NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 

 Vol. 2 

Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 30 

Regarding 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

Final Report – Appendices 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402–0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161–0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Administration

 Mail, Distribution and Messenger Team 

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org 

212–642–4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series are

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from international agreements

(NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations

(NUREG–0750).
 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 

 Vol. 2 

 

 

 

Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 30 

Regarding 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

Final Report – Appendices 

Manuscript Completed: August 2007 

Date Published: August 2007 

Division of License Renewal 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

(a) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

August 2007 iii NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of

renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in Title 10, Part 51, of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). In the GEIS (and its Addendum 1), the NRC staff identifies

92 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for

69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. 

Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific

reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GEIS.

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to |

an application submitted to the NRC by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy

Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), to renew the OL for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

(VYNPS) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This SEIS includes the NRC staff’s |

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available

for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the NRC staff’s recommendation |

regarding the proposed action.

Regarding the 69 issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions, neither Entergy nor

the NRC staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issue that

applies to VYNPS. In addition, the NRC staff determined that information provided during the

scoping process and the public comments on the draft SEIS did not call into question the |

conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of renewing the

VYNPS OL would not be greater than the impacts identified for these issues in the GEIS. For

each of these issues, the NRC staff’s conclusion in the GEIS is that the impact is of SMALL(a)

significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and high-level

waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level).

Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to VYNPS are addressed in this SEIS. For |

each applicable issue, the NRC staff concludes that the significance of the potential

environmental impacts of renewal of the OL is SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no

additional mitigation is warranted. However, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act 316(b) |

regulations, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation may impose further |

restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impacts on aquatic
Abstract

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 iv August 2007

| resources from entrainment and impingement under the National Pollutant Discharge

| Elimination System permitting process. The NRC staff determined that information provided

| during the scoping process and the public comments on the draft SEIS did not identify any new

issue that has a significant environmental impact.

| The NRC staff’s recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse

environmental impacts of license renewal for VYNPS are not so great that preserving the option

of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental

Report submitted by Entergy; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the

NRC staff’s own independent review; and (5) the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments

| received during the scoping process and the draft SEIS public comment period.

| Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

| This NUREG contains information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork

| Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved

| by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0004; 3150-0155; 3150-

| 0014; 3150-0011; 3150-0132; 3150-0151.

|

| Public Protection Notification

| The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for

| information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a

| currently valid OMB control number.

|
August 2007 v NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Report Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.5 Compliance and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction

with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the

Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1.2 Reactor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent

Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . . 2-11

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . 2-13

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2.1.7 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 vi August 2007

2.2.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

2.2.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.2.2.1 Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.2.2.2 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2.2.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2.2.3.1 Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2.2.3.2 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40

2.2.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

2.2.4.1 Climate and Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

2.2.4.2 Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46

2.2.5.1 Description of the Aquatic Resources

in the Vicinity of VYNPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46

2.2.5.2 Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60

2.2.6.1 Description of Terrestrial Resources in the Vicinity

 of VYNPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60

2.2.6.2 Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-61

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-69

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-72

2.2.8.1 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-73

2.2.8.2 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-75

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-76

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-78

2.2.8.5 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-79

2.2.8.6 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-81
Contents

August 2007 vii NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-83

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-83

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the VYNPS Site . . . 2-85

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-86

2.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-87

3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts (Make-Up from a Small River) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

4.1.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

4.1.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

4.1.4 Heat Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

4.1.5 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

4.2 Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields – Acute Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields – Chronic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License

Renewal Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . 4-37

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

4.4.6 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

4.5.1 Groundwater-Use Conflicts (Make-Up from a Small River) . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 viii August 2007

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

4.6.1 Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45

4.6.2 Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46

4.7 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on Impacts of

Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

4.7.1 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information 

Concerning Biocides in Cooling Water Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

4.7.2 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information 

Concerning Thermal Discharges to the Connecticut River . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50

4.8 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56

4.8.3 Cumulative Human Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-57

4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-58

4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59

4.8.6 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60

4.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.1.2 Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

5.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
Contents

August 2007 ix NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste 

Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Plant Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

