired Massachusetts state education officials to launch a major study of the
.advantages of converting elementary and secondary schools to wood heat.
It was 20 years ago that wood chip heat first came toschools in Vermont. It started.
I in the little town of Calais, in the north-central part of the state. In the mid 1980s, I Calais was paying a fortune for electric heat for its elementary school, so the town set up an ad hoc committee of volunteers to look for a solution. After considering a range of alternatives, the committee settled on wood heat; it estimated the town could save 80 percent of its fuel costs by switching from electric heat to chips and convinced the town to go ahead and install a system.
One of the local volunteers was Tim Maker, who had worked in the residential energy audit program run by the University of Vermont Extension Service and then, when that program lost its funding, estab-lished his own energy consulting company.
Now 59, Maker grew up in Springfield, Vermont, and earned a Tim Maker (left) of the Biomass Energy Resource Center and degree in engineering physics at Comell University. After working principalTed Riggen stand outside of Barre Town Elementary and on the Calais project, Maker went on to serve as project manager Middle School's wood-chip boiler smokestack.
for wood installations in 10 Vermont schools.
And in 2000, he set up the Biomass Energy Research Center cation officials to consider extending wood heat in their schools.
(BERC), with offices in Montpelier, Vermont. BERC is a nonprofit Maker is an unabashed advocate for wood chips; he also corporation that carries out a wide range of studies and projects on believes that the best way to advance this interest is by the most wood energy. One of the most important of these efforts has been rigorous technical analysis of all of the issues involved - technical, to serve as midwife to the installation of wood systems in schools. scientific, environmental, political, economic. At the root of this In addition to the Vermont projects, Maker has served as a con- analysis is Maker's conviction that the use of wood chips for heat sultant to school districts in Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico. The is good for everybody in the Northern Forest.
Center is now functioning as a partner with the Massachusetts edu- It is good for rural communities because it turns a byproduct NorthernWoodlands I Spring 2006 39
into public use and produces both revenues and jobs; it saves The three types of wood chips,from high-gradesawmill chips (left),
school systems large amounts of money; it improves the forest by to medium-grade bole chips (center), to low-grade whole tree chips encouraging the weeding out of low-quality trees; and it slows (right). Many schools are limited to using sawmill chips, which are global warming because it backs out the use of fossil fuels, whose also the most expensive, but some are startingto use bole chips.
consumption only adds carbon to the atmosphere. The only ambiguous area is air quality. Wood chip heat in small institutions opposed to papermaking-grade "clean chips' produces lower sulfate emissions than oil heat and about the same In between is a third category, called "bole chips," which are level of nitrate emissions. But its particulate emissions are higher. similar to whole-tree chips except that they come from the tree's These tiny particles are a problem because they can get into peo- bole - there are no small branches, only trunks and large limbs.
ple's lungs. The school projects deal with this by building tall The chips aren't screened, but since there are no small branches, enough smoke stacks to get the particulates away from the school there are few if any stringers.
site; and in any event, the school system boilers are far less of a It isironic that schools, the smallest systems and by far the small-problem than woodstoves in homes, Maker argues. est consumer of chips, have to use the highest-quality chips. The The use of wood chip heat in schools has been pretty much an reason is that the delivery systems in the schools, which move the unalloyed success, but now the system is coming under some pres- chips from the storage conveyer systems and from the hoppers into sure, with chip prices drifting up after remaining low for more the boilers themselves, have relatively small augers. These augers are than a decade, and with some of the advocates beginning to worry easily jammed by stringers, so schools will have nothing to do with about the stability of the chip supply. No shortages have appeared whole-tree chips, though they are the most readily available kind.
