This panel shall hold regular public meetings for the purpose of discussing issues related to the present and future use of nuclear power-
- and to advice the appropriate administrative agencies,
-define the responsibilities of state agencies in order to ensure public health and safety, discuss changes and problems,
- maintain communication with operators of any fixed nuclear facility
- to develop the awareness in the state and government of potential liabilities, benefits or repercussions of nuclear power generation.
18 VSA CH 34 Section 1700
The VT State Nuclear Advisory Panel should be disbanded.
Nothing has come from them and it is likely nothing will- unless you consider them showing up to a Sunday afternoon ball game on a Monday- something.
It took them more than 1.5 hours to “approve the minutes”. I am glad for this. The Administrative assistant, aka the state Nuclear Engineer –the one who writes the minutes is the same man who has a tendency to aim information he knows in directions that serve his or corporate interest.
The meeting was called for 3 hours and the man who ran it… ran it for 3.5 hours – allowing no time for public participation although in previous meetings this same chairman gave lip service to wanting the public to be involved.
It is far too easy for the action of the panel to become a carbon copy of the work of the department of public service as the chairman of VSNAP is the commissioner of the department. The department, which is supposed to be the ratepayer advocate, serves at the discretion of the Governor supporting Entergy.
According to one civilian member no votes were taken in the past two years at VSNAP meetings.
This same member noted that the Public Service Board was concerned about the possible hindrance to reliability that the uprate presents.
He also spoke of there being an array of issues that do concern VT that do not concern the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Prior to the recent legislative votes and supposed support of Dry cask storage at the end of the last legislative session, the state nuclear engineer, who works for the pro-corporate department of public service (the corporate citizen has more economic state weight than do concerned citizens)_, decided to not inform anyone in the house or senate, not the energy and natural resources committee that met for months, not the ways and means committees, that there had been an earlier study that determined putting low level waste on site at Vermont Yankee was not a good idea.
The state nuclear engineer decided it was not relevant to the issue.
The issue was raised on Friday, … “What other issues were not…” exposed to the legislators and public.
Senator MacDonald spoke of the PSB having made their certificate of public good for the Vermont Yankee uprate contingent upon an independent reliability assessment beyond their “safety” perspective.
In the Memorandum of Understanding worked out between Entergy and the department of public service – Entergy agreed to make whole to the state any lost revenue due to outages found to be uprate related.
Citizen Nulty on the panel stated that he stands 80 % certain
that vsnap’s request for assurance has not been adequately met.
He proposed
1) that the PSB not confirm the certificate of public good for the uprate
2) that a private company be hired by Entergy to fufill the PSB’s independent engineering assessment requirement prior to the Board
3) Entergy extend the make whole clause in the memorandum of understanding to the life of the reactor.
The department of public service and Entergy both determined that the NRC inspection of August 04 was suggicient
Mr. Nulty spoke of the department determining the ratepayer protection plan protecting citizens… and he is concerned that uprate will undermine reliability. Uprate is in Entergy’s corporate interes.
Mr. Nulty, the farmer spoke of his tractor that he would like for it to run at 50 mph but that he has concerns that if his tractor ran that quickly he fears it may not live out its life… and he cannot afford a new one.
Mr. Nulty challenged Chairman O Brien with .. If I were you… I would determine that if Entergy is confident have them put it in writing.”- ( not direct quote)
Senator MacDonald and Mr. Nulty noted to VSNAP chairman and dps commissioner David O’Brien that the ISO BUS fire and shutdown of June 2004 …” must lead you to question the robustness of your consumer protection plan ( MOU)
Apparently there is great difference of opinion as to whether or not the NRC review of August 04 met the PSB’s stated needs to determine reliability. The Board had been explicit. This is not what the NRC chose to do.
David McElwee spoke on the issue of the decommissioning trust fund…
He often referred to the dry cask issue as as though it is a “given”
( writer calls this SPIN)
3 times Chairman O’Brien asked Mr McElwee
“ what is Entergy’s vision 100 years from now if Yucca Mountain doesn’t open and if the Goshute tribe land in Utah is not used for VY nuclear waste storage.”
The answer was at best vague each time.. dependent on the federal government( honoring its 1982 nuclear waste removal contract).
It was stated that states and businesses must mitigate the risk that exists because the Federal Government will or will not due what states want-
Not receiving an answer to his question, O’Brien stated,” Until the federal government shows different behavior- states must
contend with the issue.”
write to the PSB with concerns you have on dry cask storage or uprate...
clerk@psb.state.vt.us
gfv