8.2.1.1 Coal-Fired Plant with a Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . 8-9

8.2.1.2 Coal-Fired Plant with a Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . 8-20

8.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Plant Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21

8.2.2.1 Natural-Gas-Fired Plant with a Closed-Cycle 

Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21

8.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Plant with a Once-Through 

Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Plant Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32

8.2.3.1 New Nuclear Plant with a Closed-Cycle 

Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-33

8.2.3.2 New Nuclear Plant with a Once-Through 

Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

8.2.5 Other Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Plant Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

8.2.5.2 Wind Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

8.2.5.3 Solar Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 x August 2007

8.2.5.4 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-52

8.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-53

9.0 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action – License Renewal . . . . . . . . . 9-4

9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal

and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

9.3 NRC Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

9.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

Appendix A - Comments Received on the Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B - Contributors to the Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to the Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc. Application for License Renewal of 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D - Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Appendix E - Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc. Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence . . . E-1

Appendix F - Generic Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Issues 

Not Applicable to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G - NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs)

for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
August 2007 xi NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Figures

2-1 Location of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 50-mi Region . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2-2 Location of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 6-mi Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2-3 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2-4 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Exclusion Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2-5 Major State and Federal Lands Within 50 mi of Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2-6 Location of the Chestnut Hill Transmission Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

2-7 Location of the Coolidge Transmission Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2-8 Average Monthly Flow Rates at Vernon Dam from 2000 to 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

2-9 Average Monthly Flow Rates at Vernon Dam for 2004 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2-10 Locations of NPDES Outfalls at the VYNPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

2-11 Locations of Vernon Dam and River Monitoring Stations 3 and 7

Relative to VYNPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2-12 Seasonal Variation in Measured Temperature at River Monitoring Station 3, 

Located About 0.65 Miles Downstream of Vernon Dam (2000-2004) . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36

2-13 Seasonal Variation in Measured Temperature at River Monitoring Station 7,

Located 4 Miles Upstream of VYNPS (2000-2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36

2-14 Difference in Average Measured Monthly Temperatures Between River 

Monitoring Stations 3 (downstream) and 7 (upstream) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

2-15 Locations of Thermistor Stations at Vernon Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

4-1 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas) 

Within 50 mi of the VYNPS Site Based on Census Block Group Data . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

4-2 Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (shown in shaded areas) 

Within 50 mi of the VYNPS Site Based on Census Block Group Data . . . . . . . . . . 4-42
NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 xii August 2007

Tables

2-1 VYNPS NPDES Discharge Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

2-2 VYNPS Potable Water Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2-3 Monitoring Requirements for Water Quality Parameters at NPDES Outfalls . . . . . . 2-29

2-4 Discharge Temperature Requirements Under the Current and Amended 

NPDES Permits for VYNPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2-5 Maximum Calculated River Temperature Increase at River Monitoring 

Station 3 During the NPDES Winter Period (October 15 through May 15) . . . . . . . 2-33

2-6 Maximum Calculated River Temperature Increase at River Monitoring 

Station 3 During the NPDES Summer Period (May 16 through October 14) . . . . . . 2-34

2-7 Total Water Depth and Temperature Sampling Depths in Vernon Pool . . . . . . . . . 2-39

2-8 Summary of Migratory Fish Passage at Vernon Dam, 1981 Through 2006 . . . . . . 2-50

2-9 Summary of Migratory Fish Passage at Holyoke, Turners Falls, Vernon,

and Bellows Falls Dams, 2004 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50

2-10 American Shad Counts at Holyoke, Turners Falls, and Vernon Dams 

from 1981 Through 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53

2-11 Federally and Vermont-Listed Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring 

in the Vicinity of VYNPS and Associated Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57

2-12 Federally Listed and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Whose Ranges 

Include the VYNPS Site, Transmission Lines Within the Scope of License 

Renewal, and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63

2-13 VYNPS Permanent Employee Residence Information by County and City . . . . . . . 2-73

2-14 Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County 

During 1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-74

2-15 Major County Public Water Supply Systems in 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-75

2-16 Population Growth in Windham County, Cheshire County,

and Franklin County, 1990 to 2032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-80

2-17 Major Employment Facilities Within 10 mi of the VYNPS Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-82

2-18 VYNPS Contribution to Vernon Tax Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-83

