ML20209A665
| ML20209A665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3326 87-547-02-LA, 87-547-2-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8704280253 | |
| Download: ML20209A665 (43) | |
Text
ORGlR-3 .
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-271-OLA VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
LOCATION: BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT PAGES: 105-225 DATE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1987 fk.0 l 0
,k.fy, S hub ' YNW
//$/ ~ ll '
D l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
] OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 87042802S3 870422 PDR ADOCK 0500 1
62500202 185 carysimons I ) 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 ----------------X 5 In the Matter of :
6 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR : Docket No. 50-271-OLA 7 POWER CORPORATION :
8 (Vermont Yankee Nuclear : ASLBP No. 87-547-02-LA 9 Power Station) :
10 11 U.S. Post Office and 12 Federal Building 13 2nd Floor Courtroom 14 204 Main Street 15 Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 16 Wednesday, April 22, 1987 17 The Limited Appearance Session in the above-is entitled matter convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m.
39 BEFORE:
20 CHARLES BECHHOEFER, ESQ., Chairman 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 East-West Towers Building 24 4350 East-West Highway 25 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 0
, . ._ _ . ~. - __ __ _ _ _
62500202 186 carysimons 1 GLENN O. BRIGHT, Member 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 East-West Towers Building 5 4350 East-West Highway 6 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 7
8 JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member 9 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 East-West Towers Building 12 4350 East-West Highway 13 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 j4 15 APPEARARANCES:
16 17 On Behalf of the Applicant:
18 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ.
19 KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ.
20 Ropes & Gray 21 225 Franklin Street 22 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 23 24 25
62500202 187
- marysimons i On Behalf of New England Coalition on Nuclear 2 Pollution:
3 ELLYN R. WEISS,ESQ.
4 Harmon & Weiss 5 Suite 430 1
6 2001 S Street, N.W.
J l 7 Washington, D.C. 20009 8 On Behalf of the State of Vermont:
'f 9 DAVID J. MULLETT, ESQ.
10 Special Assistant Attorney General 11 Department of Public Service' i 12 State of Vermont 33 Montpeller, Vermont 05602 1
O ,4 15 On Behalf of the State of Massachusetts:
I l 16 GEORGE B. DEAN, ESQ.
17 Assistant Attorney General i
is Commonwealth of Massachusetts j9 One Ashburton Place 20 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 21 22 23 5 24 l
25
!o
._~ m ,m ,_,_ .,..m. _ _ , . - . . . _ . _ . , . _ . - , . _ . _ . , __ . _ . . , _ _ , , _ , _ _ . . . , , _ _ _ _ . , , _.__.____,.,,,,,-_,,..___._.__,_._y,..
62500202 188 marysimons 1 On Behalf of the State of New Hampshire:
i 2 GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ESQ.
3 Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 Office of the Attorney General 5 State House Annex 6 Concord, New Hampshire ,
7 8 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
9 ANN P. HODGDON, ESQ.
10 ROBERT M. WEISMAN,ESQ.
11 JAY M. GUTIERREZ, ESQ.
12 Office of the General Counsel 13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 Tenth Floor 15 7735 Old Georgetown Road 16 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 17 ,
18 ALSO PRESENT:
19 PAUL WHELTON 20 U.S. Marshall 21 State of Vermont 22 Brattleboro, Vermont 23 24 25 0
~
1 62500202 189 i marysimons 1 LIMITED' APPEARANCE SESSION 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Good'aorning, ladies and i
3 gentlemen.
} 4 This is the second day of a prehearing conference
- 5 involving the proposed expansion of the capacity of the l 6 spent fuel pool of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Reactor.
- 7 This morning we are here to. receive statements a from members of the public concerning this proposal.
9 For members of the public who were not here i 10 yesterday, this Licensing Board consists of Dr. James j 11 Carpenter on my left. He has a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins j 12 University and has a technical background in environmental j 33 chemistry.
$ 14 On my right is Mr. Glenn Bright who has a 15 master's degree in engineering physics and a professional
- 16 background in reactor physics and reactor safety.
17 My name is Charles Bechhoeffer and I'm an l 18 attorney.
j 19 All of us are members of the Atomic Safety and i
' 20 Licensing Board Panel of the NRC.
21 Limited appearance statements are not evidence as l 22 such, but they put us on notice of any concerns or interests l
23 of the people in the neighborhood of the plant. If any l
j 24 significant issues are suggested, we can ask the parties to 25 the proceeding to develop those issues.
O
- 62500202 - 190 marysimons 1 We normally expect that statements will take I
-2 around five minutes each, or no longer than five minutes.
4 3 We have a list of several people who signed up early or who 4
'4 have telephoned into Washington and we will call their names 4
5 first.
6 If other people wish to sign up, we will leave a 7 list for them to do so, because we will first go through the ;
i.
[ 8 list of the people who telephoned into Washington, all of l 9 which happened prior to yesterday.
1 10 People who are making statements can do so at the
- 11 podium in the back of the counsel tables.
12 The first person I will call is a Mr. Bradley 13 Hanson.
14 Is he here?
15 MARSHAL WHELTON: He will be here. He is not i
- 16 here now.
17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Well, I'll come back to 18 him.
{ 19 Mr. James Dodeck.
20
't 21
- 22 23 24 25
')
t 62500202 191 marysimons
() i LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT l 2 of 3 JAMES DODECK 4 MR. DODECK: Good morning.
5 My names is James Dodeck, and I an a resident of 6 Brattleboro, Vermont.
7 My occupation is Master Electrician and I own and 6 8 operate an electrical contracting business here in 9 Brattleboro.
