ML070530014
| ML070530014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/31/2007 |
| From: | NRC/OGC |
| To: | |
| jmm7 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML070530014 (122) | |
Text
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
+ + + + +
4 5
6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 7
IN THE MATTER OF:
8 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE :
9 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL :
10 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE :
11 RENEWAL OF 12 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR :
13 POWER STATION 14
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 15 Wednesday 16 January 31, 2007 17 18 Latchis Theater 19 50 Main Street 20 Brattleboro, Vermont 21 22 The above-entitled matter was convened, 23 pursuant to Notice, at 7:03 p.m.
24 BEFORE:
Francis "Chip" Cameron 25 FACILITATOR 26
2 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 I N D E X 1
OPENING REMARKS:
PAGE:
2 Chip Cameron 4
3 OVERVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS 4
Richard Emch 9
5 RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 6
David Miller 18 7
HOW COMMENTS CAN BE SUBMITTED 8
Richard Emch 32 9
PUBLIC COMMENT 10 Diana Sidebotham 36 11 Deb Katz 40 12 Beth McElwee 43 13 Bruce Wiggett 45 14 Andy Davis 48 15 Chris Williams 54 16 Michael LaPorte 58 17 Bill Maguire 59 18 Ed Sprague 61 19 Norman Raymond 63 20 Ann Howes 64 21 Bernie Buteau 66 22 Jim Herrick 69 23 Larry Cummings 74 24 David Mannai 75 25
3 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 I N D E X 1
PUBLIC COMMENT PAGE:
2 Nick Caristo 78 3
William Schulze 80 4
Dick Brigham 82 5
Ida Belivet 84 6
Kent Belivet 85 7
Roy Ramsdell 87 8
Brian Tietze 88 9
Karen Murphy 90 10 Nina Keller 94 11 Norm Redemacher 97 12 Clay Turnbull 98 13 Gary Sachs 100 14 Sally Shaw 105 15 Len Akin 110 16 Howard Shaffer 111 17 John Shadis 113 18 CLOSING REMARKS 19 Rani Franovich 115 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(7:03 p.m.)
2 MR. CAMERON: Good evening, everyone, 3
thank you for being here tonight at the public meeting.
4 My name is Chip Cameron and it's my pleasure to serve 5
as your facilitator, and in that role I'm going to try 6
to help all of us to have a productive meeting tonight.
7 The subject is the environmental review that NRC, the 8
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, conducts as one part of 9
its evaluation on whether to renew the license for the 10 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, and we received an 11 application to renew the license from Entergy 12 Corporation. We are in the middle of our review and 13 you'll hear a little bit more about that in a few 14 minutes.
15 I just wanted to tell you a little bit 16 about some meeting process issues. First of all, the 17 format for the meeting, and secondly, some real simple 18 ground rules to help all of us have a good meeting 19 tonight. In terms of the format, we basically have a 20 two-part format, the first part is to give you some 21 information on what the NRC looks at when it evaluates 22 an application for license renewal, such as the one 23 received from Entergy for Vermont Yankee, and we are 24 also going to tell you what the findings are in the 25
5 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 draft environmental impact statement, so we have two 1
short presentations on that.
2 And I just want to emphasize the word 3
draft, draft environmental impact statement, it won't 4
be finalized until the NRC staff evaluates, listens to 5
and evaluates the comments that they hear from you 6
tonight, as well as comments that we had in this 7
afternoon's meeting and written comments that you can 8
submit on the draft environmental impact statement.
9 And anything you say tonight will carry the same weight 10 as a written comment, but you are more than welcome to 11 amplify on your comments tonight by submitting 12 something in writing.
13 And the comments are going to be the focus 14 of the second part of the meeting, after we get done 15 with the presentations, and we are here to listen to 16 your concerns, your advice and your recommendations on 17 these draft environmental impact issues and on license 18 renewal. Ground rules, very simple, just please, one 19 person at a time speaking, most importantly so that we 20 can give our full attention to whomever has the floor 21 at the moment. But also so that our court reporter, 22 Marty Farley, who is up here, can get a clean 23 transcript, so that he'll be able to identify who is 24 talking. And that transcript will be available to all 25
6 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 of you as a record of what transpired here tonight and 1
to the NRC obviously so that we can evaluate the 2
comments.
3 We have a lot of people who want to talk 4
tonight and that's great, we really appreciate that, 5
but it means that we are going to have to try to limit 6
the time accordingly for each speaker so that we can 7
get everybody on who wants to talk tonight, and I'm 8
going to ask you to try to summarize your comments in a 9
three minute, three to four minute summary. And 10 usually, I find that three to four minutes is enough 11 time for people to make their major points. You can 12 amplify through submitting something in writing or you 13 can, if you have a prepared statement, we will attach 14 it to the transcript and that will be part of the 15 public record.
16 And even three minutes of comment does two 17 important things, one, it alerts the NRC staff to 18 issues that they should start thinking about 19 immediately in evaluating comments, and having an 20 opportunity to talk to you about your comments after 21 the meeting is over. And secondly, other people in the 22 audience are going to hear what the concerns and issues 23 are, and I will apologize in advance if I have to be 24 sort of abrupt in terms of asking you to sum up. This 25
7 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 afternoon's meeting, we had a lot of good comments but 1
we had only less than half the amount of people who 2
want to talk tonight so that we had some leeway in 3
allowing people to go on.
4 Well we don't have that leeway tonight 5
even to try to make it to the 10:00 adjournment time.
6 We have some people who are coming back from this 7
afternoon, I'm going to start, when we go to the 8
comment period, I'm going to give the people who did 9
not have an opportunity to talk at all, they are going 10 to go first and then we will get around to the people 11 who are back for a second, a second round.
12 And the final ground rule is just please 13 extend courtesy to each other. You'll hear opinions 14 tonight that you may not agree with but please respect 15 the person who is giving that opinion.
16 And I just want to introduce the speakers 17 who will give you the background, there is Mr. Richard 18 Emch right over here.
19 (Applause) 20 MR. CAMERON: All right, I think you 21 deserve that.
22 Rich Emch is the project manager on the 23 environmental review for the Vermont Yankee license 24 renewal application. He has been with the NRC for 25
8 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 about 32 years in a variety of positions and he has 1
served as a project manager on a number of license 2
renewal applications. He has a bachelors degree in 3
physics from Louisiana Technical University and a 4
masters in health physics from the Georgia Institute of 5
Technology he is going to give you an overview of 6
7 And then you are going to hear from 8
Dr. Dave Miller, who is right here. Dave was the team 9
leader of the group of scientists, experts who helped 10 us to prepare the environmental impact statement, 11 helped us to evaluate impacts, and he is going to tell 12 you about that process and the findings. He is from 13 Argonne National Lab, he is an environmental engineer, 14 and he has a masters and a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins 15 University in environmental engineering. And I would 16 just thank you again for being here. Okay, how's that?
17 Am I standing in a bad place for you maybe?
18 But at any rate, one final thing is that 19 the NRC is not required to hold these public meetings.
20 We are required to take written comment, but we want to 21 be here in person with you because we want to talk to 22 you. We want to hear your passion, your concerns on 23 these issues because that just reminds us, we don't 24 need reminding, but it reminds us that we need to do 25
9 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 our job conscientiously and responsibly, so that's why 1
we are here and thank you for being here.
2 And with that, I'm going to turn it over 3
to Richard Emch to give you an overview of license 4
renewal. He will tell you and if there is any 5
questions about that, we will make sure we clarify it.
6 Richard?
7 MR. EMCH: Thank you, Chip.
8 As Chip said, my name is Rich Emch, I'm 9
the environmental project manager for the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission for the review of the Vermont 11 Yankee license renewal application.
12 The first thing I want to do tonight is 13 talk to you about the purposes of this meeting. First, 14 I'm going to discuss the overall license renewal 15 process with a little more specifics about the 16 environmental review part of the process, then we are 17 going to talk about the results of our review, and I'm 18 going to talk a little bit about the rest of the 19 schedule for the review. And then finally, I'm going 20 to tell you how to submit comments, and the best part 21 is we are going to listen to you folks talk to us about 22 your views, your comments about the environmental, the 23 draft environmental statement that we've put out.
24 The Atomic Energy Act is the legislation 25
10 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 that basically created the Nuclear Regulatory 1
Commission and gives it, and tells us what our 2
responsibilities are, and that is we are responsible 3
for issuing the operating license for commercial 4
nuclear power plants and regulating the civilian use of 5
nuclear materials, which includes nuclear power plants.
6 Originally, these plants were licensed, as was Vermont 7
Yankee, for a 40-year period, that 40-year period was 8
based mainly on economic and anti-trust considerations, 9
not on safety issues. The act or our regulations also 10 allow for a utility or a licensee to make an 11 application to renew their license and that is indeed 12 what Entergy has done for Vermont Yankee, they have 13 made such an application.
14 The NRC's mission is threefold, to ensure 15 the adequate protection of the public health and 16 safety, to promote common defense and security, and to 17 protect the environment. The current operating license 18 for Vermont Yankee will expire in March of 2012 and the 19 application of course, that we just discussed, Entergy 20 has applied for, has made an application, applied for 21 an extension, a license renewal for 20 years.
22 This is the overall license renewal 23 process, the top lines show the safety process in red, 24 the bottom lines show the environmental process in 25
11 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 green. These processes are going on in parallel, the 1
safety side is doing their work and the environmental 2
side is doing its work.
3 In the middle, you will see a box that 4
says hearings, this means that there are hearings that 5
are going on, that will be held for this project with 6
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The parties to 7
the hearing are the NRC, Entergy and the contentions 8
for the hearing were raised by the parties, the New 9
England Coalition and the State of Vermont. The State 10 of New Hampshire is participating as an interested 11 state as well. Those hearings will probably start 12 after we issue the final environmental impact statement 13 and after the final safety report is out.
14 You'll see a box up there that says 15 independent review, that's the ACRS, the Advisory 16 Committee on Reactor Safeguards, they will do, once the 17 safety evaluation is completed, they will do an 18 independent review of that safety evaluation and make 19 their own recommendations to the Commission. The 20 Commission will take all these pieces of information 21 and put it together and make the decision about whether 22 or not to grant the application.
23 Let's talk a little bit more about the 24 safety review. The safety review concentrates on aging 25
12 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 management of safety related structures, systems and 1
components. That review is being led by the safety 2
project manager, Jonathan Rowley, Jonathan is right 3
over here. In addition to reviewing all the 4
application and materials that the licensee sends in, 5
the applicant sends in, we also, John's group does 6
on-site audits to inspect the technical accuracy of the 7
information that's been provided and also the 8
inspectors from Region I do inspections to ensure that 9
the programs that the licensee says they have been in 10 place have either been put in place and are effective 11 or that they are properly prepared and planned.
12 Finally, all that information will be a 13 part of the safety evaluation report that Jonathan's 14 group will issue and, as I said before, it will be 15 reviewed independently by the Advisory Committee on 16 Reactor Safeguards.
17 Let's talk about some important things 18 here that are important to the NRC but unrelated to 19 license renewal, emergency planning, security and 20 safety performance, the NRC's ongoing oversight of the 21 safety performance of the plant. These are all very 22 important issues to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 and because they are so important, the NRC has constant 24 oversight of these. There are inspections that go on 25
13 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 on a regular basis, there are, these are just, they are 1
day to day, current day issues, they are not issues 2
about what will be going on during the 20 years of 3
continued operation.
4 They are current day issues so if there is 5
a problem in one of these areas, it's not something we 6
want to talk about in license renewal, it's something 7
we want to talk about today, something that the people 8
who are responsible for the day to day safety and 9
oversight of plants such as Vermont Yankee are 10 responsible for. And we have one of the, a couple of 11 the individuals who are very closely related to that 12 here with us today. Most of you are probably aware 13 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has resident 14 inspectors whose entire job is to be at that plant, and 15 that's true. David Pelton is here, he is the senior 16 resident inspector at Vermont Yankee. His entire job is 17 making sure that the licensee operates Vermont Yankee 18 in a safe manner and within the NRC regulations. So 19 there is additional information about the safety 20 performances at the web site at the bottom of this 21 slide.
22 This is a more detailed version of the 23 environmental review process. As I mentioned, the 24 application was sent in January of 2006, we held the 25
14 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 environmental audit in May and we went to a lot of 1
different places, gathered a lot of information, saw a 2
number of state agencies. Then we continued on with 3
the review and we held a public meeting on June 7th 4
here at the Latchis Theater, a number of you probably 5
attended that meeting and gave us comments. We took 6
those comments, evaluated them, evaluated all the other 7
information that we gathered and issued the draft 8
supplemental, the draft environmental impact statement 9
on December 13, 2006.
10 Now we are in the comment period, which 11 will end on March 7th. I'm going to talk a little bit 12 later about how to get us comments, but one very 13 important way of getting us comments is tonight. As 14 you see, we have the meeting for comments on the draft 15 and that's what we are here for tonight, we are here to 16 hear what you have to tell us about our draft 17 environmental impact statement. We'll take all of 18 those comments that you give us tonight, all the ones 19 you send us in writing, all the ones you send us on the 20 Internet, and we will evaluate them and make whatever 21 changes are needed in the final environmental 22 statement.
23 Now what you are going to hear from Dave 24 Miller in a few minutes, he is going to talk about our 25
15 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 preliminary conclusions and that's what they are, 1
preliminary conclusions, and once we've evaluated all 2
the comments and other information that we gather, 3
we'll put all of that into the process as well and 4
decide whether or not the final environmental impact 5
statement is going to draw those same conclusions or 6
not.
7 Once we've issued the final impact 8
statement in August of 2007, the hearing process will 9
begin somewhere shortly after that, and with the 10 hearing process, the usual schedule, the overall length 11 of the review for when there is a hearing is about 30 12 months. So the review started in January of last year, 13 that would put us out somewhere in the June/July time 14 frame of 2008, that's just a very rough guess.
15 And basically, after the hearings are 16 completed, then the NRC will put all of the 17 information, the Commission will put all of the 18 information together and make its decision about 19 whether to grant the license or not, the extension.
20 Now we are going to talk about the 21 environmental review, how do we do the environmental 22 review? We do the environmental review under the 23 guidelines of NEPA, the National Environmental Policy 24 Act of 1969. NEPA requires federal agencies to 25
16 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 consider, assess and disclose the impacts that we find 1
as part of our review, and that's what we will be doing 2
as part of this evaluation.
3 We are also required to look at mitigative 4
measures, we are also required to look at alternatives, 5
and we are also required to engage the public and 6
that's part of what we are doing here and with the 7
comment period. The NRC has made a decision that we 8
will issue an environmental impact statement for each 9
of the, for each license renewal application, now let's 10 talk about the scope. In the 1990s, we issued what we 11 call a generic environmental impact statement, it's 12 GEIS for short.
13 Basically what the staff did is they 14 looked at a large number of the environmental issues 15 that would be involved with license renewal for all the 16 plants that were currently operating and they said in 17 many cases they were able to conclude, we said that in 18 many cases we were able to conclude that the 19 environmental impact would be the same for all plants 20 or all plants of a certain kind of, with a certain kind 21 of operational thing, like the ones that have cooling 22 towers or something like that.
23 However, there were also a fair number of 24 20 something issues where we could not draw those 25
17 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 generic conclusions and where the decision was that we 1
would have to do a plant-specific analysis for each 2
application that came in, and the evaluation, that 3
plant-specific analysis, is the primary part of the 4
site-specific environmental impact statement that we 5
are going to be talking about tonight.