yet, but technical issues and the health of the forest products Despite these stringent requirements, nobody has worried industry itself have become a concern to people like Maker. about the supply of these chips to schools - until now. In the last The key to the whole system is the wood chip itself. The chips year, the price of chips to schools has begun to rise, and there is come from two sources: sawmills like Lathrop's and mobile chip- considerable concern about the supply. One of the problems isthat pers used on log landings. By far the highest-quality chips come the schools use such a small piece of the chip stream, just 16,000 to from sawmills. The mills acquire logs, mostly hardwood, remove 18,000 tons of the million or so tons that are harvested in Vermont the bark, and saw the clean logs into lumber. Turning an imperfect each year, so they have little pricing power with the chip suppliers.
round log into sound, square-edged lumber produces some waste In fact, Bob DeGeus of Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and wood - slabs and edgings - which is then passed through a chip- Recreation, says that the mills essentially supply the schools as a per and then run through a screen to ensure uniform size. The community service. "They have a good-neighbor policy," he says.
result is a pale, tan piece of hardwood about two-thirds the size of . Moreover, the special equipment needed to supply the schools a paper book of matches. Paper mills buy these chips to augment is expensive. The big users, such as electric power plants and pulp the chips they produce themselves from debarked logs. And they and paper companies, have massive infrastructure to process are coveted bythe schools. As Steve Murray, the operations chief at wood, but most schools have only simple, below-ground storage Barre Town Elementary, says, "These are the Cadillac of chips." bins. Jim Lathrop says the walking-bottom trailers needed to get At the other end of the spectrum are chips that are not even chips to schools cost $45,000 apiece; he has two. Also, the tractors of Kia quality: whole-tree chips that come from logging jobs and that pull the trailers have to have special hydraulics to operate the land-clearing operations. In these circumstances, whole trees are walking bottoms; he has five of those. Then there is the screening fed into a chipper, and the resulting biomass is shipped off to and the extra work to guarantee the highest-quality chips. "You've wood-fired power plants. The chips include bark, twigs, and got a million-dollar deal to stay in this business:' he says.
leaves, and they are not screened, so that there are lots of odd Finally, wood-heat advocates worry about gathering stresses sizes, including long, skinny stringers that often result when and crosscurrents within the forest products industry itself. From small branches are chipped. These are called "dirt)y chips," as the perspective of the schools, the biggest threat is erosion in the 40 NorthernWoodiands / Spring 2006
financial outlook for loggers and mills. One problem is the strug- However that works out, there appears to be one step that the gle going on in the pulp and paper industry, one of the biggest schools can make themselves: they could persuade the manufac-purchasers of wood. The Northeast segment of that industry is turers of the wood boilers to beef up the augers and other elements being pressured by competitors in other parts of the U.S., South of the delivery system so that the schools could routinely use bole America, Europe, and now Asia. chips. Jim Lathrop strongly supports that. "They would be a bit The sawmills are also in a financial squeeze. Their costs are more expensive," he says, "but they would be much more flexible" going up steadily, and the price of lumber is not keeping pace. And Though most schools prefer sawmill chips, some are making the loggers who supply them have their own set of challenges, the gradual shift to bole chips. This year, about half of the supply including high workers' comp rates and high fuel costs that erode at Barre Town is bole chips, supplied by.Limlawv Chipping, one of profitability. According to Tim Maker, this dynamic can eat away the largest chip suppliers. Adam Sherman, who works with Maker at the infrastructure needed to keep the wood chip stream flowing. at BERC, says, "I think the future for the schools is bole chips."
"If the paper mills go out and the number of sawmills declines, Despite these caveats, Vermont school officials at all levels con-the infrastructure that supports the industry likewise begins to *tinue to be upbeat about wood chip heat. Cathy Hilgendorf at the contract - the chipping machines and the log trucks, and the spe- state education department is pushing it as hard as she can. And cial equipment gets scarcer," he says. The chip supply for schools is principals like Ted Riggen do likewise. Riggen, in fact, is talking critically at risk from this perspective. about how to use the 88 acres of woods surrounding his school as BERC now has a $50,000 grant from the federal and state gov- *a source of sustainable fuel. He thinks that the local vocational high ernments, along with some contributions from private industry, school should consider adding a forest products course to its aca-to seek a solution to this gathering problem. Maker says they are demic offerings.
looking for ways to tweak the business model for chip producers "You manage the forest well," he says, "and you can sustain this in a way that would bolster the chip supply."We now see an advan- flow forever."
tage to higher chip prices' he says. "Schools would still save a lot of money over oil, and it might be possible for someone to make HAMILTON DAVIS IS A WRITER AND POLICY ANALYST BASED IN BURLINGTON, a living in this business." VERMONT.