10 My interest is this prehearing is that I have ,
it serious doubts about the safe operation of the Vermont 12 Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation reactor in Vernon, and that i3 I feel that the people in charge of protecting the health ja and safety of the general public are not doing an adequate 15 job.
g The owners of the Vernon reactor are financially 17 bound to keep it in operation whether or not the Federal la Government balls them out of their spent fuel predicament.
19 The anti-nuclear lobby has been predicting since 20 the 1950's that the spent fuel problem was going to be a 21 massive technological problem and that it held 22 extraordinarily high risk to the general public. But the 23 nuclear industry said don't worry, we can solve that problem 24 just as we have solved the other practical problems 25 concerning nuclear fission. In other words, they have i O
.. . . . .- - _ . . . - ~. . .. - . . - - . -
I 1
I' 62500202 192 marysimons I unlimited faith in the abilities of their engineers to find i
} . 2 solutions. .
I i 3 I am not an engineer myself, but I have worked- !
l 4 closely with engineers on a number of industrial i
I 5 construction projects and I sense an unrealistic attitude on i
j 6 the part of engineers to believe in their own ability to i
j 7 solve any-technological problem, no matter how complex.
8 What I see in effect is a problem solving system i
j .9 based in large part on trial and error. This is fine for
{ 10 many applications of technology, but nuclear technology is l
- 11 far more complex, unstable and dangerous than most' types of i
i 12 technology. Nuclear technology does not leave an acceptable
}
i 13 margin for error in my opinion.
i 14 Reactor accidents at Chalk River, Canada,
! 15 Windscale, England, Hanford, Washington and Enrico Fermi at i
j 16 Laguna Beach, Michigan, Three Mile Island, Pennsylvana and i j
17 finally Chernobyl, USSR all suggest that the engineering at la nuclear reactors is being done on a trial and error basis, j 19 Rearranging the spent fuel rods at the Vernon ,
I i l 20 reactor, if allowed, would be yet another case of engineers
{ 21 approaching a technical problem with a single goal in mind,
! 22 one narrow criterion, and that.is to keep the plant in 4 23 operation and simply find or make a solution, any solution 1
2a with that goal in mind.
25 Their motivation, as I see it, is not to make the f
($) !
u 0, - - - . - . - .- - - .-_ - _- - - - - . - _ _ - - . - - - , , - _ - .
62500202 193 marysimons (n,/ i spent fuel assemblies or the reactor safer, but to keep.the 2 reactor in operation even if that means a greater threat to 3 the health and safety of the general public.
4 It is because their motivations are questionable 5 that public hearings on this proposal are absolutely 6 necessary.
7 If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sincerely a wants to do the job of protecting the general public from 9 nuclear reactor accidents, it will conduct public hearings i
io on this proposal, or in lieu of public hearings deny this j 11 dangerous propsal outright as an unnecessary risk to the 12 reactor, the employees working there and to the public at j3 large.
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Gary Catapano, i 16 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 17 of is GARY CATAPANO 39 MR. CATAPANO: My name is Gary Catapano, and I
- 20 live in Keene, New Hampshire, approximately 13 miles from
] 21 the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
j 22 Many of my friends and family live here in 23 Brattleboro and within other communities within a 10-mile 24 emergency planning zone of Vermont Yankee.
25 By occupation I'm a communications engineer and 0
1
- i.
62500202- 194
-sarysimons 7mJ
-(,) 1 - president of.a company ~that designe electronic
!' 2 communications systems for business,-industrial, -
3 governmental and public safety agencies.
4 I am here today to offer an overall assessment of'
- 5 Vermont Yankee to the Licensing Board based upon my own i- ,
- 6 personal experiences as an outsider who had the unique 7 opportunity through work experiences to evaluate the i 8 attitudes and commitment of both Vermont Yankee corporate i
9 management and staff employees.
10 My experiences with Vermont Yankee date back to
- 11 1978 when employed by a communications service company 'in i
j 12 working as a field service engineer I was responsible for
,' 13 maintaining a portion of the vital radio communications link ;
14 between the Vermont Yankee plant and offsite public safety l I 15 agencies. -
]
! 16 In 1981 and 1982 I worked with Vermont Yankee
) 17 personnel and loc'l a and State Civil Defense officials from l 18 the three States affected by Vermont Yankee's emergency plan j q 19 in an. effort to implement emergency' communications systems 20 and the prompt public notification system as mandated by 21 NRC/ FEMA NUREG 0654. Currently I still have the overall i
j 22 technical responsibility for maintaining and assuring the 23 operability of these systems.
I' 24 Based upon my experiences throughout the years l
25 and my best knowledge, I can say that both Vermont Yankee i
!0 4
4
, --n--- --m n n-,,--.---, ,--,.,, m ,m -,-,-~,,,.,,.,,--.,,-n,,.-., -
-~-----,.n..~.. - - , , + , - - - . , ,,,.--,,.,,-_,--s,,_---,---
. -- . . . - . - . - . . - . _ . -. - ..- - =- -
i I 62500202 195 carysimons
() i management and staff employees demonstrated to me
{ .2 consistently their dedication.and concern for public safety 1-3 and their desire to fully and voluntarily comply.with both 1
4 onsite and offsite federal emergency planning regulations. !
5 I
5 This responsible attitude towards emergency -
l 6 planning and concern for protecting public safety was the y rule rather than the exception for all Vermont Yankee 1
a personnel I dealt with during these years.
i i 9 As a businessman I feel that Vermont Yankee's J i io continued operation assures the region of a reliable and i
11 economical source of environmentally safe energy. As an 12 engineer with a basic understanding of the energy problem 33 I'm very concerned that even with the continued development O 14 of alternate non-nuclear sources of energy we will find the 15 country confronted with a serious energy shortfall by the i 16 year 1990 or possibly sooner.
17 In our area due to the continued economic growth :
f is and expansion we could be affected much sooner. The i
j 19 potential loss of Vermont Yankee from the-power grid would, i
20 in my opinion, rapidly worsen this problem.