6 Along with that, on those other issues 7
that are generic, that have generic conclusions, we do 8
what we call a search for new and significant 9
information, that means we go look to see if there is 10 any information that has come out since the GEIS that 11 would cause us to want to think about whether or not we 12 really can still make that generic conclusion, that 13 would cause us to question whether that generic 14 conclusion still holds.
15 This is the decision standard for the 16 environmental review, you can read it off the slide.
17 My version of it, the simple version is, Is the 18 environmental impact of an additional 20 years of 19 operation of this plant acceptable? And that's what 20 we are going to be trying to determine.
21 Now we are going to talk about the rest of 22 the review schedule or the whole review schedule, you 23 can see the application dates, you can see the intent 24 of, the notice of intent, you can see the scoping 25
18 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 meeting we held on June 7th here, you can see that we 1
received the comments by June 23rd. We put out the 2
scoping summary report October 30th and we issued the 3
draft December 13th. We are holding this meeting and 4
the comment period will end on March 7th, and as I said 5
before, we will issue the draft environmental impact 6
statement in August.
7 At this time, I'm going to ask David 8
Miller, the head, Dr. David Miller, the head of Argonne 9
National Laboratory team of experts, environmental 10 experts, to come up and talk to you about the results 11 of the review.
12 MR. MILLER: Thank you, Rich.
13 Good evening. As Chip and Rich have said, 14 I'm David Miller from Argonne National Lab, an 15 environmental engineer there, and I was the project 16 team lead for the Vermont Yankee EIS.
17 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 contracted with Argonne to evaluate the impacts of 19 license renewal on the Vermont Yankee, as resulting 20 from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power station's license 21 renewal application. The EIS team consists of 22 scientists from Argonne National Lab as well as from 23 the NRC staff. The overall team expertise is shown on 24 this slide and it includes the following disciplines, 25
19 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 atmospheric science, socioeconomics and environmental 1
justice, archeology and historical resources, 2
terrestrial ecology, land use, radiation protection, 3
regulatory compliance, aquatic ecology and hydrology.
4 This slide shows the overall approach used 5
to evaluate the impacts in the environmental impact 6
statement. First, I would like to give you some 7
background that Rich had already started on, in the mid 8
1990s, the NRC evaluated impacts of all operating 9
nuclear power plants across the country, and there were 10 92 separate impact areas that were identified, and for 11 69 of these impact areas they were determined to be the 12 same for plants with similar features. The NRC called 13 these category one issues and they were able to make 14 the same determination, i.e. generic determination, 15 about the impacts in the GEIS, in the generic 16 environmental impact statement, which was issued in 17 1996.
18 The NRC was unable to make generic 19 conclusions about the remaining issues and these are 20 known as category two issues. As a consequence, NRC 21 decided to prepare site-specific supplemental EISs, 22 such as the one that we are working on right now. This 23 slide shows the process used to evaluate category one 24 and category two issues in the VermontYankeeEIS. The 25
20 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 EIS team evaluated all category one issues, or generic 1
issues, relevant to Vermont Yankee to determine if the 2
conclusion of the generic EIS was still valid.
3 Specifically, we looked for any new and significant 4
information that might change that conclusion.
5 If we found no new and significant 6
information, then the conclusions we adopted were those 7
adopted in the generic environmental impact statement.
8 If new and significant information was identified, then 9
a site-specific analysis would be performed for that 10 issue. We didn't find any new and significant 11 information for category one issues, and for all of 12 these issues, we adopted the conclusions of the GEIS.
13 For all category two issues relevant to 14 Vermont Yankee, we performed a site-specific analysis, 15 much of the EIS is devoted to this site-specific 16 analysis, to the analysis of these impacts. There is 17 also this process to evaluate any new potential issues 18 in the EIS, these are things that were identified 19 during scoping or the EIS, and essential fish habitat 20 is one of those issues and an essential fish habitat 21 assessment was prepared for the Vermont Yankee 22 environmental impact statement.
23 In the generic EIS, the NRC defined three 24 impact levels, small, moderate and large. The 25
21 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 definitions used are consistent with, consistent with 1
guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality.
2 For a small impact, the effect is either not detectable 3
or is too small to destabilize or noticeably alter any 4
important attribute of the resource. For a moderate 5
impact, the effect is sufficient to alter noticeably 6
but not destabilize important attributes of that 7
resource. For a large impact, the effect is clearly 8
noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important 9
attributes of the resource.
10 I'll use the effect of the Vermont Yankee 11 cooling system on aquatic resources in the Connecticut 12 River to illustrate how we use those three criteria.
13 The operation of the Vermont Yankee cooling system 14 affects aquatic resources through entrainment, 15 impingement, and thermal shock. If the loss of aquatic 16 resources is so small that it can't be detected in 17 relation to the total population in the river or 18 doesn't destabilize the resource, then we say the 19 impact is small or would be small. If losses cause 20 aquatic resources to decline and then stabilize at a 21 lower level, the impact would be moderate. If losses 22 cause aquatic resources to decline to the point where 23 they can not be stabilized and continue to decline, 24 then the impact would be considered large.
25
22 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 The EIS team evaluates impacts from 1
continued operations of Vermont Yankee and we consider 2
information from a wide variety of sources, this slide 3
shows those sources. We used information in the 4
license renewal application, including information in 5
the environmental report. We conducted a site audit.
6 Our team went to the site and conducted the site tour 7
of the Vermont Yankee site. We interviewed plant 8
personnel and we reviewed documentation of the plant 9
operations. We spoke with federal, state and local 10 officials, we spoke with permitting authorities and 11 social services and we considered the comments that we 12 received from the public during the scoping period.
13 All of this information formed the basis for the 14 analysis and the preliminary conclusions in the Vermont 15 Yankee EIS.
16 The EIS considers the environmental 17 impacts of continued operations of the Vermont Yankee 18 Nuclear Power Station during a 20-year license renewal 19 term, that is 2012 to 2032. The impacts of routine or 20 normal operations were considered for the cooling 21 system, radiological impacts, threatened or endangered 22 species and cumulative impacts, and I will be talking 23 about them in the next few slides, each of the 24 categories. The EIS also considers the impacts of 25
23 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 postulated accidents and severe accident mitigation 1
alternatives. This is a rather long one, so I'm going 2
to have a drink of water.
3 Cooling system impacts. One of the 4
project features we looked at closely is the cooling 5
system for the Vermont Yankee plant. There were five 6
category two aquatic issues relevant to the cooling 7
system, these include water use conflicts, that is 8
plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using 9
makeup water from a small river with low flow, 10 entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish, heat 11 shock and the enhancement of populations of 12 microbiological organisms resulting from the discharge 13 of warm water to the river as a public health concern.
14 For water use conflicts, Vermont Yankee 15 withdraws water from the Vernon Pool in the Connecticut 16 River, the Connecticut River is considered a small 17 river. At times, the flow in the river is low. A 18 site-specific analysis was conducted that included 19 evaluating water consumption from the river under 20 drought conditions and comparison of that use to 21 Vermont State quality criteria. For entrainment, 22 entrainment refers to the pulling of very small 23 organisms into the plant's cooling system, entrainment 24 usually results in the mortality of the organisms 25
24 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 involved.
1 Vermont Yankee uses a hybrid cooling, a 2
hybrid cycle whereby cooling capacity can be provided 3
in several different modes, one of those is by cooling 4
towers, completely by cooling towers which is known as 5
closed-cycle, or solely by river water, that is open 6
flow to the river, circulating through the cooling 7
system, or some combination of the two and that's known 8
as the hybrid cycle. When Vermont Yankee is only 9
operating on cooling towers, entrainment is categorized 10 as a category one issue, that is one of them that would 11 be treated generically.
12 However, because the river is used at 13 times in an open cooling cycle, we treated that as a 14 category two issue, in that we looked at all issues 15 related to entrainment as a site-specific assessment 16 so, in essence, we went into much more detail than the 17 generic evaluation. Impingement is another issue of 18 similar, impingement occurs when larger organisms are 19 pulled into the cooling system and then pinned onto the 20 screens of the cooling system. When Vermont Yankee 21 operates only on cooling towers, once again it's a 22 category one type of issue, but since it operates in 23 open cycle, we treated the entire impingement issue as 24 a site-specific issue that we looked at, and that's 25
25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 true for heat shock also.
1 Heat shock can occur when relatively warm 2
water is released into cooler water, aquatic organisms 3
adapted to the cooler water can lose equilibrium or die 4
when exposed to significantly warmer water. When 5
Vermont Yankee is operating only on the cooling towers, 6
it's a category one issue, but we treated it as 7
site-specific because of this potential for open 8
cooling and so we looked at heat shock as a category 9
two site-specific issue.
10 Finally, for microbiological organisms, 11 the effects of microbiological organisms on human 12 health are listed as a category two issue and they 13 require a site-specific evaluation for plants with 14 closed-cycle cooling on a small river. The analysis 15 considers potential public health impacts associated 16 with thermal enhancement of enteric pathogens, enteric 17 pathogens are intestinal type pathogens. Our review of 18 the plant cooling system and the studies conducted on 19 the issues suggested that the potential impacts in 20 these areas would be small.
21 Radiological impacts. Radiological 22 impacts were determined in the GEIS to be a category 23 one issue, that is the impact of radiological releases 24 during nuclear plant operations over the 20-year 25
26 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 license renewal period would be small. However, we 1
realized that there are, releases are a concern to many 2
people and so I wanted to discuss them here. All 3
nuclear power plants release some radiological 4
effluents into to environment, although it should be 5
noted it's Vermont Yankee's operating policy to not 6
routinely release liquid radioactive effluents.
7 During our site visit, we looked at 8
documentation for effluent releases and the 9
radiological monitoring program, as well as the state's 10 independent monitoring program. We looked at how the 11 gaseous and liquid effluents were treated and released 12 as well as how the solid wastes were treated, packaged 13 and shipped. We looked at how the applicant determines 14 and demonstrates that they are in compliance with the 15 regulations for release of radiological effluents, we 16 also looked at data from on-site and near-site 17 locations that the applicant monitors for airborne 18 releases and direct radiation and other monitoring 19 stations beyond the site boundary, including locations 20 where water, milk, fish and food products are sampled.
21 We found that the average and maximum 22 calculated doses for a member of the public, even after 23 the 20 percent recent uprate granted to Vermont Yankee, 24 would be within the annual limits that are considered 25
27 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 protective of human health. Since releases from the 1
plant are not expected to increase over the 20-year 2
license renewal term and since we found no new and 3
significant information related to this issue, we 4
adopted the generic EIS conclusion that the 5
radiological impact on human health and the environment 6
would be small.
7 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 8
determined that the bald eagle is the only federally 9
listed species under their jurisdiction that is known 10 to occur in the vicinity of Vermont Yankee; they 11 concluded that the operations were unlikely to affect 12 this species. The National Marine Fisheries Service 13 was also consulted. Based on these consultations and 14 our review, the staff's preliminary determination is 15 that the impact of operation of Vermont Yankee during 16 the license renewal on threatened or endangered species 17 would be small.
18 Cumulative impacts are the impacts of the 19 proposed action together with other past, present or 20 reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 21 what agency or other person undertakes the other, 22 undertakes the other actions. The staff considered 23 cumulative impacts in the following areas, aquatic 24 resources, terrestrial resources, radiological impacts, 25
28 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 socioeconomics and ground use and quality. Cumulative 1
impacts were evaluated to the end of the 20-year 2
license renewal term and the geographic boundaries of 3
the evaluation were dependent on the resource. Our 4
preliminary determination is that any cumulative 5
impacts resulting from the operation of Vermont Yankee 6
during the license renewal period would be small.
7 The team also looked at impacts related to 8
the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management and 9
decommissioning of Vermont Yankee. In the GEIS, NRC 10 considered impact areas associated with these topics as 11 category one issues, our team found no related new and 12 significant information and therefore adopted the NRC's 13 generic conclusion that the impacts in these areas 14 would be small.
15 The EIS team evaluated alternatives to 16 license renewal of the existing plant. Specifically, 17 we looked at the impacts of replacing Vermont Yankee 18 power with power from other sources, Vermont Yankee has 19 a capacity of 650 megawatts.
20 The team looked at no, these are the 21 options, no action alternative, that is not renewing 22 the license, development of new generation from coal 23 fired, gas fired and new nuclear to replace the 650 24 megawatts, purchase power to replace Vermont Yankee's 25
29 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 capacity, other technologies such oil, wood, wind, 1
solar and hydropower to replace Vermont Yankee's 2
capacity and a combination of alternatives. In this 3
case, we looked at a combination of natural gas 4
generation, conservation and purchase power to replace 5
the generating capacity.
6 For each alternative, we looked at the 7
same types of issues that we would look at for the 8
operation of the Vermont Yankee plant during the 9
license renewal term. The team's preliminary 10 conclusion is that the environmental impacts of 11 alternatives would reach moderate or large significance 12 in at least some impact categories, primarily due to 13 the need for new construction.
14 To summarize our conclusions, for the 15 category one issues presented in the generic EIS that 16 relate to the Vermont Yankee plant, we found no 17 information that was both new and significant.
18 Therefore, we have preliminarily adopted the conclusion 19 that impacts associated with these issues are small.
20 In the Vermont Yankee EIS, we analyzed the remaining 21 category two issues pertinent to the Vermont Yankee 22 plant and we determined that the environmental impacts 23 resulting from these issues were also small. Lastly, 24 we found that the environmental effects of 25
30 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 alternatives, at least in some impact categories, could 1
reach moderate or large significance.
2 I'm going to switch gears here now and 3
present the findings of the accident analysis for 4
Vermont Yankee. We have Mr. Robert Palla in the 5
audience today and he was responsible for this portion 6
of the analysis, he is with the NRC. The EIS evaluated 7
two classes of accidents, design-basis accidents and 8
severe accidents. Design-basis accidents are those 9
accidents that the plant is designed to withstand 10 without risk to the public. The ability of the plant 11 to withstand these accidents has to be demonstrated 12 before the plant is actually granted a license.
13 Since the licensee has to demonstrate 14 acceptable plant performance for the design-basis 15 accidents throughout the life of the plant, the 16 Commission found, in the generic EIS, that the 17 environmental impact of design-basis accident is small 18 for all plants. The second category of accidents 19 evaluated in the generic EIS are severe accidents, 20 severe accidents are by definition more severe than the 21 design-basis accidents because they would result in 22 substantial damage to the reactor core. The Commission 23 found, in the generic EIS, that the risk of a severe 24 accidents is small for all plants.
25
31 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Nevertheless, the Commission determined 1
that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 2
considered for all plants that have not done so. These 3
alternatives are termed SAMA, S-A-M-A. The SAMA 4
evaluation is a site-specific assessment and is a 5
category two issue, as we explained them to be earlier, 6
the category two issues. The purpose of performing the 7
SAMA evaluation is to ensure that the plant changes 8
with the potential for improving severe accident safety 9
performance are identified and evaluated.
10 The scope of potential plant improvements 11 that were considered included hardware modification, 12 procedural changes, training program improvements, 13 basically a full spectrum of potential changes. The 14 scope includes SAMAs that would prevent core damage as 15 well as SAMAs that improve containment performance, 16 given that a core damage event occurs.