3-1 Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3-2 Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

4-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the VYNPS 

Cooling System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4-2 Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the VYNPS Cooling 

System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

4-3 Percentages (and Numbers) of Fish Eggs and Larvae Entrained at VYNPS . . . . . 4-17

4-4 Percentages (and Numbers) of Fish Species Impinged at VYNPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20
Tables

August 2007 xiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

4-5 Thermal Preferences and Tolerances of Warmwater Species That Occur 

in the VYNPS Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

4-6 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the VYNPS Transmission Lines During

the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4-7 Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the VYNPS 

Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

4-8 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

4-9 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term . . . . . 4-32

4-10 Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to

Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33

4-11 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During 

the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

4-12 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality

During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

4-13 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species 

During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45

5-1 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During 

the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5-2 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During 

the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5-3 VYNPS Core Damage Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5-4 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

6-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid 

Waste Management During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

7-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of VYNPS

Following the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Coal-Fired Plant Using Closed-Cycle

Cooling at an Alternate Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

8-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Plant Generation

at an Alternate Site with Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Natural-Gas-Fired Plant Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the VYNPS Site and at an Alternate Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22

8-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired 

Generation at an Alternate Site with Once-Through Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32

8-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at an Alternate Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-34
Tables

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 xiv August 2007

8-7 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant Using

Once-Through Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

8-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Combination of Alternatives

at the VYNPS Site and at an Alternate Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

9-1 Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the 

No-Action Alternative, and Alternative Power Generation Using 

Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

A-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

A-2 Comments Received on the Draft SEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-49

E-1 Consultation Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

E-2 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, 

and Other Approvals for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3

F-1 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G-1 VYNPS Core Damage Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-3

G-2 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-5

G-3 VYNPS PSA Historical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-7

G-4 Dominant Contributors to Total Fire CDF at VYNPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-11

G-5 SAMA Cost-Benefit Screening Analysis for VYNPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-19

G-6 Uncertainty in the Calculated CDF for VYNPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-34
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

August 2007 xv NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Executive Summary

By letter dated January 25, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear

Operations, Inc. (Entergy), submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) to renew the operating license (OL) for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS)

for an additional 20 years. If the OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and Entergy will

ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need

for power or other matters within the State’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OL

is not renewed, then the plant must be shut down at or before the expiration date of the current

OL, which is March 21, 2012. Should the NRC staff’s license renewal review not be completed

by this date, the plant may continue to operate past that date until the NRC staff has taken final

action to either approve or deny the license renewal.

The NRC has implemented Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

Title 42, Section 4321, of the United States Code (42 USC 4321) in Title 10, Part 51, of the

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission

requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS for

renewal of a reactor OL. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL

renewal stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2.(a)

Upon acceptance of the Entergy application, the NRC began the environmental review process

described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct

scoping on April 21, 2006. The NRC staff visited the VYNPS site in May 2006, conducted an |

open house on June 6, 2006, at which comments were accepted, and held public scoping

meetings on June 7, 2006, in Brattleboro, Vermont. In the preparation of this Supplemental |

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for VYNPS, the NRC staff reviewed the Entergy

Environmental Report (ER) and compared it with the GEIS, consulted with other agencies,

conducted an independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear

Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, and considered the public

comments received during the scoping process. The public comments received during the

scoping process that were considered to be within the scope of the environmental review are

provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this SEIS. |

The draft SEIS was published in December 2006. The NRC staff held two public meetings in |

Brattleboro, Vermont, on January 31, 2007, to describe the preliminary results of the NRC |

environmental review, to answer questions, and to provide members of the public with
Executive Summary

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 xvi August 2007

| information to assist them in formulating comments on the draft SEIS. On February 27, 2007,

| members of the NRC staff met with members of the Vermont State Legislature in Montpelier,

| Vermont, to present the findings of the draft SEIS. No formal comments were received from the

| legislators at this meeting based on their oral statements because no transcript was recorded. 

| The NRC staff did, however, receive written comments for formal consideration from some of

| the legislators and members of the public who observed the meeting.

| When the comment period ended on March 7, 2007, the NRC staff considered and addressed

| all of the comments received. These comments are addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, of this

SEIS. 

| This SEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental

effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action,

and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the NRC

| staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal

from the GEIS:

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current

nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such

needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC)

decisionmakers.