21 In clos 3ng, I urge the Licensing Board to. grant 22 Vermont Yankee's request and to allow continued operation'of l 23 the plant based on the following rationale.
24 One, Vermont Yankee management and employees have i
25 demonstrated a consistent responsible attitude towards l
,, , . _ , . . , , - . - - - , _ - - = , . . . - - - , , . - - , , . _ - . - , . - . _ . - . , ---,.,..i...-,-
62500202 196 marysimons L) I protecting public safety. To my best knowledge, they fully 2 and voluntarily complied with all federal regulations.
3 Two, the energy from Vermont yankee is needed to 4 secure the energy supplied for the region both now and more 5 importantly in the near future.
6 And, three, and most importantly Vermont yankee 7 Nuclear Power Corporation has demonstrated through years of 8 operating experience that it can operate the plant both 9 safety and reliably.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Ted Borek.
l 12 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT
)
13 Of 14 TED BOREK 15 MR. BOREK: My name is Ted Borek. I'm a resident 16 of Gilford, Vermont, and I'm the comptroller with H. Loney 17 Construction Company here in town in Brattleboro.
18 I can't speak directly on the spent fuel issue.
19 I have an MBA in business so I can speak some on the 20 business community, and we have worked with Vermont yankee 21 on several occasions. We've built the warehouse at the 22 plant site and we have also built their training center, and 23 I would like to talk about the professionalism that we see 24 there. We've worked with these people and I think they are 25 one of the most dedicated professional people that we see in 0
62500202 197 marysimons >
() i a community. They are a pleasure to work with. I think 2 they are dedicated and they work many hard hours and look at t
3 decisions very appropriately.
l 4 I would also like to talk about the community 5 involvement because I think the decision you're talking 6 about here is not just spent fuel, but it's a community that 7 worry about what the impact of your decision and your g licensing is.
9 There are a lot of people at Vermont Yankee that jo I deal with in the community and voluntary organizations it both in civic and youth programs. My son is in baseball and 12 hockey. If we didn't have Vermont Yankee here and their 33 dedicated people we wouldn't have those programs. I look u back to when I came here and most of those programs would be 15 gone.
16 I think what I'm trying to say here is there is a 17 decision here about the pfaple, the corporate staff and what 18 Vermont Yankee is to our community. The spent fuel issue, j9 of course, is one that is fairly tough and there is a lot of i
20 emotions involved there, but it does have a big impact. I 21 think that most of the people in our company, we do live in l 22 the 10-mile area and we are concerned about it, but we have 23 a lot of confidence in Vermont Yankee and we ask you to 74 grant their license to expand their spent fuel pool.
25 Thank you very much.
O LJ
02500202 198 marysimons 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: .Mr. Borek, did Mr. Loney ---
2 MR. BOREK: Mr. Loney is out of town and will not 3 be able to make it.
I 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We had his name on the list,
.l 5 too.
6 MR. BOREK: Yes. I gave you mine or his.
7 Thank you.
l, 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. John Golding.
I 9 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 10 of 11 JOHN GOLDING
, 12 MR. GOLDING: Good morning.
13 My name is John Golding and I've been a resident 14 of Brattleboro for 14 years. I came up here from.
15 Connecticut with my wife. We've raised two children here 16 and we have gone through 14 years in Brattleboro with 17 Vermont Yankee just down the road.
'18 I have never in my 14 years here been concerned 19 about it's vulnerability and its problems as far as long-20 range effect on the community. Every possible problem that 21 has developed as been accomplished and satisfactorily taken 22 care of by the staff and management and administration at 23 Vermont Yankee. They are an extremely beneficial 24 organization to Brattleboro and its surrounding towns.
25 I own a cleaning service in Brattleboro. I've O
62500202 199 marysimons .
I
() i been maintaining the administrative building, the corporate 2 facility and other buildings down at~Vernon and in 3 Brattleboro. I know some of the staff and administration a very well and I have the highest regard for these people.
5 They are extremely capable, hard working individuals and I 6 don't think that's the issue here.
7 I am not an expert obviously in the spent fuel a decision. I myself would feel very comfortable having 9 Vermont Yankee sustain its future here for the years to io come. I would not want to be faced with having to depend on 11 a foreign country, Canada, for the hydroelectric power or 12 anything else.
i3 I think that the nuclear industry is a safe ja industry. As far as what the future holds, I'm very 15 comfortable with them being here. They are a great asset to 16 this community and millions and millions and millions of 17 dollars are generated through their existence here and I is would be delighted to have them stay. I feel very 39 comfortable with them being here.
20 Thank you.
21 MARSHAL WHELTON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hanson is now 22 present and wishes to address you.
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, fine.
24 25 0
l 62500202 '200 tarysimons 1 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 2 of 3 BRADLEY HANSON id 4 MR. HANSON: Good. morning.
5 I wish to say that I'm sorry for being late.
6 I want to tell you about I've heard about Vermont 7 Yankee safety concerns over and over and over again.
8 Last Friday in the Brattleboro Reformer they
! 9 documented some examples of Vermont Yankee's safety, the 10 finding of low-level waste in the common dumpster for 11 disposal and in.the Brattleboro landfill.
12 Well, they are asking you to let them deal with 1 13 more long-term hazardous waste that we're not really sure O- 14 of. So I'm not really at all comfortable with their 15 request. They have demonstrated, as documented by the 16 Brattleboro Reformer in '84 and '85 that they can't-even' 17 control their low-level waste, let alone their high-level is waste.
19 So granted that there's millions and millions of 20 dollars they generate into the area, but what about life for 21 the people here. I'm raising my family here and I dont' 22 feel comfortable with it.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Susan Jones.