Unlike schools, wood-chip-firedpowerplants like the McNeil GeneratingStation in Burlington, Vermont, buy largequantitiesof chips.
Northern Woodlands /Spring 2006 41
Putting Wood in.
Your Gas Tank Wood Fiber Could Be Important Source of Ethanol By GAIL DUTTON he Midwest is making a reputation for parts of trees and plants. In virtually all research labs, this process itself turning corn stalks and husks has been replaced with the second, and more efficient, method -
into bioethanol, while the South is eye- called hemiceilulose conversion - which extracts the sugars from ingThe rice Northeast, husks. wood and uses them to make other products, including bioethanol.
however, has a biomass that Cellulose comprises about 45 percent of the wood, but, may be more valuable than either: wood. The Amidon says, "cellulose is very hard to take apart." Basically, the United States Department of Agriculture wood is ground into fine particles and fermented, yielding about (USDA) estimates that woody biomass could 8 percent bioethanol and 92 percent water. That mixture is dis-replace as much as 30 percent of the petroleum tilled three times - using considerable fossil-fuel-based energy -
used in the U.S. Much of that would come from to produce 100 percent bioethanol.
the Northeast, where forests tend to be rich with In the more efficient hemicellulose conversion, biorefineries hardwoods, and "hardwoods are better than softwoods for this," convert hemicelluloses (wood sugars, especially xylan) to ethanol.
says Lee Lynd, an engineering professor at Dartmouth College. Xylan is the second largest component in hardwood fiber, and The Northeast has a long history of converting wood to paper paper companies dissolve and burn most of it in the process of I¢ and, in the past few decades, of converting some of thesteam pro-duced in papermaking into electricity. Wood-fired power plants have been burning chips to make electricity in the region for a making chemical pulp. But xylan can be readily captured by extracting it from the wood prior to pulping. It can then be puri-fied and concentrated with a membrane and then fermented to couple of decades. Now wood chips, along with wastes from the make ethanol. To top it off, energy produced in the process can pulp and paper mills, have another possible use. Researchers have help power the ethanol conversion and concentration process.
found a way to convert them into liquid fuel - specifically, into By using a biorefinery model and by using energy generated bioethanol that can be mixed with gasoline and used to reduce during the conversion process to operate the conversion plant, our dependence on hydrocarbon-based fuels and also help those much peer-reviewed research is showing a net energy gain, notes fuels burn cleaner. Lynd. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 2004 esti-The term "bioethanol" is commonly used to describe ethanol mated that using enzymes to convert biomass into sugars could that is made exclusively from carbohydrates, such as corn or result in cost reductions of more than 20-fold per gallon of wood, that are found in the biosphere. This distinguishes it from bioethanol produced, compared to the cellulpse conversion.
ethanol in general, which can be manufactured from petroleum. "The idea of biorefineries is that [similar to oil refineries] you There are two broad - and very different - approaches to con- make multiple products at once," Lynd says. A biorefinery, for verting wood to bioethanol, according to Thomas Amidon, direc- example, could produce steam for power generation, acetic acid, tor of the Empire State Research Institute. Neither is in commercial and biodegradable plastic, as well as bioethanol.
use yet. One process - called cellulose conversion - makes "Ethanol is one of the earliest products that will be made, but Fi bioethanol from cellulose, which, with lignin, makes up the woody it's not the most valuable," Lynd says. Acetic acid, at about 45 cents per pound for its use in making acetates, has nearly twice A mountain of*chips; Inset: Lee Lynd, engineering professor the value of ethanol, and you don't have to ferment it, he says.