The evaluation criterion for the NRC staff’s environmental review, as defined in

10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is to determine

. . . whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that

preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable.

Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an

existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OL.

NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) contain the following statement regarding the content of

SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the

proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits
Executive Summary

August 2007 xvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in

the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental

environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss

other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the

alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the

generic determination in § 51.23(a) (“Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of

reactor operation–generic determination of no significant environmental impact”) and in

accordance with § 51.23(b).

The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an

OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates

92 environmental issues using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. 

The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in footnotes to Table B-1 of

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.

For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS reached the following

conclusions:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system

or other specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to

the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures

are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and

significant information, the NRC staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting
Executive Summary

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 xviii August 2007

information in the GEIS for issues designated as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B.

Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 

Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a

plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic

fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

| This SEIS documents the NRC staff’s consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified in

the GEIS. The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to

license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the

alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action

alternative (not renewing the OL for VYNPS) and alternative methods of power generation. 

Based on projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information

Administration, gas- and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely power-generation

alternatives if the power from VYNPS is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated assuming

that the replacement power-generation plant is located at either the VYNPS site or at some

other unspecified alternate location.

Entergy and the NRC staff have established independent processes for identifying and

evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license

renewal. Neither Entergy nor the NRC staff has identified information that is both new and

significant related to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the

GEIS. Similarly, neither the scoping process nor the NRC staff has identified any new issue

applicable to VYNPS that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the NRC staff

relies upon the conclusions of the GEIS for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to

VYNPS.

Entergy’s license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues. The NRC

staff has reviewed the Entergy analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent

review of each issue. Three Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are related to

plant design features or site characteristics not found at VYNPS. Four Category 2 issues are

| not discussed in this SEIS because they are specifically related to refurbishment. Entergy has

stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not

identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as necessary to support the

continued operation of VYNPS for the license renewal period. In addition, any replacement of

components or additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant operation

and are not expected to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations

evaluated in the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission’s 1972 Final Environmental Statement
Executive Summary

(a) The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation is part of the Vermont Agency of Natural |

Resources. |

August 2007 xix NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Related to Operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Corporation.

Fourteen Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the

renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are

discussed in detail in this SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice apply

to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and are only discussed in this |

SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 14 Category 2 issues and |

environmental justice, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are of

SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS. In addition, the NRC

staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a consensus on the

existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no further

evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the

NRC staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate

SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for VYNPS and the plant improvements already

made, the NRC staff concludes that several candidate SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial. 

However, none of these SAMAs relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the

period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of license

renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

mitigation is warranted. However, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II

regulations, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation(a) may impose further |

restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impacts on aquatic

resources from entrainment and impingement. 

Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were

considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where VYNPS license renewal impacts are

deemed to be SMALL, the NRC staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant

cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources.

If the VYNPS OL is not renewed and the plant ceases operation on or before the expiration of

its current OL, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives would not be smaller than those

associated with continued operation of VYNPS. The impacts may, in fact, be greater in some

areas.
Executive Summary

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 xx August 2007

| The recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse

environmental impacts of license renewal for VYNPS are not so great that preserving the option

of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the ER submitted by

Entergy; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the NRC staff’s own

| independent review; and (5) the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments. 
August 2007 xxi NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Abbreviations/Acronyms

μg microgram(s)

μm micrometer(s)

ac acre(s)

AC alternating current

ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs

AD Anno Domini

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

AEA Atomic Energy Act

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

AOC averted offsite property damage costs

AOE averted occupational exposure

AOSC averted onsite costs

APCD Air Pollution Control Division

APE averted public exposure

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

ATWS anticipated transient without scram

Btu British thermal unit(s)

BWR boiling water reactor

BWROG Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group

EC degrees Celsius |

CAA Clean Air Act

CBS Connecticut Botanical Society

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CDF core damage frequency or combined disposal facility