25 ;
l (
62500202 201 marysimons I t 2 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 3 of a SUSAN JONES 5 MS. JONES: My name is Susan Jones. I live in
! I 6 South Newfane, Vermont, and I'm here today as a concerned 7 consumer and member of the public to ask you to deny the 8 request for a full hearing on the subject of Vermont l 9 Yankee's planned expansion of its fuel storage facilities.
jo I would like to bring to the attention of.the NRC 11 and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board certain' facts.
12 First, concerning safety, Vermont Yankee has an 33 excellent safety record, as you can verify for yourselves.
i4 This record is due in part to the conscientiousness of its 15 employees and management who have consistently addressed i
16 safety concerns ahead of the NRC's requirements.
17 They have reracked their spent fuel pool before is and can be counted on to do it again safely.
4 39 Also, there is the issue of cost. The demand for 20 electricity is growing faster in New England than in any 21 other region of the United States. We are predicted to have 22 an electrical energy shortage by the mid-1990's at the 23 latest, but it could come as early as next year. ,
24 Electricity costs will be rising.
25 To shut down Vermont Yankee when there is already 0
l l
)
62500202 202 marysimons
/ 1 an energy shortage and when we have no replacement 2 electricity available would greatly increase the cost of 3 electricity to consumers.
4 Finally, our environment is very important to us 5 here in Vermont. Hydroelectric projects have been stopped 6 so that our rivers will be not disrupted. Burning garbage 7 or wood chips causes unacceptable emissions and coal is too a filthy to be considered as a replacement or additional 9 energy source. Solar power is no power during our long 10 Vermont winters, and Canadian hydro would be too little, too 11 late for our impending energy shortage.
12 Nuclear power is our only environmentally 13 acceptable alternative, and we have no new nuclear power 14 plant to take Vermont Yankee's place.
15 Therefore, Vermont Yankee's continuing operation 16 is Vermont's best hope for a clean, safe and economical 17 supply of electricity. As a Vermonter who will have to live 18 with the results of your decision, I ask you to deny the 19 reqeust for a full hearing and to allow Vermont Yankee to 20 expand its fuel storage facilities as soon as possible.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. James Hickey.
23 24 25 4
62500202 203
'marysimons C:1 i 2 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 3 of 4 JAMES HICKEY 5 MR. HICKEY: My name is Jim Hickey. I own'the j 6 Quality Inn in Brattleboro here and I've lived in West l 7 Brattleboro for seven years.
8 My opinion of Yankee as a resident is I've never 9 really felt threatened by the plant. I've'known a few of io the managers socially and find them to be intelligent and it community-minded citizens.
12 As a businessman I've dealt.with Yankee for seven 13 years through their shutdowns and Christmas parties. The 14 rooms that they rent, they've always been professional i
15 people handling themselves very well on the property. They 16 spend some serious money in my business and it's good for my 17 business.
is I have had the shutdown people for several months i9 at a time and they are well behaved and speak highly of the 20 plant, the men that are in there cleaning it.
21 So I really feel that Vermont Yankee is an asset.
22 to my business'and to the community both financially as well 23 as I must say that I'm probably the highest consumer of 24 electricity as far as the hospitality business is concerned 25 in Brattleboro and I would hate to think what I would have 1
.- _ _ -- .,.e- u - - - , - - _ , - - - - - - - _ , , , - , , .~.,y,-.. .-- - . - - - , - - , - - - ~ . , . , . - , - - .
62500202 204 narysimons 1 to pay if Yankee wasn't around.
2 I thank you for your time.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Ann Sorenson.
4 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 5 of 6 ANN SORENSON 7 MS. SORENSON: I would like to address my 8 comments to the members of the Board Panel and to the 9 members of the NRC.
10 My name is Ann-Sorenson. I'm a resident of 11 Northfield, Massachusetts, which is six miles as the crow 12 flies from Vermont Yankee. I have been on the faculty of a 13 Private high school in Northfield for 18 years.
14 I believe that Vermont Yankee, which has had 15 serious problems in the past should not be allowed to 16 increase the number of highly radioactive fuel rods that it 17 stores.
18 The storage pool was designed to handle 2,000 19 fuel assemblies, and common sense certainly when applied to 20 high-level radioactive waste tells us that the storage 21 capacity for which that pool was designed should not be 22 exceeded.
23 I also hold that Vermont Yankee is not a problem-24 free plant and should not operate beyond a few years any 25 way. When there are 2,000 fuel rod assemblies in the pool, !
v
62500202 205
, narysimons
() i close this plant'and free the people in this area from fear 2 of a plant accident. We have lived with that-fear and with
! 3 that real possibility for too long already.
4 Vermont Yankee and the utility companies that own.
5 the plant are interested-in profit. It seems.that the whole 6 of American society is interested in profit. Our primary 7 interest should be people and a healthy environment for a people and for all forms of life.
9 Please hear what I'm saying. I, too, urge you to io hold full public hearings.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Chris Liddle.
13 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 14 of 15 CHRIS LIDDLE g MR. LIDDLE: My name is Chris Liddle, and I work 17 for Brattleboro Design, which is a local architecture is practice and we do not do any business with Vermont Yankee, s
i9 To state my prejudices outright, as a designer 20 and someone who has spent extended time studying 21 engineering, I often find myself'in a position to evaluate 22 what the impact on public safety will be of my decisions, 23 and in this case I think there are two areas that I'm 24 concerned about.
25 The first area is that Vermont Yankee did at one O
2-62500202 '206 carysimons 1 time I'believe sign an agreement with the citizens of the
< -2 State agreeing that until they had found a long-term 3 solution to the storage of what we all agree is hazardous-4 waste that thiy would not endeavor-to produce waste and 5 store it at the'ir site beyond their capacity for which it 6 was designed.