at Dartmouth College, and some of his bioethanol-conversion Using biorefineries could more than double the value of the equipment. energy extracted from wood waste products in the forest industry, Northernmbodiands I Spring 2006 55
I
.4 from the equivalent of 300 million barrels of oil in 1990 to more paper and bioethanol is a bit tricky, Jeffries says, because the acids than 600 millions of barrels of oil by 2030, according to a report used to break down the wood can destroy some of the cellulose, by the American Forest & Paper Association. and the resulting degradation products reduce fiber yield and Hardwoods will play a particular role in this conversion. strength. "The toxic byproducts also inhibit fermentation of the "Different species of trees have different utilities," explains sugars into ethanol," he says.
Thomas Jeffries, a microbiologist who works for the USDA Forest The hemicellulose conversion process, however, overcomes Service's Forest Products Labs. "Hexose sugars - glucose and that problem and complements the way paper is made today.
galactose, for instance - are abundant in softwoods, but softwoods Currently, the pulp and paper industry extracts hemicellulosic aren't as easy to convert to liquid fuels." Softwoods are more diffi- sugars as one step in converting cellulose into paper, but treats cult to degrade, and their sticky pitch makes them more difficult them as waste. Those wasted dollars can be converted into to process than hardwoods. Although technology to degrade soft- bioethanol, either by fermenting the sugars in solution, or by con-wood is being developed simultaneously in the U.S., Canada, and verting the waste sludge using either enzymes or microbes.
Sweden, conifers currently are more valuable for their fiber. Processing it is economical, too, particularly when viewed against Hardwoods, in contrast, have shorter fibers and more-readily the price of oil. It can boost a paper mill's bottom line without degraded cellulose crystals, which allows the fibers to be taken significantly changing operations.
apart by enzymes more easily than softwood fibers. Among hard- Economically, as a source of energy, "wood-based ethanol is a woods, the l1wer-density woods, such as poplar, cottonwood, and fifth the cost of oil," Lynd says. Currently, he explains, the raw willow, are easier to convert to bioethanol. In such species, the material costs about $40 per ton for cellulosic biomass or $20 per lignin is less cross-linked and the wood has a higher hemicellu- wet ton for wood chips. Converting biomass to ethanol using a lose content, lower bark content, and lower extractive compo- biorefinery is the equivalent of buying oil at $13 per barrel, he says.
nents - features that make them more amenable to conversion. That figure doesn't include the capital costs of establishing biorefineries or distribution systems, however. When those and Boon for the paper industry? other related costs are added into the equation, wood-based bio-The still-emerging hemicellulose-conversion method offers a mass could compete with oil that costs $30 to $35 per barrel -
distinct advantage for the pulp and paper industry in the form of about half the peak cost of a barrel of oil in 2005.
a new revenue stream. Traditionally, converting wood to both Those numbers sound good, but starting a wood-to-bioethanol Low-grade wood could become an importantfeedstock for bioethanolrefineries.
................. tf &
. "r ,
56 NorthernWoodlands / Spring 2006
Ethanol is essentially alcohol, made through a variety of processes. The feedstock can be either biological or fossil fuel. Ethanol made from biological sources (wood chips or corn husks, for example) Is called bloethanot.
plant means risk and involves a large amount of capital, Lynd says. quantities and identif potential markets:' according to David No commercial entity is as yet using wood to produce bioethanol. BonDurant, Lyonsdale plant manager. The goal is to determine To build a viable wood-to-bioethanol market, "we need two com- whether it's financially feasible for Lyonsdale to produce plementary actions: to lower the investment hump for new plants bioethanol as a byproduct of its normal operations. Lyonsdale's and to do breakthrough research and development:' participation gives SUNY-ESF researchers real-world samples Most existing bioethanol plants in the U.S. rely upon corn and feedback. Bioethanol, to BonDurant, is a value-added prod-stover - the stalks and other materials not used as food - and corn uct that could help his plant and others become more viable.