17 The preliminary results of the Vermont 18 Yankee SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide, 19 302 candidate improvements were identified for Vermont 20 Yankee. The number of candidate SAMAs was reduced to 21 66 based on a multi-step screening process. A more 22 detailed assessment then was conducted for the risk 23 reduction potential and implementation costs for those 24 remaining 66 SAMAs and a total of two were identified 25
32 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 as potentially cost-beneficial by Entergy.
1 In response to NRC staff inquiries, four 2
additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs were 3
identified. None of the potentially cost-beneficial 4
SAMAs relate to the managing the effects of plant aging 5
during the period of extended operation. Accordingly, 6
they are not required to be implemented as part of the 7
license renewal, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.
8 Regardless, the NRC staff considers further evaluation 9
of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs by Entergy as 10 warranted. Since the draft SEIS was issued, Entergy 11 has indicated they are evaluating the potentially cost-12 beneficial SAMAs for possible implementation.
13 That concludes my section of this and I'll 14 turn the mic back to Rich.
15 MR. EMCH: Okay. Just quickly, we've been 16 through it before, but the three main milestones here, 17 we issued the draft environmental statement in 18 December, the end of the comment period is March 7th 19 and we'll issue the final environmental statement in 20 August. If you need additional information to help you 21 with your evaluation of our document, you can contact 22 me, that's the information that's up there.
23 The documents, such as the environmental 24 statement, are available at these four libraries in 25
33 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and you can 1
view the document on-line as well as all kinds of, at 2
this address here and also, if you go to the NRC web 3
site, there is a lot of other information about the 4
license renewal process and guidance documents.
5 Now, I'll try to answer your question, 6
ma'am. Submitting comments, they can be submitted, the 7
easiest way is to go ahead and give us your comments, 8
just step up here to the mic tonight and tell us your 9
comments, they will be transcribed, they'll be 10 considered. You can send them in by mail to the 11 address that's on here or you can send them by e-mail 12 and that was, during the scoping process, that was a 13 method that a lot of people used, they sent their 14 comments by e-mail to the VermontYankeeEIS@NRC.gov web 15 site. And then the last method is, if you happen to be 16 in the Washington, D.C. area, Rockville, our offices 17 are in Rockville and you could deliver them in person.
18 I believe that all of this information is 19 on the handout that you picked up when you came in the 20 door, hopefully you have everything you need. With 21 that, I want to thank you folks for coming out tonight 22 and we'll try to get then into the comment part of the 23 presentation. When I was here in June, I asked you 24 folks to be my, to help me out, to give, since you are 25
34 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 the folks who, I consider you to be my environmental, 1
local environmental experts, you live and work in this 2
area and I asked you to help me out by giving me 3
information that might help me with my review. A 4
number of you took me up on that during the scoping 5
period and I want to thank you for that and I'm looking 6
forward to seeing what your comments are tonight.
7 Chip?
8 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Rich.
9 We don't have much time for questions 10 during the formal part of the meeting, but I do need to 11 ask if there is any question you need answered in order 12 to either make your comments tonight or to submit 13 written comments. We did have one question along those 14 lines that I will ask for Gary Sachs and it had to do 15 with the information on the SAMAs, and the term cost-16 beneficial was used in that connection and the question 17 is what does that mean? What does cost-beneficial 18 mean? And I'm going to ask Bob Palla from the NRC 19 staff to try to simply explain that to all of us.
20 Bob?
21 MR. PALLA: Okay. When we look at a 22 severe accident mitigation alternative, we look at its 23 impact on the likelihood of core damage. We would 24 expect these plant enhancements to reduce the 25
35 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 likelihood of a core damage event and also we look at 1
the impact of the improvement on the off-site 2
consequences, and we generally would expect the 3
consequences to be reduced by implementing the 4
improvement. We then, so we would associate a 5
reduction in core damage frequency and a reduction in 6
population dose with each SAMA, we use the 7
probabilistic risk assessment study to assign these 8
values.
9 And then we use what's called regulatory 10 analysis guidance, it's basically a protocol developed 11 by the NRC for assigning dollar values to the reduction 12 in core damage frequency and off-site consequences, so 13 we basically derive a dollar benefit and then we 14 separately look at the costs to actually implement the 15 improvement. It might be hardware costs, maintenance 16 costs, all the things that would go into the cost to 17 the utility to implement this, and so we compare the 18 benefits achieved against the cost, and something 19 that's called cost-beneficial would generally have 20 benefits that exceed the costs.
21 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Bob.
22 And thank you, Gary, for that question.
23 We are going to, we are going to start 24 with Diana Sidebotham, and then go to Deb Katz. And as 25
36 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 I said, we are going to have to try to be a little bit 1
strict with the three to five minute rule. For those 2
of you who weren't here this afternoon though, we can 3
err on the farther side of that, even though it's not 4
very fair. This is Diana Sidebotham who is coming up 5
and then we'll go to Deb Katz.
6 Diana?
7 MS. SIDEBOTHAM: Thank you very much.
8 Good evening. My name is Diana Sidebotham, I'm one of 9
a group of scientists and citizens from Vermont, New 10 Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York who founded the 11 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution in February, 12 1971, I am currently president. Our object then was to 13 inform the public on issues of nuclear power plants and 14 alternatives and to intervene in the then existent 15 Vermont Yankee operating license proceeding, not to 16 oppose at first but to question. We asked many 17 questions and received full few, few full answers.
18 I wish to give a brief historical 19 perspective tonight relative to the EIS under 20 consideration as, in 36 years, certain issues and 21 actions have come full circle, I'll concentrate on one 22 particular matter tonight. In 1971, at Vermont Yankee 23 operating license hearings before the Atomic Energy 24 Commission, the matter of nuclear waste was excluded.
25
37 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 The Natural Resources Defense Council, the State of 1
Kansas and the New England Coalition all attempted to 2
raise it repeatedly and were always told it would be 3
dealt with later.
4 The plan, at that point, was that 600 5
irradiated fuel bundles would remain in the spent fuel 6
pool for a few months only. As we know, all the spent 7
fuel ever generated at Vermont Yankee now remains in 8
the spent fuel pool. Now we know the spent fuel pool 9
is even more vulnerable because of its density. I'm 10 not quite sure of the number but it's something like 11 2,800 fuel bundles are more which are there at 12 elevation and we now know more clearly than we did 13 before that the possibility of a terrorist attack is 14 very real.
15 In 1987, at the re-racking process, the 16 second, the New England Coalition's expert witness 17 Dr. Gordon Thompson's testimony was not allowed 18 because, at that point, Dr. Thompson's contention that 19 the possibility of a self-sustaining zirconium fire in 20 a spent fuel pool in the event of a loss of coolant 21 accident was not credible. Years passed and 22 Dr. Thompson took this proposition to several reracking 23 proceedings and, finally, in about 2000 to 2001, the 24 NRC decided, oh, he is right, it could happen.
25
38 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 The thing that bothers me about your EIS 1
or one of them is that NUREG-1738 I believe was 2
promulgated in 1996. You speak of new and significant 3
information which might change your view, 1996 was 4
before the NRC realized that Dr. Thompson could be 5
correct. NUREG-1783 bases its calculation on lower 6
density storage, which is not relevant now at Vermont 7
Yankee, and also on instantaneous loss of coolant, 8
rather than slow partial loss which will yield a much 9
more severe accident. Consequently, your EIS for this 10 relicense proposal does not have a factual basis.
11 As I understand changes can be made, I 12 would certainly encourage you to do a recalculation on 13 the basis of what is in the pool, what will probably 14 remain in the pool if Vermont Yankee continues to 15 operate. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision is 16 very clear that environmental assessment must be done 17 in regard to storage of spent fuel, the NRC should pay 18 attention and do it across the board for all spent fuel 19 storage facilities, and I know you are going to say 20 that's not entirely within your purview and it probably 21 isn't. However, it is something that I think you 22 should make very clear to your superiors and everyone 23 in the NRC.
24 I'm aware that a rule making is underway 25
39 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 for Massachusetts and, a rule making, yes, for 1
Massachusetts and its license extension and at Vermont 2
Yankee. However, it's exceedingly important that this 3
sort of thing be completed before any relicensing, if 4
it were to occur, is considered. The results of course 5
of a spent fuel pool fire would be catastrophic. We 6
learned a few days ago that the NRC has also declined 7
to provide protection for reactors from an air crash, 8
it can't happen. Together, these illustrate a serious 9
either disregard or unwillingness to address very 10 certain serious issues within your agency.
11 So, while there is a great deal more to 12 say, 36 years later, with Vermont Yankee's spent fuel 13 pool stuffed dangerously full, at elevation, with no 14 foreseeable repository anywhere in the world, the 15 people of Vermont, and New Hampshire and Massachusetts 16 are left with what was not part of the original 17 bargain, it is now a true Faustian bargain and no 18 consideration of nuclear waste in an EIS is complete on 19 this issue, it is dismissed as a small effect. Among 20 other things, an independent safety assessment is an 21 absolute, fundamental minimum requirement for any 22 possibility of license renewal.
23 The New England Coalition on Nuclear 24 Pollution is entirely opposed to license renewal and 25
40 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 severe accident mitigation alternatives also need to be 1
seriously addressed as, again, we don't think that they 2
have been. We hope very much that you will address 3
some of the issues which I've raised and which other 4
members of the public will in a reevaluation of your 5
environmental statement because, at this point, many of 6
us feel it is quite deficient.
7 Thank you for the opportunity to speak 8
tonight. You will continue to hear from the New 9
England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and others on 10 these and other issues essential to our lives, health, 11 environment, economy and good of our entire community.
12 Thank you very much.
13 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Diana.
14 (Applause) 15 MR. CAMERON: Next we are going to hear 16 from Deb Katz, Citizens Awareness Network.
17 MS. KATZ: Well thank you for turning the 18 microphone around so that people can see the person who 19 is talking, instead of seeing their back.
20 We'll get no satisfaction here tonight, 21 let's get that clear from the get-go. The NRC is 22 basically once again attempting to operate outside the 23 rules and outside the law. The 9th Circuit came to a 24 decision that the NRC had to address the vulnerability 25
41 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 of its spent nuclear fuel in terms of the National 1
Environmental Policy Act, in terms of the movement of 2
fuel into dry cask storage, at a site in California.
3 The NRC objected and there the court rejected their 4
position and in fact Pacific Gas and Electric, the 5
corporation that has the fuel, appealed to the Supreme 6
Court and was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court.
7 At this point, the NRC has been ordered to 8
rewrite its rules and regulations in terms of 9
incorporating the issue of the vulnerability of spent 10 fuel into the National Environmental Policy Act review, 11 this effects all reactor licenses under NEPA review.
12 We are in a NEPA review, aren't we? Isn't that what we 13 are here to do tonight? Then why are we here? If this 14 is now under rewriting the regulations, why hasn't the 15 NRC suspended its evaluation? Why doesn't it take the 16 hard look that the National Environmental Policy Act 17 requires it to do, instead of avoiding the issue?
18 Because the truth is when you have a problem and you 19 have no solution, then you have no problem.
20 Now the National Academy of Science, in 21 its BEIR 7 report, determined that there is no safe 22 exposure to radiation, there is none. Is the BEIR 7 23 incorporated into the NRC's review of the environmental 24 effects on our communities? I didn't see it. And what 25
42 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 about all of that high level waste sitting on the banks 1
of the Connecticut River, potentially for 100 years or 2
more, with no solution, with the bankrupt waste 3
confidence rule that is still just dragged out to 4
justify allowing the nuclear corporations to do what 5
they want? The only protection available here tonight 6
is for a foreign corporation and its shareholders.
7 In my community, living in the shadow of 8
the Yankee Rowe and Vermont Yankee reactor, there is an 9
empty chair at too many dinner tables, there are too 10 many lost lives. This human cost is not insignificant 11 to the husbands, wives, children, friends left behind 12 to carry on, there is no relief here, there is no 13 satisfaction available. There is a great opportunity 14 but it won't be found in this NEPA review, or in the 15 environmental impact statement or in the dog and pony 16 shows that the NRC comes out and tells us that we are 17 really privileged that they come here to hear us 18 complain about what they are doing. That's an insult.
19 The potential for anything to take place 20 will happen at a state level in which the State of 21 Vermont has the power to transform energy production, 22 but the truth is it's not the State of Vermont, it's 23 the people of Vermont that will determine the course of 24 history not just for the State of Vermont but actually 25
43 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 for Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, 1
since we all dip our beak into Vermont Yankee's power.
2 And the truth is it can be transformed and what it will 3
take is people getting engaged to make sure that, at 4
this legislative session in Vermont, that a green 5
energy portfolio is passed and that we commit to a life 6
that includes jobs, prosperity and respect for our 7
human family, as well as our environment.
8 Thank you.
9 (Applause) 10 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Deb.
11 Next we are going to go to Beth McElwee, 12 then Bruce Wiggett and Andy Davis.
13 Beth?
14 MS. MCELWEE: Good evening. My name is 15 Beth McElwee and I have been a resident of Brattleboro, 16 Vermont for most of my 25 years. I'm here tonight to 17 share with you my perspective on the Vermont Yankee 18 license renewal initiative as a community oriented 19 young adult and a recent addition to the local job 20 force.
21 I returned to the Brattleboro area one 22 year ago, after spending a year in Boston and some time 23 traveling. It was during this period I realized how 24 fortunate I am to have been raised in this healthy, 25
44 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 rural Vermont community.
1 Vermont has played a vital role in the 2
sustainability, Vermont Yankee has played a vital role 3
in the sustainability of the lifestyle we all enjoy 4
here. By supplying a clean, reliable and renewable 5
source of energy, Vermont Yankee has lessened our 6
dependency on fossil fuel and thus helped us to keep 7
our environment free of these added pollutants. I have 8
worked as a contractor at Vermont Yankee for the past 9
eight months and have had the opportunity to interact 10 with many of their employees. In doing so, my 11 confidence in their ability to run a safe and efficient 12 nuclear power plant has only grown.
13 I have seen first hand the accountability, 14 ownership and level of personal involvement the 15 employees of Vermont Yankee take in all of their daily 16 work activities. I have learned of their outstanding 17 track record of safely providing energy at fair and 18 favorable prices. And I know firsthand the importance 19 of the economic infrastructure they provide to attract 20 and retain employees from many surrounding communities.
21 To extend the operating license for Vermont Yankee 22 would be to continue supporting an environmentally, 23 economically and socially responsible culture that has 24 been established here.
25
45 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 It is this type of community which we want 1
to encourage, as our global energy requirements become 2
greater and our environmental responsibility larger, 3
nuclear power is a clear path to aid in tackling both 4
of these very ominous issues. I encourage the NRC to 5
look around this community and take note of the many 6
positive influences from Vermont Yankee and I ask them 7
to extend the operating license for another 20 years so 8
we can all share in the benefits of this community for 9
many years to come.
10 Thank you.
11 (Applause) 12 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, thank you, Beth.
13 And I believe this is Mr. Wiggett.
14 MR. WIGGETT: Bruce Wiggett, yes.
15 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Bruce Wiggett.
16 MR. WIGGETT: Thank you. Thank you for 17 being here to recognize the input from the citizens of 18 the area of Vermont Yankee. My name is Bruce Wiggett 19 and I am the former CFO of Vermont Yankee, that is, I 20 was the CFO prior to the sale. In that role, I had the 21 opportunity to know and work with the operating 22 employees of Vermont Yankee, my experience with those 23 employees is that they are very knowledgeable, hard 24 working, dedicated employees whose primary focus is on 25
46 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 the safe and reliable operation of that unit.