7 As a designer I know that when you design a something of a certain size-and a certain capacity, when you :
5 9 endeavor to change that capacity and increase it,.you're at J
10 best jerryrigging the situation and trying to make the best l 11 of the situation knowing all along that that's not really i 12 what it was designed for and that almost always produces j - 13 Problems I have found.
14 The fact that they have signed this agreeing i 15 saying that they would produce more waste unless they.could 16 store it I think is significant in that they have now 17 decided to what I see to be renigging on that. agreement and 18 are seeking to go ahead and expand the pool anyway, which 19 seems at least unethical to me.
' I don't think'anyone in this community questions 20 ,
21 that Vermont Yankee is a great asset economically, that they 4
22 are good public spirted citizen citizens _or that the 23 individuals that work there are good people. That's not in 4
24 question, j 25 My concern is the safety concern to the 1
I
1 62500202 207 marysimons '
I
() i community, and'the situation of stuffing more fuel rods into 2 the tanks to me seems to be something that at the very lease 3 warrants extensive investigation and public comment. i 4 So I would certainly.ask that,this groups decide i -5 to encourage public comment and provide adequate time and
- 6 more extensive public hearings to speak ~to these issues 7 because there definitely is concern.
8 I know certainly that in my business.that it is-9 the building codes and the laws which'often force us to make.
io decisions which are uncomfortable with from an economic ,
ii viewpoint which say we must go to the highest standard of I
12 Public safety on all these issues which concern public i3 safety. 1 O i4 In a building you do whatever-you can,-no matter 15 what the cost, the ensure public safety. Then after that 16 you decide whether or not you can afford to do it.
17 In this situation Vermont. Yankee is~ hoping to 1 is forestall other possibilities, either finding a. permanent ig facility for their storage, which is costly and distant in ,
l i
20 the future, and until that time it seems we have a. defacto 21 Permanent facility here until they can prove that.
22 Now I were to asked to produce say a housing 23 complex and I was producing.all this sewage, now I would not.
i 74 be allowed to do that unless I had a permanent solution for- ,
'25 where that sewage was going to go. .They would not allow me i
62500202 208 carysimons 7~'.
(_f 1. to store-that sewage in my back yard and trust me that in 2 the future I would adequately dispose of that, nor would 3 they trust me for the safety of the storage of that 4 hazardous material on a temporary basis.
5 Now it seems'to me that there is an analogy here 6 in that Vermont yankee is asking without a long-term i
7 solution to their hazardous material which I.would say is 8 far more hazardous than human waste, and'without that long-9 term solution they are asking to increase the short-term 10 storage.
il That is not something which would be considered 12 to be adequate public safety in the building industry and I 13 think it should be self-evident that we need to seriously la review this with a larger public hearing before we make any
, is decision.
16 The main criteria to rerack the fuel rods is to 17 save money on the storage of fuel rods and allow the plant 18 to continue operating. That is an economic concern.
{ 19 When you look at safety issues you have to say to 20 yourself will this make things safer or will-this make 21 things less safe. I can see.no way how higher density fuel 22 rod reracking could make the plant more safe or reduce the 23 consequences or dangers of an accident.
24 Therefore I think we have to say that it would 25 make things less safe and we need to have extensive hearings 1
.,_,,,..--.._._.,.J_..._I
~. .. . .. .- .. . .
62500202 209 tarysimons
(
. i to determine whether that is an acceptable risk to be taking 2 at this. time or not.
3 Thank you.'.
i 4 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Liddle, is the agreement 5 You mentioned the same as the stipulation which various.
6 parties signed the last time Vermont yankee sought to expand-7 its spent fuel poor or is it something different?
8 MR. LIDDLE: That's correct.
9 . JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It is that?
jo MR. LIDDLE: That's the agreement I was-referring ti to, yes. I haven't been a party to the signing of th'at 12 agreement. I only understand the spirit of the agreement.
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, I just wanted to find l
s ja out. We had talked a little bit about that yesterday at the 15 conference, and I wanted to find out if it was the same g agreement.
- 17 MR. LIDDLE
- That's the agreement I was referring 18 to, and I re' ally don't fully understand the legal 4
j9 implications of it. I was'really referring to the more 20 moral and ethical implications of that.
21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you.
22 Mr. Philip Bloch.
23 24 25
62500202 210 carysimons 7"3
_q,) 1 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 2 of 3 PHILIP BLOCH 4 MR. BLOCH: Good morning.
5 My name is Philip Bloch and I'm a resident of 6 Brattleboro.
7 I guess my remarks are addressed primarily to the 8 members of the staff of the NRC, although to everyone else 9 as well.
10 I was here yesterday for the morning session and 11 heard some statements from the staff as to, oh, for example, 12 that loss of coolant from the fuel pool is an accident that
, 13 does not need to be planned for because it has never L~ 14 happened. I heard that stated, and I heard some other is things stated that I found somewhat disturbing.
16 A regulatory body of the Federal Government is 17 charged with regulating an industry, an industry which has la potentially hazardous consequences for the people that live 19 around the plant.
20 Therefore it's extraordinary, if not appalling 21 that it seems that on every issue this regulatory body is 22 siding with the utility and arguing that a hearing is not 23 necessary on this issue.
24 I think by definition the accident that occurs is 25 the that has never happened before and therefore you O
i
62500202 211 narysimons ,
~
i couldn't plan for it, especially in an industry where so 2 many dangers are known and-so many others seem to remain 3 unknown.
4 _In considering this application they should be 5 'weilding a fine-tooth comb in going through every last 6 detail and instead they seem poised over~it with a rubber 7 stamp. I think that this kind of regulatory body is a very 8 important part of the checks and balances that are so l
[ 9 important to our American system. -l l
10 In turning to the issue of the spent fuel pool j 11 itself I have no doubt that the Vermont Yankee employees are 1
12 good people and that they do their work well and I know they 13 contribute to this community.