grain. Theoretically, according to the National Renewable Energy Depending on the results of the testing, bioethanol production Laboratory, one dry ton of feedstock would produce nearly 125 could augment revenues from generating electricity.
gallons of bioethanol from corn, or 113 gallons from corn stover. "Any way of keeping the facility open is in my best interest, and It estimates that a ton of forest thinnings processed through the best interest of the Northeast," he says. "Until recently, bio-hemicellulose conversion would produce nearly 82 gallons of mass plants weren't competitive. The cost of fuel was high, so bioethanol. many biomass plants shut down in the past five years." If we can Grain is the main feedstock for bioethanol now, but wood has make a value-added product from the wood - like sugars for some benefits over competing biomass sources that will boost its bioethanol - the plants could become more competitive, he says.
use. Unlike such seasonal biomass crops as corn, soybeans, or Making the plants more competitive could in turn result in switchgrass, wood can be harvested throughout the year, stored better forestry in the region by providing stable markets for low-for months as chips without degrading (longer if left in log form), grade wood, which would be chipped as a fuel source for biore-and can be left growing in the forest until it's needed, thus fineries. The presence of that market, in turn, encourages enabling just-in-time delivery systems. Wood also is denser than woodlot owners to improve their timber stands by removing alternative biomass sources and so on a volume basis contains poor-quality trees because they can recoup at least part of the more potential energy. expense of their removal. Thinning out the low-grade wood Researchers agree that more study is needed to increase wood- improves the long-term value of the forests. But without that conversion efficiency. In the meantime, Jeffries says, bioethanol market, improvement work is an expense that many landowners plants are likely to be designed to handle multiple fuel types, such will not choose to incur.
as trees, corn stover, rice hulls, and other biomass. "A rising tide raises all boats:" Lynd says, noting that small Other issues must also be resolved before wood-based landowners could sell the thinnings directly to biorefineries and bioethanol plants become a reality, including guaranteeing long- then eventually get a higher price for their mature timber in the term feedstock supplies for the plants, Lynd says. The feedstock future because it will be of higher quality.
issue isn't trivial, Jeffries emphasizes. "Plants want 20-year con- Lynd's optimistic outlook for bioethanol is partially based on tracts but can't get even 5- or 10-year contracts" with suppliers of the existing fuel market. Several states are requiring that ethanol biomass. Despite these hurdles, "There's every reason to believe be added to gasoline and diesel to help those fuels burn hotter, we can be very successful:' Lynd adds. and thus more completely, which reduces air pollution The interest in bioethanol extends beyond the fuel and paper Right now, more than 30 percent of all gasoline in the U.S. is industries. Lyonsdale Biomass LLC, a division of Catalyst blended with ethanol, according to the Renewable Fuels Renewables Corporation, runs a 19-megawatt wood-fired power Association. In early 2005, the U.S had 81 ethanol plants in 20 plant :in Lyonsdale, New York, on the western side of the states, with the capacity to produce more than 4 billion gallons Adirondacks. It currently burns upwards of 200,000 tons of wood annually. Another 16 plants are in construction and will add each year. Lyonsdale is working with the state government to another 750 million gallons of capacity, according to the develop a renewable portfolio project that provides an incentive to Renewable Fuels Association, thus indicating the growing market help develop the wood-to-biomass industry. Like other biomass for bioethanol. If the current research can turn wood as a fuel-companies, Lyonsdale burns only low-grade woods - tops, limbs, stock for bioethanol into a commercial reality, northeastern and poorly formed trees - in its existing wood-to-energy plant. motorists could find themselves filling their tanks with a fuel Lyonsdale is participating in biomass research being done by that's at least partly made from the forest that surrounds us.
the State University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF). "This year, we're sending sam- GAIL DUTTON FOCUSES ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, WRITING FROM HER ples [of our wood biomass] to SUNY-ESF to determine potential FAMILY'S TREE FARI IN WASHINGTON STATE.
Northern Woodlands ISpring 2006 57