1 During the sale, I also had the 2
opportunity to work with many of the executives and 3
managers of Entergy and I feel that their purchase only 4
strengthened the focus and provided a learning and an 5
expanded environment for those employees to operate 6
within. However, my background is finance, so I am 7
here this evening to talk a little bit about the 8
economic benefits of Vermont Yankee and what it 9
contributes to the economy of Southern Vermont, Windham 10 County and the entire State of Vermont.
11 Economic contributions from Vermont Yankee 12 are felt throughout the state and have impact on just 13 about every citizen within the state, relicensing of VY 14 will have clear economic benefits to the state and the 15 region. When VY was sold, a long-term purchase power 16 agreement was a critical part of that sale, that 17 agreement established the price of power from the plant 18 to Vermont utilities. Due to that power purchase 19 agreement, from 2002 to the present, they have already 20 saved consumers in the State of Vermont $157 million, 21 and that's in real dollars as compared to the purchase 22 power, the cost of purchase power on the open market.
23 And the Vermont Department of Public Service has 24 estimated that savings to Vermont customers through 25
47 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 2012 will total about $250 million.
1 In addition to the savings associated with 2
the purchase power agreement, VY spends between $55 and 3
$60 million on direct expenses within Windham County 4
and the state annually, those expenditures are for 5
taxes, payroll, contracted services, and supplies and 6
equipment. These local expenditures will continue 7
throughout any life extension period. By 2012, Vermont 8
Yankee will have invested about $25 million to the, or 9
paid about $25 million to the state's green energy 10 fund, that's at a rate of about $4.5 million a year.
11 The green energy fund supports energy efficiency 12 efforts and the development of renewable energy sources 13 in Vermont.
14 Last night I had the opportunity to speak 15 with Dr. Moore, who I understand spoke earlier today 16 before this meeting, and he feels that our energy 17 future will require a combination of conservation, 18 renewable energy sources and nuclear power to meet our 19 energy needs. The green fund is a major source of 20 funds for development of the non-nuclear aspects of 21 that approach here in Vermont, $25 million will go a 22 long way in Vermont towards future developments 23 throughout the state. Vermont Yankee supplies 34 24 percent of Vermont's electricity consumption and, 25
48 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 without it, Vermont would be even more dependent on out 1
of state sources to meet its electricity needs.
2 Currently, Vermont purchases approximately 50 percent 3
of its power from outside sources.
4 Long-term safe operation, a major source 5
of energy for the State of Vermont, significant 6
contributions to the State of Vermont green energy 7
fund, substantial local and statewide expenditures 8
during, directly into the economy, it's for these 9
reasons that I believe VY should receive an extension 10 of its operating license.
11 Again, thank you for all you do and for 12 listening, being here to listen to our thoughts this 13 evening.
14 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you very 15 much, Bruce.
16 (Applause) 17 MR. CAMERON: Is Andy Davis here? Okay, 18 we are going to go to Chris Williams, then Anthony 19 Stevens and then Mike LaPorte. Oh, this is Andy Davis?
20 Great.
21 MR. DAVIS: Good evening.
22 MR. CAMERON: Good evening.
23 MR. DAVIS: I think it's always 24 unfortunate when people say things that kind of cast 25
49 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 this as neighbor against neighbor. We all know that 1
good people work at Vermont Yankee, good people have 2
worked at Ford Motor Company, General Motors and we 3
still have global warming from all the release of all 4
the automobiles. It's not about who works at Vermont 5
Yankee and how good they are, it's not about how much 6
it contributes to the economy, obviously a large 7
company contributes a great deal. S.D. Organ Factory 8
for many, many years was the major employer in 9
Brattleboro, it's not today, Brattleboro is still a 10 thriving community.
11 I think it's wrong to mix those kinds of 12 issues into an environmental impact statement review, 13 we know those of you here tonight that work for Vermont 14 Yankee are great folks, that's not why we are here. I 15 know we are not supposed to ask questions, I always 16 seem to come to a meeting when I can ask a question, 17 and I ask it and it doesn't get an answer, and then I 18 come to other meetings where I have questions and I'm 19 told it's not a meeting to ask questions. This has 20 been going on since I moved to Vermont in 1976, and 21 Diana Sidebotham did a good review of some of the 22 frustrations and the shell game that has been played 23 with issues of great concern.
24 There are many people not here tonight, 25
50 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 but each of these empty seats represents many people in 1
this community who are extremely concerned about the 2
long-term environmental impacts that we are passing on 3
to our children's children, children's, children's, it 4
goes on and on.
5 Excuse me, sir, I've listened to you 6
politely many times.
7 I have a simple question and I hope the 8
NRC can answer this because it's, who owns the spent 9
fuel? Is there an answer to that question? I mean who 10 owns it?
11 MR. CAMERON: Andy, if you could--
12 MR. DAVIS: I just want, that's a simple 13 question and it would just help me clarify the final 14 comment I want to make before I sit down.
15 MR. CAMERON: Okay.
16 MR. DAVIS: But is there an answer to 17 that?
18 MR. CAMERON: I believe that the--
19 MR. DAVIS: Who owns the spent fuel?
20 MR. CAMERON: The contracts, there is 21 contracts between the Department of Energy and each 22 company that has spent fuel where the Department of 23 Energy will take the spent fuel and I believe take 24 title to that.
25
51 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 MR. DAVIS: We have a lot of really 1
knowledgeable people from the Nuclear Regulatory 2
Commission here, that seems like a simple question, who 3
owns the spent fuel? Like if I have a used car in my 4
backyard, I own it.
5 MR. CAMERON: The Department of Energy is 6
going to take title to the spent fuel.
7 MR. DAVIS: It's going to take title?
8 When is it going to take title? Does it, who has title 9
to it now? Because this is the number one 10 environmental concern of people in this area, besides, 11 you know, fence-line radiation and some other things, 12 but the long-term health of this community. Our 13 governor still believes, I asked him on the radio, he 14 still thinks the federal government is coming to get 15 this. Harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, the most 16 powerful man in the United States Senate has on his web 17 site, unequivocally, that Yucca Mountain will not open.
18 Where is it being taken that our governor still 19 believes it's being removed?
20 This is an environmental review, 21 environmental as in ecological, one of the rules of 22 ecological science is that there is no away in throw 23 away, away does not exist. They don't want it in 24 Nevada and Harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, says 25
52 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 the reason they don't want it is the health and safety 1
of the people of Nevada. Well if they don't want it in 2
Nevada, why do we want it here? Okay, we are not sure 3
who owns it now, who will own it in 100 years? Someone 4
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who will own 5
the spent fuel in 100 years when the casks need to be 6
replaced? Who will own them?
7 And that's only the first little baby step 8
in the life of this material. Who will own it? Simple 9
question, someone from the Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission? There is a lot of people here making a lot 11 of money.
12 MR. CAMERON: Andy, I'm going to have to 13 ask you to finish your comments, instead of sitting 14 here--
15 MR. DAVIS: Yeah, but these are the 16 issues--
17 MR. CAMERON: --asking your questions, I'm 18 sorry.
19 MR. DAVIS: --that concern me and my 20 neighbors and until you approach them and take them 21 seriously, many of us walk out of this meeting with the 22 same kind of frustration that has been expressed by 23 other speakers. And it's not about the good people 24 that work at Vermont Yankee, I love you all dearly as 25
53 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 fellow members of this community, but that's not why we 1
are here tonight. The environ, this industry has a 2
cycle to it, we like to talk about it for electrical 3
generation, the uranium is pulled out of the ground, 4
there is a whole mining process.
5 It doesn't take but a few minutes of 6
looking at a web, at the worldwide web, to find the 7
environmental problems wherever the uranium is mined.
8 There are connections between the fuel cycle and 9
military uses. You look at the countries that have 10 nuclear power, many of them have nuclear weapons, 11 that's the history of it, depleted uranium, all kinds 12 of things. It just feels like what you all do with 13 your environmental impact statement is you narrow it 14 down to just this tiny little thing and then say it's 15 all fine, but environmental deals with the fuel cycle, 16 the final resting place of the waste and those 17 questions. I have not heard them addressed by the 18 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a public meeting.
19 And I'm just pleading with you to really 20 respond to these concerns because, so far, the generic 21 environmental impact statement, the environmental 22 impact statement don't seem to address these questions 23 and they don't give me confidence that we should be 24 parking this stuff on the banks of the Connecticut 25
54 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 River for an indeterminate period of time, and we are 1
not quite sure where it's going and it doesn't seem 2
like that scenario deserves a little check, okay.
3 Thank you very much.
4 (Applause) 5 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.
6 Chris Williams?
7 MR. WILLIAMS: Good evening. My name is 8
Chris Williams, I live in Hancock, which is in Addison 9
County, probably about 100 miles from here.
10 I'm happy to be on the record with the NRC 11 tonight, I want to state for the record that I'm not 12 compensated for my appearance here tonight, there is no 13 compensation connected to my words here tonight. I 14 want to start out by thanking our new senator, Senator 15 Sanders, Senator Sanders has recently sent a letter to 16 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requesting that a 17 meeting just like this one be held in the very near 18 future in the state capitol, in Montpelier, where all 19 of our legislators are now in session, that's why many 20 of them aren't here tonight. It makes a lot of sense 21 to me, I think the NRC can afford it. It's happening?
22 Well, that's great.
23 I would like to, just for the record, 24 again, put a little information into the record that I 25
55 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 think is new and relevant to this process. By the way, 1
I was here for the matinee today, there was lots of 2
great testimony and they have a very impressive record 3
here. I read recently where Commissioner McGaffigan, 4
who I understand is the longest sitting Commissioner on 5
the NRC, is that correct? Right, he is the 6
Commissioner who is still on the Commission and is the 7
longest serving, has basically publicly stated that 8
Yucca Mountain was mismanaged from the get-go and that 9
they ought to give the order to stop digging. This 10 isn't coming from me, an anti-nuclear activist, clean 11 energy advocate, it's coming from the longest sitting 12 Commissioner at the NRC. That information I think is 13 relevant to this process, as previous witnesses have 14 pointed out, because we are still dealing with the 15 frustrating problem of the waste.
16 As for a nuclear renaissance, which I 17 believe people at Entergy and possibly people at the 18 NRC may be interested, in the last two weeks, in 19 financial reports coming out of Wall Street, two CEOs 20 in this country, one by the name of Jim Rogers, who is 21 the CEO of Duke Energy, and another by the name of John 22 Rowe, who is the CEO of Excelon Corporation which, for 23 the most part, is made up of Commonwealth Edison, 24 serving the City of Chicago, both of these high powered 25
56 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 CEOs who control a significant portion of the nuclear 1
fleet in this country have stated for the record that 2
they think building new plants is risky, that they've 3
been sold a bill of goods about waste disposal and that 4
they are not convinced, at this point, that their 5
companies should go ahead and build new ones. Which 6
brings us to the Entergy Corporation.
7 Is Wayne Leonard in the house? I wish he 8
was. Wayne Leonard, the CEO of Entergy Corporation, is 9
somebody that I've actually been dealing with for about 10 20 years, I think he is a pretty straightforward guy.
11 As a matter of fact, Wayne got his accounting degree at 12 Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, he is a 13 pretty straightforward, bean counting kind of guy. I 14 know I could have a conversation with Wayne Leonard 15 about the good employees of Entergy Vermont Yankee here 16 in Brattleboro, Vermont and their concerns about their 17 jobs.
18 I would rather see this decommissioned as 19 soon as possible because there is no waste answer, but 20 I would also like to make sure that Mr. Leonard uses 21 his power, as your boss, to see to it that all of you 22 are employed until it's time to retire and employed in 23 the capacity of diligently, prudently and 24 professionally decommissioning the high level 25
57 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 radioactive waste dump in Vernon.
1 In closing, I would like to urge everybody 2
in the State of Vermont, and I just heard the former 3
CEO of Vermont Yankee talk about Vermont Yankee's 4
commitment to green energy, the $25 million 5
contribution to the green energy fund. Well there is 6
something we can all do as Vermonters if we care about 7
the energy future of this state and it's to contact our 8
legislators, all of you, please, and those of you that 9
don't want to, you won't, but I'm going to implore all 10 of you to call your legislators and ask them to support 11 House Bill 127, currently under consideration in 12 Montpelier by the legislature.
13 House Bill 127 provides for an expanded 14 portfolio standard for renewable energy, which I know 15 my colleagues in the clean energy and anti-nuclear 16 movement agree, as well as Patrick Moore, who was here 17 earlier, the folks from the Vermont Energy Partnership, 18 as well as the Entergy Corporation which has made a 19 generous $25 million contribution to clean, green 20 energy here in the State of Vermont.
21 And finally, I just want to say something 22 that in my community, which stretches around the world, 23 in terms of people committed to stopping the production 24 of high level nuclear waste and providing for clean 25
58 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 electricity with renewable, sustainable sources, we've 1
already won.
2 Thank you.
3 (Applause) 4 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, 5
Chris. Is Anthony Davis with us?
6 Okay, Mike, why don't you go up and we'll 7
find out if Anthony is here. This is Mike LaPorte 8
MR. LAPORTE: Good evening. My name is 9
Michael LaPorte, and I'm an employee of Vermont Yankee 10 and I'm here to lend my support for renewal of Vermont 11 Yankee's license.
12 I would like to let you get a little bit 13 of my credibility by making that statement, I've been 14 working at Vermont Yankee for over 30 years. For the 15 last 30 years, I've been a member of the operations 16 department, part of my career there, I obtained an NRC 17 license to operate the controls in the control room of 18 the reactor and the plant. I feel that, working in the 19 operations department for as long as I have, I really 20 know the equipment of that plant and how it operates, 21 how it's been maintained, how it's been surveilled and 22 tested and inspected.
23 Based on that knowledge that I have, and 24 I'm telling you that, that I feel that Vermont Yankee 25
59 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 is a good candidate for license extension. And you 1
know what? I don't have to stand here in front of you 2
people right now because, in a couple of months, I'm 3
going to go to that happy place called retirement, but 4
I did feel that I'm passionate about my plant, I love 5
Vermont Yankee, I've been working there my whole life, 6
and I know it's a good plant and I know that adding 7
another 20 years to its license is a good thing, it's 8
good for a number of reasons.
9 First of all, it's good for my company, 10 Entergy, it's also good for my fellow employees that I 11 love dearly, and a lot of them probably now will be 12 able to have a career like I have had there. But 13 foremost, foremost, it's good for Vermont, it's a good 14 thing for Vermont, it's good for the United States and 15 it's good for our Planet Earth, believe it or not.
16 Thank you very much.
17 (Applause) 18 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mike, thank you 19 very much.
20 Our next three speakers are going to be 21 Dart Everett, Bill McKin and Bill Maguire. Is Dart 22 Everett here? Okay, how about Bill McKin? You're not 23 Bill McKin, right? Okay, Bill Maguire?
24 Mr. Maguire is here.
25
60 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 MR. MAGUIRE: Good evening. My name is 1
Bill Maguire and I'm the general manager of plant 2
operations at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
3 I started in the power generation industry 24 years ago 4
and I spent the last 20 years in nuclear power 5
generation.
6 And I want to tell you a little bit about 7
the people at Vermont Yankee and how we conduct our 8
business at the plant. First, I want to tell you that 9
the employees are committed to excellence, by that I 10 mean they are committed to their continuing education 11 and training. I, myself, have received thousands of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> of training in my career in this industry, I have 13 also been supported in attaining a masters degree.