O ja Nonetheless, this is a technology which in_its 15 hazards is an extraordinary risk in many ways and we have 16 seen that repeatedly in the past.
I'll give one example of something that hasn't 17 is even been considered here. We've talked about the health 19 and safety of the people living around the plant. I 20 happened to read a document that was prepared by yankee i
21 response to questions from the NRC and they detail _ step by 22 step what they're going to do in that reracking, and the 23 first step is to send divers into the spent fuel-pool to 24 " remove miscellaneous irradiated hardware." ;
25 I don't know. If it was me I don't think I would O
f
62500202 212 carysimons I want to dive into the spent fuel pool, but it seems every 2 step of the way they have to send divers into the fuel pool 3 for various purposes.
4 I don't understand why they don't try turning to 1
5 some other alternatives. Dry cask storage has been 6 mentioned as one and there are others.
7 I think that the extraordinary toxicity of the a
a materials which will remain toxic for thousands and even 9 tens of thousands of years indicates that what we're dealing to with is a situation that is not the ordinary industry, not 11 even the toxicity of the sort of ordinary industrial waste 12 that has been referred to by other commenters so far this
- i ,3 morning.
14 I think what we are doing here is we are trading 15 some 40 years of reactor operation for a legacy of tens of 16 thousands of years of toxic waste.
l 17 Now I know there are alternatives available. The l
18 States of Vermont and Massachusetts and the New England l l
- 19 Coalition on Nuclear Polution are not suggesting shutting 20 the reactor down. They are suggesting studying this very 21 carefully, as has been suggested by Brookhaven Labs, to see 4 22 if this is the best alternative.
23 Now I would suggest going even further and saying 24 because of the extraordinary toxicity of these substances 25 that it would be the wisest course to cease producing any L-t i
. -_, . - . . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ - - _ - _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , __ .J
62500202 213 carysimons i more of them in the interim.
2 .I think, as has been pointed out on both sides, 3 there is a lot of money at stake here, and I think money, a the bottom line, while it's recognized as the'first 5 criterion to a businessman, to a regulatory body of the ,
6 government it should be considered as the last criterion.
7 Public health and safety and the quality of our environment 8 should be first.
9 There are alternatives available to us as well as 10 consumers of electricity in Vermont. Witness Canadian ij hydropower and witness the fact that Vermont Yankee was shut 12 down for some nine or ten months last year and we did not 13 have any problem with making up for the lack of energy that u they provide.
15 Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Peter Greenberg.
17 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT
- 18 of 19 PETER ~GREENBERG 20 MR. GREENBERG
- I'm Peter Greenberg. Actually I 21 live about 3,000 miles from the plant in Oregon. I was just 22 visiting relatives in the last couple of weeks that live on 23 one side of Vermont Yankee and on the other side in 24 Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
25 I worked on the Citizens Utility Board in Oregon O
62500202- 214 tarysimons 7"T g,f 1 and we typically fight the utilities for rate increases and 2 other matters like that, and also I work with groups that 3 tried to shut down our nuclear plant. We didn't have much 4 of a choice when they are open, but we certainly have a 5 choice through the initial petition process in Oregon to 6 shut them down and we are working real hard to do that.
7 In general I would'just like to say that these a hearings usually are political in nature and don't really 1
9 deal with the real issues of nuclear power. In the issues l l
l 10 of terrorism, sabotage, economics, safety and environmental
! 11 concerns nuclear power certainly doesn't rate very high.
! 12 In the U.S. currently there is a 38 to 40 percent 13 excess generating capacity. A utility needs about 20
- 14 percent to have a good reserve margin. So with nuclear i
15 power's 15 percent electro contribution, we can certainly'do-16 without them, and with their wheeling and transmitting of
't 17 power across the country we could certainly make up for any la shortfalls in any particular regions of the country.
19 The alternatives without the massive 20 contributions through the insurance liability, the limiting 21 of the Price-Anderson Act, investment tax credit, 22 accelerated depreciation, subsidized fuel and certainly 23 subsidized fuel storage have give us more power at a cheaper
) cost than '74 than all the new nuclear and coal plants'that 24 J
25 have come on line.
4
..,--..,,,.v-,, y. -,_ , . . , -
. . . , , _ . -,. ,...,,,.,,..,y,y .y, ~a_. .,-,v -
c'.-ve*+- % -
- 62500202 215 marysimons
( 1 When one considers adding insulation, more 2 efficient light bulbs, better refrigerators and computerized 3 controls just brought on line in the last few years nuclear 4 power isn't an economical alternative.
5 Washington voters last November voted four to one 6 to fight Hanford as being one of the three alternatives to a 7 high-level waste dump in the country, and Oregonians will 8
get a chance in a couple of weeks to do the same with I'm 9 sure the same margins.
io The people in Nevada and Texas certainly don't i
it want to nuclear wastes in their_ States as they have been J
12 demonstrating through their legislature, and with better 13 alternatives today we must reconsider the legacy that ja nuclear power has left us for the last 40-years.
15 In closing, it would be nice for the ratepayers 16 to vote on this. They are the ones that are being saddled 17 with the burden with cheap power as the utility calls it ant is long-term waste as the opponents call it, but I think for a j 19 few people to decide on this important issue is a disservice
)
20 to the ratepayers as a whole.
4 21 Thank you. I 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ranard Thompson.
I
- 23 24 l
25 l
. . - - ~ . - __ _. . - _ - _ . . , , - , - - - _ . . _ . _. _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ . . _ _ . _
4 62500202 216
. .tarysimons F'T (j 1 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 2 of 3 RANARD THOMPSON 4 MR. THOMPSON: I'm Ranard Thompson. I live in 5 Brattleboro and work as a carpenter.