14 Our employees are also committed to 15 continuous process improvement, something that existed 16 at Vermont Yankee long before Entergy purchased the 17 plant but is now part of the Entergy culture as a 18 result of the process improvement culture that existed 19 at Vermont Yankee. Employees are dedicated to safety 20 and reliability, all employees start their day with a 21 safety briefing not only for their personal safety but 22 for plant safety. Every task starts with a safety 23 briefing, again reviewing their personal safety and the 24 plant's safety.
25
61 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 The reliability of the plant is ensured by 1
a robust corrective action program, it's also ensured 2
by a robust predictive and preventive maintenance 3
program to ensure our plant runs reliably day in and 4
day out. Vermont Yankee is a reliable source of 5
economic power generation to the New England grid. As 6
such, we supply electricity to the power grid 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 7
a day and have done so for the last 447 days 8
continuously, since our last scheduled refueling and 9
maintenance outage which, by the way, was Vermont 10 Yankee's best.
11 I'm proud to be part of the committed and 12 dedicated Vermont Yankee team of professionals and I 13 look forward to providing a clean, safe and reliable 14 source of energy into this community well into the 15 future.
16 Thank you.
17 (Applause) 18 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Bill.
19 We are going to go to Mr. Ed, we are going 20 to go to Ed Sprague, then we are going to go to Norman 21 Raymond, Bernie Buteau and Ann Howes.
22 So this is Mr. Sprague.
23 Mr. Sprague?
24 MR. SPRAGUE: My name is Ed Sprague, I 25
62 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 stand here tonight to recommend to relicense the 1
nuclear plant here in Vernon. I have, my property is 2
bounded on two sides by Vermont Yankee, I have never 3
been one of their employees, their list of employees, 4
I've certainly been a resident next door to them and I 5
can say this, that in all the time that they've been 6
there, and I've been, I moved in in 1955, when it was a 7
diary farm. So we have lived there throughout the 8
entire life of Vermont Yankee and I can say this, the 9
only thing that's been disagreeable for me, personally, 10 is the poison pens up at The Reformer and all the 11 poison pens that they sponsor. It is just, you can't 12 pick up a newspaper and find anything positive said 13 about Vermont Yankee, it's a shame, it's a crime.
14 Changing a little bit here, I was very, 15 very upset when President Carter shut down a brand new 16 reprocessing plant in South Carolina, about to come on 17 line, and he just did two things with that one move, he 18 took away the initiative of our people to run 19 reprocessing and he also gave a hammer to the people 20 who oppose nuclear energy, namely disposing of waste.
21 Now I was in attendance last night when 22 Dr. Patrick Moore gave his presentation and I came away 23 with two things, one, we are in the process of building 24 a recycling or reprocessing plant in Salt Lake City, so 25
63 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 there is hope on the horizon for reprocessing all of 1
this waste that everybody is so concerned about. It 2
will turn the waste into a resource which will keep our 3
nuclear power plants running for hundreds of years. It 4
also, another thing I came away with was, one, that ten 5
percent of the energy, of the fuel now going into our 6
power plants is coming from Russian made bombs, it's 7
taking away the threat of terrorists or abuse of that 8
raw material.
9 So, to me, the future is great, we don't 10 have to worry about storing fuel for hundreds of years 11 when we can reuse it and come away with a token amount 12 of fuel that could be put in glass and buried deep in 13 the earth. I think they've taken away, the weapons is 14 about to be taken away.
15 Thank you for letting me speak.
16 (Applause) 17 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, 18 Ed.
19 Norman, Norman Raymond? How about, is 20 this Norman? Okay.
21 MR. RAYMOND: Good evening. My name is 22 Norman Raymond, I'm a resident of Putney since 1999, 23 currently a new employee to Entergy since `05 as a 24 technical instructor.
25
64 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 I want to voice to the NRC that I believe 1
that we should extend the license to Vermont Yankee, 2
not just to save my job, but in my time being there, I 3
received lots of training and have come to understand 4
the preparation and the work that goes into running 5
this plant to make it safe and reliable. I also 6
believe that nuclear power is a safe, clean alternative 7
with low and no emissions.
8 And also I would like to thank Mr. Sprague 9
for bringing up the recycling using of fuel, I think 10 that's a very positive way to handle that situation for 11 the future.
12 Thank you.
13 (Applause) 14 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Norman.
15 Okay, Ann Howes is stepping up to the 16 microphone right now.
17 Ann Howes?
18 MS. HOWES: I'm Ann Howes, I'm a resident 19 of Brattleboro, I grew up outside of Detroit in 20 Michigan and I've been in this area some portion of 21 every year of my life. I think of energy or the 22 generation of energy as a hidden art and I see it only 23 in my dreams. I'm concerned for safety because I have, 24 you know, found radioactive substance in day to day 25
65 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 living with no personal connection to environmentally 1
sensitive areas. That factor of felonious use of waste 2
materials is something that is of I think paramount 3
concern to the individual in our society, but the 4
generation of energy is something that we correlate to 5
personal betterment through warmer homes, and clean hot 6
water and those factors of comfort and domestic 7
maintenance.
8 When you come into Vermont, you have the 9
opportunity to try the older forms of lifestyles that 10 are wood burning stoves and a pedestrian lifestyle. I 11 do have great worry about nuclear waste storage and I 12 don't think that it's a money issue because it's not 13 going to, it's not going to phase my life as a money 14 issue, it's something to do. I don't think that it's, 15 I don't think it's insurmountable to dismantle and I do 16 think that this community would feel excited by 17 transforming our engineering capability into a very 18 large hydro electric community, starting with this 19 project.
20 We know we like electricity a lot and we 21 know we have a water system that we can harness.
22 Packing radioactive substance for infamy is a task we 23 can do, I don't, I'm very selfish, I don't want to 24 store it in this soft loam. I think I was convinced in 25
66 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 the `70s that we were going to put it in a desert far, 1
far from where we are living, but I'm most afraid of it 2
being used against humanity in a kind of vengeance of 3
psychological neglect.
4 Those who work in the plant feel that it's 5
safe, I think there are some members of the employment 6
league who think that it would be exciting to shut it 7
down, and clean it up and take it away, that we don't 8
even think we had one, and to concurrently figure out 9
how to generate the hydroelectric potential that we 10 have to compensate our needs with probably a small 11 interaction of just shutting off the highway lights and 12 I guess, in the winter time, the ski resorts, which 13 constrains your night behavior, and that's all I have 14 to say.
15 Thank you.
16 (Applause) 17 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Ann. Thank 18 you.
19 Bernie, Bernie Buteau?
20 MR. BUTEAU: Good evening. My name is 21 Bernie Buteau, I too work at Vermont Yankee, I've 22 worked there for over 30 years, although I'm not as old 23 as Mike, if Mike is still here.
24 I think it is the people and I think that, 25
67 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 as part of the process, you need to consider that and 1
consider some of the things that you've heard from 2
Vermont Yankee employees tonight, consider the 3
mentality that has developed over the 30 years that 4
I've been involved in the business. When I got my 5
nuclear engineering degree way back when, I was very 6
excited about nuclear power and remain so today, and I 7
believe there will be a resurgence, there is a 8
resurgence already going on across the globe, we just 9
need to get on board here in the U.S., and Entergy is 10 one of the companies that is pursuing new technology, 11 ESBWR, looking at sites down in Mississippi.
12 One of the things I was thinking about and 13 I guess I subconsciously dressed in all green tonight 14 for a reason, and I've always considered myself to be 15 concerned about the environment and I think that 16 nuclear power is an overall positive contributor to the 17 environment in that it does not create gasses, global 18 warming. The fuel that we have, you've heard people 19 talk about it tonight, and they classify it as waste.
20 Those that might have heard Dr. Moore speak last night, 21 they said a very profound statement in that because of 22 recycling, it's not waste at all.
23 And we, as humans, have relatively short 24 life spans on this planet and, over the course of time, 25
68 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 our lives are very small, compared to the ecology 1
itself, and I fully believe that the fuel that we are 2
taking out of the reactor now that has not been used 3
will be able to be used in the future in mixed oxide 4
fuels and other ways that we may not even perceive 5
right now.
6 I just want to say one thing about safety, 7
and working in the nuclear power industry has had a 8
very profound effect on me, and Bill Maguire spoke to 9
you and told you a moment ago about how we start 10 everything off with safety, and the safety moments and 11 that type of thing.
12 From my own personal perspective, when I'm 13 at home, I think more about safety than I ever would 14 have if I had not worked in the nuclear power industry.
15 I go out to mow my lawn and go out, I have two acres of 16 grass, so I go out to get my John Deere, I've got a 17 little John Deere that I drive around in but, before I 18 do that, I grab my leather gloves. People from Vermont 19 Yankee are snickering, going oh, I've heard this 20 before, but I grab my leather gloves, I grab my hearing 21 protection, my eye protection, sometimes I'll put my 22 steel-toed shoes on, which I have on now, but I have to 23 admit not always.
24 But it profoundly has effected the way 25
69 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 that I do things in my own life and I know it has the 1
same effect on the folks who work at Vermont Yankee and 2
that innately permeates the culture that we have there 3
that continues us to be able to operate the plant 4
safely, to design new and different ways of operating 5
the plant, the systems that we maintain that you've 6
heard, the systems that we add to the site, everything 7
is done with safety in mind.
8 So I think it is the people that has to be 9
considered in the equation when we are looking at the 10 environmental impact, it's the people, it's the people.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Bernie.
13 (Applause) 14 MR. CAMERON: We are going to go to our 15 next three speakers who are Jim Herrick, Larry Cummings 16 and David Mannai.
17 Is Jim Herrick here? Okay, Jim?
18 MR. HERRICK: My name is Jim Herrick, I 19 live in Marlboro, Vermont and, for those of you that 20 might not be familiar with that town, it's a little 21 area that Vermont Yankee's emergency evacuation map for 22 years showed as a non-town. It was a little airbrushed 23 white space sort of stuck to the side of Brattleboro.
24 We are to the west of Brattleboro and the north of 25
70 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Halifax, and part of our town extends within the ten 1
mile circle which is the evacuation zone.
2 Because our town fathers, in their wisdom, 3
decided that the evacuation plan was really bogus and 4
was nothing more than a placebo to try to appease the 5
demands of the citizenry, the nuclear power plant 6
decided we just weren't there, and I've always used 7
that as a sort of a pivotal point in my process of 8
looking at the way the nuclear industry works. Because 9
we didn't get shown on the map, we weren't there.
10 Therefore, there was no problem.
11 My remarks tonight are aimed at the NRC 12 and directly really to them, mainly. I'm here tonight 13 with a real feeling of embarrassment and shame. As a 14 responsible adult member of this community, I am once 15 again, by my presence, complicit in this process of 16 charade, this circus of obfuscation, this shell game 17 without end to which you, the NRC, write the rules.
18 One simple clear question stands front and center and 19 towering over these interminable Kafkaesqe theater 20 sessions, would sensible, caring people choose to live 21 with a massive, huge bomb in their midst which, should 22 it ever explode, would destroy lives, homes, lands and 23 the future of all for many generations?
24 Of course the answer is a resounding no 25
71 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 and yet, for 35 years, we have been manipulated and 1
forced into accepting that very condition by you hired 2
men of power who write the rules, mark the cards, set 3
the time clock and, at the end of the day, pack up and 4
ride far away to live comfortably distant from the 5
consequences of your machinations. We live in a 6
society that is so sensitized to danger that report of 7
a knife on a schoolground or a screwdriver in an 8
airport will shut down the entire system, yet the 9
shockingly vulnerable spent fuel pool at Vermont 10 Yankee, with enough potential radiation released to 11 make uninhabitable this entire three-state region, sits 12 within sight of two school systems, sits on the very 13 banks of our only river system which carries an entire 14 multistate watershed south to our neighbors, sits on 15 the unstable tectonic fault line that once divided two 16 separate continental land masses, and finally, sits at 17 the very gateway to the economy of all points north, 18 and as always, the NRC and the power industry finds 19 this all acceptable.
20 Sitting on my doorstep and considering the 21 nuclear reactor and its endless spew of deadly 22 radioactive waste, it is easy to enclose the scenario 23 in one simple metaphor, that of some loathsome, hell 24 sprung beast risen to paradise to sew ruination. As a 25
72 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 logical pragmatist who loves and honors this paradise 1
in which I live, my response is simple, shut it down, 2
secure the waste, decommission it and never build 3
another. But you, the NRC, the hired guns of a very 4
profitable industry, don't view the issues from the 5
same perspective and you bend your full energy towards 6
making the beast ever bigger and giving it life without 7
end.
8 To this purpose, you stifle my voice and 9
power as a citizen by building a regulatory maze of 10 ever shifting aisles with no attainable objective 11 except your own. Where logic decrees a straight, 12 continuous line of purpose that ends at shut it down, 13 you, the NRC, break that line into an infinite number 14 of points, each of which must be dealt with as a 15 separate battle and each which must be fought in 16 endless, tedious meetings and hearings that break the 17 will and finances of committed individuals and groups 18 who fight for a future of community, home, neighbor and 19 child.
20 Against all sanity, you have designed a 21 glide path for this tired old reactor to increase its 22 output in waste generation by 20 percent and extend its 23 life for another 20 years. As has been the case over 24 the past 35 years, our comments and concerns regarding 25
73 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 issues will be voiced with absolute sincerity but have 1
no choice, excuse me, have no chance of achieving 2
amelioration of your predetermined result. The 670 3
page environmental impact statement will be absorbed 4
into the dull grey labyrinth of your calculated 5
process, calculated to render us powerless and useless 6
against your total control of the outcome.
7 When I recently read that the NRC had 8
ruled that guarding against the threat of a terrorist 9
air attack on the reactor was the responsibility of the 10 Department of Defense, thus rendering Entergy as not 11 accountable for efforts in that direction, I knew the 12 shell game had been ramped up a few notches. Entergy 13 cannot protect the exposed fuel pool against an air 14 attack, the Department of Defense will not protect the 15 fuel pool against an air attack, so the NRC states that 16 the core containment structure is of a robust nature to 17 withstand most air attacks and totally ignores the real 18 danger of the spent fuel pool.
19 I end up by just asking this rhetorical 20 question, is there anything that could get you, the 21 NRC, to care more about the many people whose lives and 22 future your hold in the palm of your hand and less 23 about the industry robber barons who own you as shield 24 and armor?
25
74 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Thank you.
1 (Applause) 2 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.
3 Larry Cummings?
4 MR. CUMMINGS: Good evening. My name is 5
Larry Cummings, I'm a employee at Vermont Yankee, I've 6
been here for about two years and two months, but I've 7
been in nuclear power for a little over 20 years. And 8
I would recommend that we extend the license of Vermont 9
Yankee for another 20 years.
10 I want to share with you a couple of my 11 experiences outside of nuclear power. In the late 12
`70s, I was working in Southwestern Pennsylvania, I was 13 actually working on a nuclear power plant construction 14 project, but I lived in a town that had three coal 15 fired units, those units had 960-foot smokestacks so 16 that they could deliver the sulfur dioxide and the coal 17 dust to Vermont, New Hampshire and places like that.
18 In 1996, I was living and working in 19 Louisiana and I had an opportunity to go to work in the 20 chemical industry. After about five months of 21 witnessing the environmental and safety issues there, I 22 decided that I should tuck my tail between my legs and 23 go back to the safety of the nuclear power industry.
24 Of course you don't know much about refineries, you 25
75 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 just burn the oil and burn the gas and put the sulfur 1
dioxide into the atmosphere without thinking about it, 2
but if you witness it and see what's going on, you will 3
appreciate the environmental friendliness of nuclear 4
power.
5 And I can assure you, as an employee of 6
Vermont Yankee, that the people that work there are 7
very, very dedicated to the safety and health of the 8
environment and the people of this community.
9 Thank you.
10 (Applause) 11 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you 12 very much.
13 And, David, David Mannai?
14 MR. MANNAI: Good evening. My name is 15 Dave Mannai.
16 First of all, I would like to let you know 17 I'm a resident of Vermont, I live in Westminster West, 18 which is located just west of Putney, it's an 19 agricultural part of Windham County. I'm also the 20 father of two children. About ten years ago, I moved 21 to Vermont. I'm a native New Englander, originally a 22 flatlander, and I wanted to live and raise a family in 23 Vermont, I have two children, and I mentioned, and I 24 wanted to live in the Green Mountain State because of 25
76 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 the great things I can do here.
1 I also happen to be a farmer and I raise 2
sheep, I have about 30 acres of land out there and I'm 3
in the process of turning it into certified organic 4
pasture. I consider myself an environmentalist and 5
also a good environmental steward of the farm and land 6
that I own and operate. I have also been employed in 7
the nuclear industry for the last 25 years in various 8
capacities. Prior to moving to Vermont ten years ago, 9
I was a resident inspector for the U.S. Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission at a couple plants that were not 11 Vermont Yankee but were in Region I.
12 In the last ten years at Vermont Yankee, 13 I've had responsibility here in fuel cycle management, 14 core design, core management, reactor engineering and 15 some involvement with the dry fuel storage project that 16 is presently ongoing. I understand and view the 17 license renewal of Vermont Yankee from the perspective 18 and insights as a local resident, a farmer, a former 19 NRC regulator and that of a Vermont Yankee employee.
20 Not many people here tonight can say they share that 21 same vantage point and perspective. And from each and 22 every one of those perspectives, I can only reach one 23 conclusion and that's the license renewal for Vermont 24 Yankee is the best environmentally sound choice to meet 25
77 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Vermont's energy needs, since it's safe, it's 1
non-greenhouse gas emitting, it's clean, reliable, 2
efficient and cost effective, and it's local, a source 3
of vitally needed baseload supply of electricity.
4 There has been mention here tonight the 5
fuel is going to be recycled in our lifetimes, that's 6
going to be happening, that will happen. Vermont 7
Yankee has a strong, safe, high quality and reliable 8
performance record over the last 35 years, it's a real 9
testament to the men and women of Vermont Yankee and 10 Entergy who are absolutely committed to both safety, 11 and quality and continuous improvement, as was 12 mentioned earlier this evening, that's who we are.
13 And since 1972, safe, clean, reliable 14 operation of Vermont Yankee has prevented millions of 15 greenhouse emissions, millions of metric tons of 16 greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, 17 from entering the Vermont environment.
18 In conclusion, looking at Vermont's future 19 energy needs and the impacts on our environment, there 20 is no alternative that is more beneficial to both the 21 environment and the ability to meet the energy demands 22 of Vermont. When all the facts are considered, not 23 just part of them, simply said, it's the green choice.
24 Thank you.
25
78 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 (Applause) 1 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.
2 We are going to go to Judy Miller, then 3
Nick Caristo, then W.H. Schulze. Judy Miller?
4 Okay, Nick, Nick Caristo?
5 MR. CARISTO: Good evening. My name is 6
Nick Caristo and I've been employed at Vermont Yankee 7
for the last 12 years. I came here from the State of 8
Maine where I previously worked at Maine Yankee. I'm 9
still a resident of the State of Maine and, since the 10 closing of our nuclear power plant, my electric bill 11 has increased 300 percent over the past ten years. We 12 now receive two combined electric bills each month, one 13 from Central Maine Power and the other one from 14 Constellation Power Company which doesn't even reside 15 in our state.
16 I'll give you a little history of what 17 happened to Maine after the power plant was shut down, 18 the nuclear power plant was shut down. Two gas power 19 plants were built in Maine to replace the Maine 20 Yankee's production of electricity, these two power 21 plants cannot run on a routine basis because of the 22 escalating costs of gas today, they only operate when 23 the peak demands require their electricity, which costs 24 a lot more than the regular price, so Maine Yankee now 25
79 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 imports a majority of its electricity from surrounding 1
states and Canada.
2 I started my career in nuclear power in 3
1965, 42 years ago, I have a bachelors degree in 4
radiological health, and working at Vermont Yankee for 5
the past 12 years, it is my observation that its 6
management and my coworkers, me included, their top 7
priority is to operate the plant safely and 8
efficiently.
9 The citizens of the State of Vermont can 10 be proud that they have the lowest per capita 11 greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, I think 12 that was hard work and it wasn't done overnight. The 13 State of Vermont can be very proud of that rating and 14 the culture at Vermont Yankee to operate safely 15 directly contributes to this status of the lowest 16 overall greenhouse emissions, we don't produce any.
17 In addition, the efficient operation of 18 Vermont Yankee also contributes to affordable 19 electricity in Vermont. I ask you to learn from the 20 mistake that the State of Maine has allowed to happen, 21 closure of our nuclear power plant, which I believe has 22 contributed to the escalating costs, 300 percent, to 23 the people of the State of Maine. And I haven't even 24 mentioned what impact this has had on the economy which 25
80 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 has not recovered in midcoast Maine as a result of the 1
closure and the thousand people who were displaced 2
because of the closure of the plant.
3 I'm asking the people of Vermont and the 4
NRC to maintain the State of Vermont's status as the 5
lowest emission of greenhouse gasses per capita and to 6
keep Vermont electric rates competitive, so I ask the 7
NRC to continue and to approve, to approve the 8
continued safe and efficient operation of Vermont 9
Yankee.
10 Thank you.
11 (Applause) 12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you 13 very much, Nick. Okay, great, we can put that in the 14 transcript.
15 We have W.H. Schulze and then we are going 16 to go to, we are going to go to Dick Brigham and then 17 we are going to go to Ida Belivet, and I'm sorry if I 18 mispronounced that, and to Kent Belivet. And this is 19 W.H. Schulze.
20 MR. SCHULZE: Representatives of the NRC, 21 ladies and gentlemen, good evening. My name is William 22 Schulze, 27 years ago this month I started work at 23 Vermont Yankee in the operations department, I later 24 transferred to the training department where I've 25
81 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 worked for the last 11 years.
1 I came here for two reasons, Vermont 2
Yankee had a good reputation as a well run plant and 3
the State of Vermont seemed like the idea place to 4
start and raise a family. I'm very proud to be part of 5
a company that has provided safe, clean and reliable 6
energy to Vermont for 35 years.
7 A large reason why the Vermont environment 8
is where it is today is because of our operation, it 9
produces no acid rain or greenhouse gasses. In a year, 10 a typical 1,000 megawatt coal fired plant emits 100,000 11 tons of sulfur dioxide, 75,000 tons of nitrogen oxides 12 and 5,000 tons of fly ash into the environment. It 13 also contributes large amounts of CO2 to the global 14 warming problem. Going forward in Vermont, we need to 15 have a diverse mix of energy options for the good of 16 the state and the people. Solar, wind power, hydro and 17 nuclear should all play a role in Vermont's energy 18 future. Extending Vermont Yankee's license is the 19 smart thing to do both economically and 20 environmentally.
21 For 27 years, I have been sincerely and 22 graciously thankful for the opportunity to give my 23 absolutely best to the State of Vermont and my 24 coworkers at Vermont Yankee, it continues to be my 25
82 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 pleasure and privilege to do so.
1 Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
2 (Applause) 3 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Dick? Dick 4
Brigham?
5 For those of you who were with us this 6
afternoon, I'm going through the people who have not 7
had a chance to speak today, but we will get to Gary 8
Sachs, and Sally Shaw and others. This is Dick 9
Brigham.
10 MR. BRIGHAM: First off, I would like to 11 say to the workers at Vermont Yankee, we look at you as 12 Simon and Peter, whether you are fishermen or whether 13 you are not, we are all fishing for the right thing, 14 that's not part of my testimony, particularly. My name 15 is Dick Brigham, I'm here representing myself, my 16 family and hundreds of Vermonters who could not be 17 here, we are addressing the relicensing of Vermont 18 Yankee. We complement the NRC and review board for 19 doing a wonderful job, doing a wonderful job of playing 20 charades.
21 Vermont has one if not the highest, one of 22 if not the highest rates per capita of radioactive 23 waste in the nation, maybe in the world. This 24 radioactive poison is, as we all know, stored in an 25
83 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 overfull, unprotected precarious place in our state.
1 Obviously the NRC is wanting to relicense a dangerous 2
old plant to add to an unsolvable problem. We have 3
seen this same NRC fox guarding our hen house of health 4
before. To those of you at the NRC wanting to add to 5
an unsolvable problem, to relicense Vermont Yankee, it 6
is past time your consciences, obviously based on 7
tilted education and money, begin to kick in since, no 8
matter how much electricity we produce, it will never 9
be enough.
10 What is essentially important for future 11 life on earth is what poison we produce in making 12 electricity. Obviously Vermont Yankee produces the 13 worst type of poison that man can fathom, carbon in the 14 atmosphere is nothing compared to radioactivity. All 15 this talk of millions of dollars for the green fund is 16 total manure compared to any small radioactive mishap 17 or your grandchild's cancer. For the life of your 18 grandchildren and the health of the world, we demand 19 the NRC deny Vermont Yankee the relicensing permit. As 20 we say in Vermont, smarten up, NRC, we all see through 21 your charade.
22 (Applause) 23 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Dick. Ida?
24 And are you bringing Kent down with you?
25
84 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Okay, and if you could just give is the correct 1
pronunciation of your last name? Belivet? Belivet, 2
this is Ida Belivet and Kent.
3 MR. BELIVET: Ida Belivet and Kent 4
Belivet.
5 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.
6 MS. BELIVET: Good night, everybody. I 7
just wanted to come down and say that this isn't 8
actually a public hearing at all, this is gigantic, 9
steaming pile of shit. I'm tired of hearing a bunch of 10 bureaucrats blowing hot air up each others asses, I'm 11 not buying it. What I'm really here to talk about is 12 my main concern which is the radioactive waste that 13 will outdate this reactor by tens of thousands of 14 years. I wanted to bring down a diagram of the kind of 15 waste that I produce in this community, it's a bag of 16 returnables. Trading recyclables for radioactive waste 17 can't really compare, no one has ever died from 18 exposure to returnables. I don't think Entergy can say 19 the same for their waste.
20 Despite this fact, I was not permitted to 21 bring my bag of trash into this room, while that 22 reactor continues to produce some of the most dangerous 23 materials on this planet. I don't think there is any 24 negotiation for relicensing before anyone can anything 25
85 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 to say about what's going to happen with that waste.
1 Thank you.
2 (Applause) 3 MR. CAMERON: And now we are going to hear 4
from Kent.
5 MR. BELIVET: Good evening, everybody. I, 6
unlike my wife, am a proponent of nuclear power. I 7
would like to thank Chip, you are doing a great job 8
tonight emceeing. I would like to thank Bill Maguire 9
for coming up here, he said some wonderful things.
10 Patrick Moore, I heard him earlier, star on 11 performance. I liked what he had to say about green 12 effects, and Rich and really the whole NRC, thanks for 13 coming and putting us on. I'm glad and I hope we can 14 get this relicensing to pass.
15 My favorite part of the PowerPoint was the 16 four references to the small environmental impacts of 17 nuclear power, I really liked that and that truly is 18 what I appreciate most about nuclear power is its 19 effect on the environment, and that's why I'm here 20 tonight at this environmental impact study, hearing or 21 whatever.
22 I'll get on with my comment here.
23 The things I look forward to with 20 more 24 years of Vermont Yankee running here 15 miles from 25
86 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 where I was born and raised are pretty exciting, I look 1
forward to my children or perhaps my wife getting 2
breast cancer, I look forward to the time when I can 3
hug them and feel only one of their breasts up against 4
my breast because the other has been removed because of 5
a tumor because there is 88,300 cubic yards of 6
radioactive waste stored on the Connecticut River.
7 I look forward to my kids having Downs 8
Syndrome and I look forward to this community growing 9
in all its new and mutated ways. I look forward to 10 spending a hard life with my father or perhaps my 11 children as they die a slow death of prostate cancer.
12 I look forward to swimming in a warmer Connecticut 13 River. I look forward to my friends returning from the 14 Iraq War with post traumatic stress syndrome and 15 something unknown, something that's killing them that's 16 caused by depleted uranium which comes from nuclear 17 power. I'm really into that, I think that will be 18 great to hang out with my friends as they die a slow 19 and painful death.
20 I'm looking forward to more wars, I'm 21 looking forward to more waste reprocessing and more 22 efficient smart weaponry, and increased infant 23 mortality is something I can barely hide my excitement 24 about. And finally, I look forward to a time when I 25
87 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 can abandon my home, the place where I grew up, because 1
of a nuclear accident or simply because too much waste 2
has accumulated and the environment becomes unsuitable 3
for human habitation. So thanks a lot and thanks for 4
everyone for encouraging this relicensing, keep it up, 5
NRC.
6 (Applause) 7 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Kent.
8 We're going to go to Roy Ramsdell, Brian 9
Tietze, Karen Murphy and Gail Elnell. Is this Roy?
10 All right.
11 MR. RAMSDELL: Good evening. My name is 12 Roy Ramsdell, I am an employee of Vermont Yankee.
13 I want to thank the NRC for holding the 14 hearings to talk where everybody in the community can 15 get together and share their view. Not all views are 16 the same, it's good to hear the differences and work 17 out those differences. There is a lot of technology, a 18 lot of data, a lot of number crunching that went into 19 the study that the NRC is looking at, I would like to 20 focus on the human face at Vermont Yankee. I have a 21 human factors background, it's also what I think makes 22 it at the end of the day is the people.
23 We look at our community and a number of 24 folks have acknowledged that it isn't the people we 25
88 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 don't like, it's nuclear power. Well guess what? It's 1
the people that run the nuclear power plant, it's the 2
same people that are in the community, the same people 3
that are teachers, the same people that lead scouting 4
groups, the same ones that volunteer at the hospital or 5
Rescue, Inc. These are the people that work at the 6
power plant, they are not different than the other 7
folks. The one thing they have in common is the common 8
purpose to run that plant safely and keep it that way 9
for another 20 years.
10 They are in the fabric of this community, 11 they are here to stay, they live in the three 12 surrounding states and they are not going to endanger 13 their homes because this is home. So, at the end of 14 the day, we have all the technology and all the 15 studies, but what we are really left with is the people 16 and it's the people that run that and keep it safe.
17 Thank you.
18 (Applause) 19 MR. CAMERON: All right, thank you. Is 20 Brian here? Brian? And then we are going to go to 21 Karen Murphy, if she is still here, and Nina, Nina 22 Keller who is definitely here.
23 MR. TIETZE: Good evening, thank you. My 24 name is Brian Tietze, I am an employee of Vermont 25
89 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Yankee and have been for 25 years.
1 A lot of people have made a lot of 2
comments and I'm not going to repeat it, I know some 3
people think that we shouldn't talk about the people 4
but I would like to talk about the people. In the 25 5
years I've been with Vermont Yankee, I've been on a lot 6
of different assignments, one of the ones I'm currently 7
involved with is our donations committed. We work very 8
hard, working in the tristate area, looking at all the 9
people that need our help and we diligently review, and 10 we go out and we help these people.