6 I've heard over and over again by the advocates 7 for Vermont Yankee here that they believe the people who 8 work at the plant have the highest standards of 9 professionalism and furthermore that the plant is a 10 financial boom to the economy.
11 I certainly wouldn't want to question these 12 things. It's quote probable and it's quite probable that ,
13 the folks that work there are people that I would like to 7"n 5-- 14 meet in the street and sit down to dinner with. But that's 15 not the question we're talking about. We are not talking 16 about jobs here. We are talking about the safety of this 17 place.
18 Briefly stated, this is a new technology and we 19 don't know the dangers of it. We do know some of the 20 dangers. We do know there has been a Chernobyl accident 21 'just a year ago. In this country there have been quite a 22 few nuclear accidents and we are not fooling with something i 23 that is just another power plant here.
24 This can never be stressed enough that this thing 25 is totally new technology and can be compared to something ,
)
v
62500202 217 Earysimons (N
, ,/ 1 like in the 1950's where women were given diacrystalbestral 2 as the drug _to ease the pain of pregnancy and 20 years later 3 this was proven to cause cervical cancer.
f
! 4 In this situation we don't have something that we i
5 have such a lead. time on. We have something that could go 6 off at any minute, if there is a meltdown or a similar 7 accident, and the venting of radiation to the air. It's a something that has incredible potential for immediate 9 danger. We are not talking about something that we have-to io wait 20 years to see what the potential effects might be, 11 I believe there is a desperate need for full 12 citizen hearings on this question, and this is the very i3 least that can be offered to the public in regard to this i4 when there is such incredible potential danger involved with 15 this.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. John Richardson.
18 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT i9 of 20 JOHN RICHARDSON 21 MR. RICHARDSON: Good morning.
22 My name is John Richardson, and I would like to l 23 address you about the refueling issue.
- 24 This morning I've heard like a real concerted
-25 effort to character dispositions and economics mostly from O
62500202 218 carysimons 1 people who have economic connections with the plant and 2 stuff. Rather than that, I would like to see a focus on'the 3 safety of the. plant here. ;
4 I just don't feel we can put economics like 5 supply and demand over safety. I feel that safety has to be 6 the priority.and-that's what we should be talking about 7 here.
8 It has been a year almost since Chernobyl and we 9 learned a lot from Chernobyl, and specifically.we learned 10 that because of the spent fuel pools that were below the 11 reactor that it greatly increased the radiation release.
12 So far I've been watching this for the last five 13 or six years and paying attention to the NRC,-and my feeling i
(- 14 has been that the NRC has been more of a nuclear support 15 commission rather than a regulatory commission. And I'm 1
l 16 feeling now that I want to see something more than political ,
17 placebo type of hearings.
18 I would like to see this issue brought before an I !
19 educated public and not a propagandized in a direct manner l 20 since the public in this surrounding area are the people who i
21 bear the brunt of anything that goes wrong at this plant.
22 We know now and we have a documented history at 23 this point that things can go wrong at nuclear power l I
1 24 Plants. * '
4 25 Thank you.
j ,
l
. ~ . - - - . . - . . . .
62500202 219 marysimons
_ ()' i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: .Ms..Stevie-Joyce.
2 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 3 of 4 STEVIE JOYCE 5 MS. JOYCE: I'm new to the Brattleboro area, and 4
6 I would like.to speak, first, on the beauty of~the area and 7 ~the beauty of the people here. You have a lot of really a incredible beautiful people who need a place t:o live and who 9 need the beautiful mountains. I'm just amazed constantly at to how nice this area is, 11 So I would like to reiterate what has been said-12 before about bringing this issue up to the public to speak i3 on it. I think that the safety concerns here need to be 14 talked about as well as for these people that live here as 15 for the area and the land.
(
16 I don't this is an issue that we can write off I i7 and decide here in this room with such a small group of is people with divested interests. I think we need to bring i9 this up to the community and think seriously about the 20 conditions involved with the decision that you'll be making.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are there any others-who would 23 like to make statements?
24 That's all the people who have signed up thus 25 far. Any one else who wishes to make a statement is 1
62500202 220 marysimons n
(,) I certainly welcome to:do so.
2 (No response from the public.)
1 3 (Board confers.)
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Although everyone who has 5 signed up has made a otatement, I think at this point we 6 will take a 15-minute break and if anybody else shows up in 7 the 15 minutes we will hear them. Otherwise, we'll adjourn.
8 Go we will take a 15-minute break.
9 (Recess taken from 9:55 to 10:15 a.m.)
10 MARSHAL WHELTON: The next one on the list is Mr.
11 Segar.
12 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 13 of 14 ADRIAN SEGAR 15 MR. SEGAR: The Brookhaven National Laboratory 16 draft report entitled "Beyond Design Basis Accidents In 17 Spent Fuel Pools - Generic Issue 82," seems to me to raise 18 two new areas of concern which are germane to this hearing 19 today.
20 One is the report's conclusion that the 21 probability of a breach of the spent fuel pool is about the 22 same as the possibility of a core melt. This is rather 23 disturbing considering the relatively little amount of study 24 that has been done on this failure mode at Vermont Yankee or 25 in nuclear reactors in general I should say.
O
~ . _ , . .-. . - . - - ~ - . _. _ .
62500202 221 carysimons l( ) i The second conclusion in the report that.seems 2 important to me is the report's conclusion that high density 3 racking of the kind proposed by Vermont Yankee could i
- 4 significantly increase, or might significantly increase the 5 amount of releases in the event of an accident.