11 Last year, we gave over $250,000 to the 12 tristate area and a lot of it had environmental impact.
13 A lot of the things we do are with scouts, with other 14 organizations that are doing great things in the town.
15 Without our finances, and our help and our employees, 16 those initiatives wouldn't happen, so I do encourage 17 that you consider us with a licensed extension for the 18 next 20 years so that we can continue to be an 19 important player in the community and that we can show 20 you, as we have, as I've listened to comments for over 21 10 years for every time we try to do something, that we 22 just show you that we are doing better and better, I 23 guarantee you the employees that I work with are 24 dedicated to doing that.
25
90 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 As was stated, we work safely, we are well 1
controlled and we do want to be a part of your future.
2 Thank you.
3 (Applause) 4 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Brian. And this is 5
Karen.
6 MS. MURPHY: Good evening. My name is 7
Karen Murphy, I do not work at Vermont Yankee, I'm also 8
not going to be giving my own comments tonight, I've 9
been asked to read a document sent by Ray Shadis, he is 10 a consultant for the New England Coalition, and I have 11 agreed to do that. I am not going to read the entire 12 document but I do have a copy to submit. In the 13 environmental scoping process, the New England 14 Coalition raised new, significant and site-specific 15 issues affected by license renewal which the NRC, in 16 responding to scoping meeting comments, ignored, 17 trivialized or otherwise failed to answer.
18 The relevant comments are four in number, 19 high radiation readings inside the Vernon elementary 20 school have correlated by vector and occurrence with 21 high radiation readings on certain fence line 22 instruments. New England Coalition expressed our 23 belief that these high radiation readings in the school 24 because of high correlation by vector and occurrence 25
91 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 with high TLD readings on the site fence line warrant 1
investigation in order to determine if licensee 2
off-site radiation dose estimates are correct and then 3
to quantify the actual off-site radiation dosages as 4
they would be effected by 20 years of additional 5
operation at extended power uprate levels.
6 Number two, in 2002 Entergy Nuclear 7
Vermont Yankee amended its discharge permits to include 8
water treatment with a new list of chemical additives 9
including proprietary formulas of biocides, detergents, 10 surfactants and anti-corrosives to be applied, along 11 with chlorine and fluorine compounds. These toxins and 12 otherwise harmful materials may be incorporated in 13 cooling tower drift, these are droplets which are 14 expelled laterally from the towers as spray which have 15 been found to travel and deposit up to a mile from the 16 plant.
17 There has been no formal evaluation of the 18 environmental and human health impact Vermont Yankee's 19 cooling tower drift, which is site-specific with 20 respect to the chemical mix, solution, periods of use, 21 tower spray physical characteristics, characterization 22 and susceptibility of effected biota, weather patterns, 23 terrain, and characterization and location of 24 potentially affected human populations. The impact of 25
92 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 cooling tower drift over 20 additional years of 1
operation at extended power uprate conditions must be 2
quantified and verified prior to any assertions of no 3
significant environmental impact for license renewal.
4 Three. In the mid 1990s, Vermont Yankee 5
applied for and received permission for outdoor on-site 6
storage of up to 35 cubic yards of radiological 7
contaminated soil per year, this soil is drawn from 8
building excavations and from traction sand and salt 9
that have been applied to and gather from VY roads 10 during winter. In 2003, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee 11 applied for and received permission for outdoor on-site 12 storage of a one-time dump of approximately 300 cubic 13 meters and an annual deposit of up to 150 cubic meters 14 of radiological contaminated soil.
15 This soil will be stored south of the 16 cooling towers on what may be fairly characterized as 17 the banks of the Connecticut River, VY irradiating 20 18 percent more uranium under increased flow turbulence 19 will produce in excess of 20 percent additional low-20 level waste and contamination due to extended power 21 uprate. NRC cannot credibly assert that this excess 22 site contamination will remain within regulatory bounds 23 with quantification and verification of potential 24 radiological effects, as they may be aggravated by 25
93 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 leeching, stratification, migration and bio 1
accumulation. The presence of this low-level waste 2
dump on the banks of the Connecticut is a new, since 3
the original licensing and not included in any license 4
amendments and it is site-specific, it should be 5
considered in any license renewal evaluation.
6 And number four, the NRC fails to consider 7
the potential environmental effects of the spent fuel 8
pool accident or major spent fuel pool radiological 9
release as a result of an act of terror. NUREG-1738 10 characterizes potential impacts as up to 25,000 11 fatalities at a distance of up to 500 miles and this 12 presumes 95 percent early evacuation. The model plant 13 chosen for this study referenced in NUREG-1738 was 14 Millstone One, a plant very similar to VY, albeit in an 15 area of high population density. NUREG-1738 also 16 references seismic fragility of the Vermont Yankee 17 spent fuel pool specifically. It also admits that BWR 18 Mark 1 containments would present no substantial 19 obstacle to aircraft penetration.
20 Further, it admits that it is impossible 21 to assign probability to acts of terror. This is new 22 information and has yet not been considered for its VY 23 site-specific references and implications. No credible 24 assessment of potential accident consequences or 25
94 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 mitigation at Vermont Yankee can be undertaken without 1
including consideration of the information in NUREG-2 1738.
3 And last, New England Coalition's 4
preceding comments, as presented during the June, 2006 5
scoping meeting, are site-specific and present new and 6
significant considerations. Although we can find no 7
place in the regulations that specifies how comments 8
taken on the draft part shall be considered and 9
incorporated, New England Coalition now respectfully 10 requests that the NRC staff give these comments 11 individual evaluation for potential environmental 12 impact before the license renewal process goes forward.
13 Thank you.
14 (Applause) 15 MR. CAMERON: Thank you for putting that 16 on the record, thank you for putting that on the record 17 for us.
18 And this is Nina, Nina Keller.
19 MS. KELLER: I'm Nina Keller and I live 20 about 14 miles from the Vermont reactor.
21 I've been to many hearings before and 22 usually the NRC is seated where we can see them, and 23 tonight they are kind of dispersed into the crowd, and 24 it makes me feel like some of our words are melting 25
95 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 into a shroud of dark mist. I don't know exactly who 1
I'm talking to, I didn't really come to talk to an 2
audience.
3 So the NRC said, and it was on the slide 4
show, that they really wanted to hear us, that that's 5
part of their job, to listen to us responsibly, and 6
yet, if the NRC is not listening to the Supreme Court 7
of this nation, then how are we to believe that we are 8
being respected? That we are being heard? I don't 9
quite get it.
10 The Supreme Court recently ruled, they 11 ruled --. Are they not the highest court in the land?
12 They ruled that relicensing must include the 13 consideration of terrorism, period, not for the NRC to 14 then say, no. The Supreme Court ruled it so it must be 15 included in the relicensing consideration of Vermont 16 Yankee, period. I also was somewhat stunned, actually 17 disgusted to see a slide up there that said it would 18 have a large impact to go alternative. Well they are 19 comparing all kinds of interesting little financial 20 tidbits but, if you read the papers, if you understand 21 more about the reactor sitting right over there and it 22 not creating greenhouse gasses, then you are forgetting 23 the entire, the entirety of the nuclear process, the 24 mining, the milling, the tailing, the reprocessing, the 25
96 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 storage, the transportation, the transmission, the 1
decommission and so on, and all the multi megawatts 2
that are consumed in those processes, so don't tell me 3
that nuclear is green.
4 People think they are talking to idiots 5
when they say things like that and we are no longer 6
stupid, we are educated, we are reading more than what 7
the NRC is professing, and it's an insult to talk to us 8
like that. I proposed this before and someone 9
mentioned it this evening, that the workers who are 10 keeping us safe right now and doing as good a job as 11 can be done at the reactor, that you be retrained as 12 part of the shutting down of Vermont Yankee because I 13 know it's going to be shut down, it's not going to be 14 relicensed.
15 So wake up all you people who came up here 16 tonight and said you work at Vermont Yankee and you 17 have masters degrees and whatever, the wonderful 18 education and training you've had, wake up because you 19 should not be put out of a job, you should be 20 retrained, and you should start being your own 21 advocates right now and make sure that Entergy, your 22 bosses, your company who you are so loyal to, that they 23 are going to retrain you and they are starting to look 24 at that immediately. And it shouldn't be up to the 25
97 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 alternative energy people to come up with jobs for you, 1
we are going to work with you, but we need to hear that 2
you are thinking about the future too because some 3
people need it the way they want it.
4 Well we have, the environmentalists 5
haven't had it the way we want it, and the tide is 6
turning and it's going to happen, and Vermont Yankee is 7
shutting down. So terrorism must be included in the 8
environmental impact statement and in relicensing, and 9
there must be an independent safety assessment, there 10 must be.
11 Thanks.
12 (Applause) 13 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Nina.
14 We are going to go to Norm Redemacher, 15 Clay Turnbull, Chuck Edwards, and then we are going to 16 go to Gary Sachs and Sally Shaw.
17 And this is Norm? All right.
18 MR. REDEMACHER: Good evening. My name is 19 Norm Redemacher, I'm an Entergy employee and we are 20 here to talk about the environmental impact of Vermont 21 Yankee.
22 On balance, over the last 35 years, if you 23 look at the current proposed environmental impact, it 24 provides a strong report card for Vermont Yankee 25
98 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 relative to being an environmental and economically 1
sound unit. What other kind of facility operates for 2
almost 35 years and still is considered by experts, 3
both within the federal government, and local and state 4
government, as an economically sound, safe and 5
environmentally friendly source of electric power? In 6
my opinion, we should renew the license for Vermont 7
Yankee.
8 Thank you.
9 (Applause) 10 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Norman.
11 And Clay? Clay Turnbull?
12 How about Chuck Edwards?
13 MR. TURNBULL: Good evening. This is a 14 great document, I wish I had time to read all of it 15 front to back twice, but I've only had a chance to 16 browse through it. I refuse to believe that we can't 17 do better, I refuse to believe that we have to stay on 18 this same course that we've been on. I'm still seeing 19 way more lights on than we need and I see it in every 20 aspect of our society, we are gluttonous consumers of 21 energy in all of its different forms. Before any 22 discussion of a license extension or relicensing, is 23 it, can someone clarify is it relicense or license 24 extension? Is it a whole new license or is it an 25
99 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 extension?
1 Well, whatever it is, before we have any 2
additional discussion on that, I believe it's 3
imperative that we have an independent safety 4
assessment, just like they had in Maine. I'm very 5
pleased to see that there are some senators in New York 6
that are moving in that direction on the national level 7
and I would think that any employee at Entergy would be 8
pleased to see an independent safety assessment as 9
well.
10 One concern I have is that, as I've heard 11 employees speaking, there is a gentleman that spoke 12 earlier who said he will be retiring in two years and 13 two months, and that he thinks of Vermont Yankee as his 14 nuclear power plant. My concern is how many guys like 15 him are retiring that are familiar with the 16 idiosyncracies of that facility? I know how to drive 17 my car, I know it might pull a little bit to the left 18 because of the brakes up front, I know what to expect 19 in operating that vehicle. The retiring folks are the 20 ones that have that ingrained knowledge and they are 21 leaving, and they are replaced by someone else who has 22 been here for, you know, the fellow from Maine who has 23 been here for I think 12 years, and that's a drop in 24 the bucket.
25
100 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 I would like to follow the course of Maine 1
Yankee in several respects, one of having an 2
independent safety assessment. The State of Maine 3
right now is contemplating withdrawing from the ISO New 4
England because they, I believe, considered, I believe 5
the reason that they are considering withdrawing is 6
they have their energy needs met in the state. We've 7
heard some scare tactics about what's happening in 8
Maine, perhaps the gentleman that spoke should buy his 9
electricity from a renewable energy source, clean, 10 safe, reliable, conservation, solar, wind, biomass.
11 And I really would like to see some 12 additional radiation monitoring. There was an 13 incorrect, some discussion between the state, and 14 Entergy and the NRC about whose numbers were accurate, 15 and they haven't gone into, followed that in depth. I 16 would like to see radiation monitors in a grid pattern 17 throughout a ten mile radius of Vermont Yankee.
18 That concludes my comments.
19 (Applause) 20 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, thank you very 21 much.
22 Gary, Gary Sachs?
23 MR. SACHS: My opinion, I'm Gary Sachs, a 24 resident of Brattleboro, not affiliated, opposing 25
101 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Entergy and opposing relicensing, opposing Vermont 1
Yankee.
2 Hi, Dave. Your EIS is flawed and 3
inadequate, I say that for starters. Vermont is the 4
only state where there have been interveners both in 5
the uprate case and the dry cask case, and I believe 6
now in the license, relicensing case as well.
7 Now I've got some concerns I want to raise 8
here, I have a concern that the NRC accepted Entergy's 9
recommendation that the spent fuel canisters be stored 10 outside along the Connecticut River. A concern there 11 has to do with I have a concern with the NRC's 12 awareness that the proposed location is in a flood 13 plain. I'm not sure how long the flood plain is, there 14 is some variation there. I have concern regarding that 15 such a location means that at least one every few 16 hundred, five hundred, thousand more years, a flood is 17 going to occur high enough to wash those 90 ton casks 18 directly into the Connecticut River. Mathematically 19 speaking, I have a concern whether or not the NRC has 20 evaluated the fact that if those canisters stay there 21 in the flood plain for 20 years, 50 years, there is a 22 higher increased chance of that flood occurring and/or 23 washing those casks into the Connecticut River. I'm 24 certain the NRC is aware that that flood plain 25
102 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 designation is based on historical meteorological data.
1 2
I have a great concern that world renowned 3
and credentialed meteorologists and environmental 4
experts are now stating that global warming will 5
undoubtedly change historical weather data, bigger 6
storms occurring far more frequently than charted or 7
anticipated. I certainly hope the NRC has done its due 8
diligence and research to make sure that 1, 5, 10 9
casks, 90 tons a piece, 50 feet away from the banks of 10 the river, who knows when that next flood is coming?
11 So the historical weather data is likely no longer 12 accurate.
13 I have a concern regarding the steps the 14 NRC has taken to reevaluate the critical environmental 15 data and its impact on the storage of the spent fuel at 16 Vermont Yankee. I also question what environmental 17 modeling data the NRC has used and is available for 18 these utilities to use to evaluate these upcoming 19 environmental changes. I would love to know what 20 regulations the NRC has put in place to ensure that all 21 utilities are considering the new environmental issues 22 of significant climate change in their evaluations and 23 permits for long-term waste storage.
24 What steps will the NRC take to assure 25
103 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 that the new environmental modeling will be used to 1
assure Vermont's citizens of protection from exposure 2
to this new risk to this long-term storage which, since 3
the beginning of the reactor has been temporary of 4
course, the pool, the dry casks or "interim spent fuel 5
storage installation"? What steps has the NRC taken to 6
review these new hazardous waste measures with the 7
States of Mass. and Connecticut, each of which would be 8
severely impacted by the release of radioactive spent 9
fuel into the Connecticut River?
10 I have a concern regarding the terrorist 11 issue regarding these spent fuel casks. I have 12 concerns for the lack of thermal syphoning ability when 13 a 90 ton cask slides or turns over into muddy, silty 14 water, and I also have a great concern regarding the 15 back 40 that was mentioned earlier, that low-level 16 waste dump allowed once on the south side by the 17 cooling towers, and how close it is to the water, given 18 the potential for being near the flood plain.