I 6 This is a recent report by a reputable national l 7 laboratory. It was commissioned by the NRC and it has not 8 yet been accepted by the NRC. It's a draft report, but
, 9 obviously several person-years has gone into this report.
io I've had a look at it, and I have a Ph.D. in high-energy 11 physics.
12 In response to this the NRC to date, the staff 33 has responded with a two-page memorandum which indicates a i ja couple of concerns and which essentially tries to down play 15 exactly those two points that I've just mentioned. The NRC 16 staff of course maybe right. They haven't obviously.had 17 time to review the contents of this very detailed, 18 referenced and very scientific report.
19 However, unfortunately, this court today has to
! 20 decide now whether to hold a hearing on this matter, and 9
21 given the contents of this report and the rather. vague 22 nature of the NRC staff's reply, it seems to rae fairly 1
23 obvious that they should do so.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
i l
.___,____.,,,_.,_.._.______,.______.___.._._._____.._.._._,_....____.___1
62500202 222 j, Earysimons 1 MARSHAL WHELTON: 'There is one more. Identify 2 yourself, please, for the-record.
3 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT 4 of i
5 THOMAS HALSTEAD 6 MR. HALSTEAD: My~name is Thomas Halstead.
7 I was trained in reactor operators for the Navy, 8 and I was asked to come and speak here.
9 There are two questions that I would like to 10 ask. One of them is to the NRC representative, and that is 11 there was a document in'the room of the library that stated 12 that there had been an agreement between.the Vermont Yankee 13 Corporation and the NRC saying that-they wouldn't increase 14 the fuel rod capacity, and I was wondering what that 15 language meant. There is some confusion in the language in i
16 the last couple of paragraphs.
'17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I don't believe the Board will la answer questions on the record. That subject was discussed 19 considerably at yesterday's session and we may have some 20 rulings on that at some point when we issue our decision.
21 MR. HALSTEAD: I'm sorry. I was working on an 22 engine which is why I'm-late. I.had to get cleaned up.
23 The second question'then I would like to ask is 24 to the Vermont Yankee representative, and that is where is 25 the-line drawn between economic feasibility and
( '
i e
e
_ _ . . - _ . _ . ., , . . _ . . . . . _ . , . _ , - , , _ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ , . _ , _ , , - . _ = . . . . . _ .
62500202 223 marysimons -
1
( )- 'i responsibility?
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I don't think the public. I i
3 hearing sessions are place where you can ask-specific 4 geustions.- You can indicate what your concerns are. If 5 you're asking the Vermont Yankee representatives for an' 6 answer, you can just consult them and ask them if they wish 7 to answer.
8 MR. HALSTEAD: Do you wish to answer that?
9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the Licensing Board just 10 hears statements, and any issues that we deal with we deal 11 wtih on the record and issue a decision on them. We don't 12 answer questions on the spot, so to speak.
13 We are not the representatives.of Vermont Yankee 14 in any event. I believe they are sitting at the table on 15 the right here.
16 MR. HALSTEAD: The reason I bring these questions l
17 up is I read a magazine article that two tons of plutonium l l
l is are missing and cannot be accounted for, and whereas it 19 takes only six kilograms of plutonium to make a Nagasaki 20 type bomb, I was wondering if the aectrity at Vermont Yankee ,
1 21 is well enough or if security qtAce a s were taken into 22 account with the economic feasibility study?
23 I also have concerns with the actual containment 24 of extra fuel rods outside of the Vermont Yankee reactor 25 which is the.same type of setup that it in Chernobyl. My
- - , - - - . _ _ . - - ~. _ . . _ . . . _ . . . _ -
l
62500202' 224 carysimons I concern is that they haven't taken the economic 2 responsibility in assessing whether they should do it or 3 not.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We have no information about 5 that one way or the other. You may wish to ask either the i
6 representatives of the company or the NRC staff 7 representatives who are in the center here.
8 MR. HALSTEAD: Well, as I say, I have been in the 9 public room of the library. reading some of the mass of
. 10 paperwork that has been there and I have not seen that in 4
11 any of the paperwork that I've read even though I searched 12 diligently for it.
13 That is a very deep concern of mine as a citizen 14 who lives fairly close to the reactor.
15 That's all I have to say.
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you.
17 Is there anyone else here who wishes to make a 18 statement?
19 (No response from the public.)
20 I might say the Board has been given two letters, 21 one from Allan H. Seymour and Sally W. Seymour and one from 22 Mr. James Baker. We will send these letters to the Public 23 Document Room and they will be circulated. These are 24 limited appearance type letters and they will be circulated 25 to the parties.
l i
62500202 225 marysimons (O,j i Is there anything further that any party wishes 2 to bring up before we adjourn?
3 MR. LIDDLE: I would just to briefly state that I 4 have a great concern that holding hearings at a time when 5 most of the public has to work discourages public 6 Participation, and I think it would be in the best interests 7 of the parties on both sides to be sure that everyone has an 8 Opportunity to comment and not just those that have the 9 luxury to leave work or who are self-employed, and that any io decision that this body makes I think would be seen as being 11 a stronger one if we can have public comment at a time when
, 12 People who work can attend.
i3 Thank you.
u JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Does anyone wish to bring up 15 anything further before we adjourn?
16 (No response.)
17 Not seeing anything, I guess we are adjourned.
18 We will issue our ruling one contentions as soon 19 as we can. We are not prepared to do so at this time. We i
20 will have an order out as soon as we can do so.
21 Thank you.
22 (Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m. the Limited Appearance 1 23 Session of the above-entitled matter adjourned.)
24 I 25
! N s!
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER-CD
%J This is to certify that- the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
DOCKET NO.: 50-271-OLA PLACE: BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT DATE: WEDNESDAY', APRIL.22, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
e (sigt) /4/ unod (TYPED)
MARY C. SIMO S Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
. ._. . . -_ -- - ..