19 So, in regard to the license extension, 20 much of the recent talk of renaissance, rebirth, 21 relapse, if you will, of the nuclear industry is based 22 on the 2003 study by Moniz and Deutsch, MIT professors 23 and former government people, Department of Energy was 24 one of them, one of them was the Director of 25
104 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Intelligence. And Moniz and Deutsch are these 1
professors from MIT, were the professors who were the 2
cosponsors of the 2003 future of nuclear power MIT 3
white paper. They also, however, in the September, `06 4
edition of Scientific American, which was the future of 5
nuclear, the future of energy, they stated in the 6
Scientific American, September `06 edition, that the 7
current generation of nuclear reactors have a safe life 8
span of 50 years. Correct me if I'm wrong but Vermont 9
Yankee Entergy is currently seeking a 60-year life 10 span.
11 No one in this room has a clue what the 12 price of electricity will be if this license is 13 renewed, so any talk of how great our electric rates 14 have been, we have the cheapest electricity in the New 15 England Region, I know that's been big news for Entergy 16 this year or last year, excuse me. None of us have a 17 clue what we are going to get charged after 2012, if 18 the license is allowed to be renewed or extended, and 19 the same is true for who knows what the cost to the 20 State of Vermont would be if the hydro energy, by the 21 way, when the talk has been so great tonight on how we 22 have the cleanest portfolio, I have heard nothing of 23 the fact that one third of our energy comes from hydro 24 electric.
25
105 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 And I guess, to finish up, I would state 1
that the public comment form provided for tonight's 2
meeting by the NRC expired on 6/30/06 and, if you don't 3
mind my saying, so too did Vermont's desire for nuclear 4
power, it expired years ago.
5 Thank you.
6 (Applause) 7 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Gary, thank you.
8 Yeah, that's a good suggestion, thank you. Sally, do 9
you have a --.
10 MS. SHAW: I did speak earlier today, but 11 I had to leave before I got to hear a lot of the other 12 comments because I had to meet a school bus, so I am 13 going to pick up where I left off. My comments are 14 directly pertaining to the environmental impact 15 statement, as that's what I thought this hearing was 16 supposed to be about, and I talked earlier about new 17 and significant information regarding epidemiological 18 statistics from the National Center for Health 19 Statistics at the CDC that indicate that death rates in 20 Windham County are higher than they are in the other 21 counties in the state during the period that Vermont 22 Yankee has been operating. There are some questions 23 about that, I'm not going to read the whole thing 24 again.
25
106 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 My second concern with the inadequacy and 1
incompleteness of the supplemental environmental impact 2
statement is the NRC's refusal to consider the 3
environmental effects of an act of terrorism upon the 4
spent fuel pool. I think this stance that the NRC is 5
taking is not only tantamount to criminal negligence, 6
it's silly, they know that it's only a matter of time 7
before the Supreme Court or Congress catches up with 8
them on this issue. Saying it's up to the military to 9
protect nuclear facilities, which I read in the paper 10 just a couple of days ago, that was supposedly a 11 decision on the part of the Commissioners themselves, 12 is irresponsible when there are technologies readily 13 available today that could make these predeployed 14 weapons of mass destruction, the vulnerable spent fuel 15 pools, much safer, hardened on-site storage, for one.
16 It's not clear to me why the nuclear 17 industry, in fact that amounts to just five companies 18 nationwide, there is no free market competition here.
19 Why can't the nuclear industry use a little bit of the 20
$12 billion corporate welfare package they were given 21 in the Energy Act of 2005 to show us that they are 22 responsible corporate citizens by stopping the 23 overfilling of spent fuel pools and putting the fuel in 24 hardened storage casks in bounds, far enough apart that 25
107 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 they are not likely to bonk into each other in a 1
terrorist attack, tip over and cause a cladding fire?
2 Can't the NRC show some backbone and require the 3
nuclear industry to use this money and do this? We 4
have all said it before, it's really puzzling to 5
understand who the NRC is really working for.
6 I'm concerned also about the NRC's 7
inability to grasp that the use of open cooling or 8
once-through cooling is a violation of the Clean Water 9
Act. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 10 Manhattan ruled Thursday, I think it was last week, 11 that it was improper for the EPA to let power plants 12 circumvent environmental laws. This decision was a 13 rejection of EPA's refusal to adopt closed-cycle 14 cooling as the best technology available.
15 About half of the nation's power plants, 16 these are both nuclear and fossil fuel plants, use the 17 closed-cycle method which operates like a car radiator, 18 reusing the same water and only requiring small amounts 19 of new water to replace what is lost to evaporation.
20 The system uses at least 95 percent less water than 21 once-through systems, these systems draw from waterways 22 and expel warmed water back into these waterways. It's 23 only common sense that if a technology exists to 24 minimize or mitigate the impacts on the natural 25
108 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 environment that a responsible corporation would want 1
to use them and a responsible regulatory agency would 2
want to require that they use them. This may, again, 3
be up to the courts to enforce and that's really sad, 4
that's really sad because we are paying the salaries of 5
these people who are refusing to regulate.
6 A few more specific criticisms, you claim 7
in the EIS that Vermont Yankee releases nearly no 8
liquid effluents. In section 2.2.31, you reveal that 9
Vermont Yankee has 11, and they are asking for a 12th, 10 outfall pipes that release directly into the 11 Connecticut River, one for cooling water and the others 12 apparently from storm drains, but it's also apparent in 13 your table in that section that there are no radiation 14 limits and no monitoring requirements at most of the 11 15 outfalls. I think 9 of the 11 have no limits set and 16 no monitoring.
17 Just preceding the uprate application, 18 Entergy was given permission to stockpile 150 cubic 19 yards of radioactive soil per year on-site, that's 20 about eight large dump truck loads per year dumped 21 apparently in an unlined and uncovered location near 22 the Connecticut River. These piles of radioactive dirt 23 will be subject to erosion and over land flow, rain and 24 snow melt tend to wash into the river. The storm 25
109 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 drains are designed to collect over land flow but no 1
monitoring is done on the storm drains, so how do we 2
know that the effluent that discharges from these storm 3
drains is within regulatory limits or that there is no 4
environmental impact from it? That's one.
5 Number two, septic sludge too hot to send 6
to commercial septic haulers is also surface spread in 7
three or four locations on the site. This is a site, 8
by the way, that was deemed unsuitable for a low-level 9
waste dump by an independent environmental review a 10 number of years back, I think it was in the `80s. If 11 you don't monitor the outflow pipes that collect storm 12 drain run off from the site, how can the NRC claim in 13 this supplemental environmental impact statement that 14 there are no radioactive liquid effluents? They don't 15 know.
16 However, I did hear, in talking to Larry 17 Krist and Carla White at the Vermont Department of 18 Health, that Cobalt-60 and other radioisotopes have 19 been found in Connecticut River sediments. How do we 20 know, if no monitoring is occurring, whether these 21 effluents are from Vermont Yankee? On the section that 22 talks about radiological impacts, section 2.2.7, the 23 NRC says that the radiological monitoring plan, which 24 they abbreviate as RUMP, REMP, for the last five years, 25
110 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 indicates that radiation and radioactivity in the 1
environmental medium monitored around the plant have 2
been "well within regulatory limits" and the citation 3
is an Entergy report.
4 This is all that's really said here about 5
this environmental monitoring and I just want to submit 6
that Entergy is not independent and should be backed up 7
by more credible independent sources. In addition, the 8
regulatory limits are called into question by the 9
biological effects of ionizing radiation BEIR 7 report 10 and a number of other recent scientific studies, they 11 are called into question because they are based on 12 standard man and not the more vulnerable child, woman 13 or fetus who are 30 to 50 percent more sensitive to the 14 cancers and other biological effects of ionizing 15 radiation.
16 These regs are called into question 17 because the risk factor for these carcinogens, both 18 toxic and radioactive, which are emitted by nuclear 19 power stations is far more lenient than for all other 20 chemical carcinogens. Perhaps your review of radiation 21 standards will finally change all that but I think, 22 until the review is done, the environmental impact 23 statement is incomplete and it is not investigating 24 health impacts based on the numbers that it should be.
25
111 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 Yeah, I can submit the rest in writing, it goes on for 1
pages and pages.
2 Thank you.
3 (Applause) 4 MR. CAMERON: And how about Mr. Akin and 5
then Howard Shaffer?
6 MR. AKIN: I didn't plan to speak tonight, 7
but I am Len Akin, a native Vermonter for 53 years, a 8
licensed electrician by trade. I've worked up and down 9
the Connecticut River Valley most of my working life, 10 the last seven years have been at Entergy.
11 Like I said, I am a licensed electrician, 12 I don't need Entergy, I work there because I want to.
13 And be assured of the point tonight what environmental 14 impact means to me, over my life, back in the early 15
`60s, `70s, a lot of talk about losing a national 16 treasure, the bald eagle, to DDT, and I'd never seen 17 one until I worked at Vermont Yankee.
18 And my point tonight is every time I see a 19 bald eagle flying over an intake structure, or cruising 20 over our buildings or up the river fishing, I look 21 around and I am proud to work at a company that I feel 22 is green and that proves it by the wildlife around 23 there. That's the only place in Vermont I have seen a 24 bald eagle, and that's all I've got to say.
25
112 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 (Applause) 1 MR. SHAFFER: Thank you.
2 Howard Shaffer from Enfield, New 3
Hampshire, a retired nuclear engineer, I've consulted 4
for the Brattleboro Select Board, and I am licensed in 5
Vermont, and New Hampshire, and Massachusetts in 6
Illinois in nuclear engineering as a professional 7
engineer. We are here tonight as creatures of our 8
congress, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, before 9
them the Atomic Energy Commission, all the 10 environmental regulations. In 1954, Congress decided 11 they were the decider, along with the president, that 12 we ought to have nuclear power as part of national 13 energy policy, before there was a Department of Energy.
14 That has continued through every Congress, 15 they have not changed the national policy, and it is 16 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's job to make sure 17 that we carry out that policy in a safe fashion, it is 18 not their job to decide we should not have nuclear 19 power and to shut it down. If you want to do that, 20 which is something that citizens can do and have had 21 that kind of effect in the past, you need to convince a 22 majority of congress and a super majority in the senate 23 to block a filibuster and whoever is in the White House 24 to change national energy policy.
25
113 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 In that debate in Congress, should it take 1
place, and I don't think that it will because there 2
would be too many hard questions that would be asked 3
about how can you guarantee that the alternative 4
scenarios which are presented are going to take place?
5 And what shall we do if these rosy alternatives which 6
are presented don't take place on the schedule you have 7
recommended? And why is it that you think that 8
radiation from nuclear power plants is unsafe when it's 9
a small part of the natural exposure we get from the 10 environment and have before there ever was nuclear 11 power?
12 So, if you don't want nuclear power, start 13 with Senator Sanders and just convince a majority of 14 Congress and the White House to change national energy 15 policy.
16 Thank you.
17 (Applause) 18 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Howard. Is 19 Harvey Schaktman still here?
20 Well then let's go to Claire, Claire 21 Chang. Did you want to speak again, Claire? And 22 Claire is our final speaker. You want one minute?
23 Okay. Come on up and get on the mic so we can get you 24 on the transcript, okay?
25
114 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 MR. SHADIS: I've heard a lot of 1
questionable facts and figures here tonight and they 2
will continue to be questionable, no doubt. Be that as 3
it may, I took the opportunity to travel to the Ukraine 4
and went on a tour of the now infamous exclusion zone.
5 So, if any of you would care to get the full sensation 6
of what the environmental impact of nuclear power is, 7
take a little waltz around there, it's huge, it's 8
global, it's absolutely terrifying. These people, it's 9
not only the land that's been corrupted, they have been 10 corrupted. They're entire genetic heritage has been 11 given the short end of the stick, their children are 12 deformed and will continue to be so.
13 This is the risk, it's that simple. Yes, 14 things are profitable, things are leaning this way or 15 that way for where the energy is coming from and how 16 comfortable you can live, but the true environmental 17 impact inevitably and invariably is what you are seeing 18 over there in Belarus and it in cities like Gomol in 19 Pripyat, which is eerie. It was a, the people there 20 too, the workers there, that was the flagship plant for 21 them, that was the a number one, biggest, safest 22 producer for the Soviets, and it ruined their empire 23 and that's what you are flirting with here.
24 So enjoy it while you can because, one of 25
115 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 these days, you are all going to be regretting your 1
adamancy for your position that it is safe, clean and 2
reliable, it ain't. And some of that fall out came all 3
the way around and dropped over here, more of it 4
dropped in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe, 5
that's why the European Union is so hot to get the 6
thing wrapped up again before it blows again because it 7
is going to. Once one of these puppies burns down, it 8
doesn't stop burning down for a very long time.
9 And I'm really happy to hear all the 10 employees going on about how safe they are, that's good 11 because that's your job and, God damn it, you'd better 12 be safe because, without all that, you are risking hell 13 on Earth.
14 Thank you.
15 (Applause) 16 MR. SHADIS: My name is John Shadis, I 17 live in Westminster. Thank you.
18 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, John.
19 Thank you all for comments, and for 20 courtesy and following ground rules.
21 And I'm going to turn it over to Rani 22 Franovich who is the chief of the environmental section 23 to close the meeting out for us.
24 MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Chip.
25
116 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 I just wanted to reiterate the staff's 1
thanks for you all taking your time out from your busy 2
schedules to be here tonight, it's an important part of 3
the process. I know many of you probably don't believe 4
that, but it is, so thanks again for taking the time 5
out to be here. I wanted to answer one question that 6
was asked, whether or not when a license is renewed is 7
it an extension of the original license or is it the 8
issuance of a new license, and the answer is it's the 9
issuance of a new license for a period of up to 40 10 years.
11 I also wanted to remind everyone that we 12 will be accepting comments on the draft environmental 13 impact statement for Vermont Yankee until March 7th.
14 Richard Emch, the project manager for the environmental 15 review is the point of contact for those comments, his 16 contact information is in the slides and the handouts 17 that were provided when you came into the meeting 18 today, tonight.
19 And one final thing, the NRC has a public 20 meeting feedback form that you may have received when 21 you registered for the meeting. If you have any 22 suggestions on how we can improve our meetings, things 23 we can do different, things we can do better, please 24 don't hesitate to provide that feedback to us in this 25
117 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 form. You can leave it here, give it to a member of 1
the NRC, we are wearing these name tags tonight, or you 2
can fold it up and mail it in, the postage is prepaid.
3 And with that, thanks again for being here 4
and good night.
5 When we issue a renew license, the license 6
is for a period of up to 40 years. You're welcome.
7 It's 20 years of additional operation. If the plant 8
has been operating for more than 20 years already then, 9
from the time that they get the renewed license, they 10 have a period of up to 40 years, but it cannot exceed a 11 total of 60 years.
12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, we should, we should 13 get this on the record, but I think that we'll just let 14 you have this conversation with Rani.
15 MS. FRANOVICH: I can answer that 16 question, Chip.
17 MR. CAMERON: Okay.
18 MS. FRANOVICH: There is no limit on the 19 number of times an applicant can apply for license 20 renewal, as long as they meet the regulatory 21 requirements to ensure safety and adequate management 22 of aging of the plant. We evaluate it based on their 23 ability to effectively manage the effects of aging.
24 MR. CAMERON: Okay, I would just suggest 25
118 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 234-4433 that you come down and talk to Rani.
1 We are adjourned.
2 (Whereupon, at 10:10 p.m., the 3
hearing was adjourned.)
4 5
6 7