CDEP Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

COE cost of enhancement

CVDEM Code of Virginia, Department of Emergency Management

CWA Clean Water Act
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 xxii August 2007

d day(s)

dBA “A-weighted” decibel level

DBA design-basis accident

DC direct current

DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

| DOI U.S. Department of Interior

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

Dominion Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DPR demonstration project reactor

DSM demand-side management

EA environmental assessment

EDG emergency diesel generator

EFH essential fish habitat

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field

Entergy Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

EPU extended power uprate

ER Environmental Report

ESA Endangered Species Act

Exelon Exelon Generation Company, LLC

| EF degrees Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FES Final Environmental Statement

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FR Federal Register

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report

ft foot (feet)

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

g gram(s)

gal gallon(s)

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,

NUREG-1437
Abbreviations/Acronyms

August 2007 xxiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

gpd gallon(s) per day

gpm gallon(s) per minute

HAC hazardous air contaminant

HAP hazardous air pollutant

HCLPF high confidence low probability of failure |

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air

HLW high-level waste

hp horsepower

hr hour(s)

Hz Hertz

ICE internal combustion engine

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

in. inch(es)

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

ISLOCA interfacing systems loss-of-coolant accident

J joule(s)

kg kilogram(s)

km kilometer(s)

kV kilovolt(s)

kW kilowatt(s)

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

L liter(s)

lb pound(s)

LLC limited liability company

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOOP loss of offsite power

m meter(s)

m2 square meter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s)

mA milliampere(s)

MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program

MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 |

MDFW Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

MEI maximally exposed individual

mg milligram(s)

mi mile(s)
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 xxiv August 2007

mi2 square mile(s)

min minute(s)

mm millimeter(s)

mph mile(s) per hour

mrem millirem(s)

mR milliRoentgen(s)

MSL mean sea level

MTU metric ton(s)-uranium

MW megawatt(s)

MWd megawatt-day(s)

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal

MWh megawatt hour(s)

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

| NEC New England Coalition

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

| NESC National Electrical Safety Code

ng nanogram(s)

NHDHR New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources

NHFGD New Hampshire Fish and Game Resources Department

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRO Office of New Reactors

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OL operating license

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

| PCE tetrachloroethylene

pCi picocurie(s)

| PGQS Primary Groundwater Quality Standards
Abbreviations/Acronyms

August 2007 xxv NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

PM2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter

PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

ppm part(s) per million

PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment

PSA Probabilistic Safety Assessment

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PTE potential to emit

RAI request for additional information

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

RM river mile

ROI region of interest

ROW(s) right(s)-of-way

RPC replacement power cost

RRW risk reduction worth

s second(s)

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative

SAR Safety Analysis Report

SBO station blackout |

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SCR selective catalytic reduction

SECA Solid State Energy Conservation Alliance

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SERI Systems Energy Resources, Inc.

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOx sulfur oxides

SRHP State Register of Historic Places

Sv sievert

TBCCW turbine building closed cooling water |

TLAA time-limited aging analysis

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 xxvi August 2007

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

| UST underground storage tank

VANR Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

VDEC Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

VDH Vermont Department of Health

VELCO Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc.

VOC volatile organic compound

VYNPS Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

W watt(s)

yr year(s) 
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review
 
August 2007 A-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Part I – Comments Received During Scoping

On April 21, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of Intent

in the Federal Register (Volume 71, page 20733) to notify the public of the NRC staff’s intent to

prepare a plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, to support the renewal

application for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) operating license and to

conduct scoping. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS has been prepared in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) guidance, and Title 10, Part 51, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). 

As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal

Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local government agencies;

Native American Tribal organizations; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the

scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or by

submitting written suggestions and comments no later than June 23, 2006.

The scoping process included two public scoping meetings that were held at the Latchis

Theatre in Brattleboro, Vermont, on June 7, 2006. Additionally, the NRC held an informal open

house at the Quality Inn and Suites, Brattleboro, Vermont, on Tuesday, June 6th. |

Approximately 200 members of the public attended the meetings. During the open house on

June 6th, oral comments from 3 attendees were recorded and transcribed by a certified court

reporter. The scoping meeting sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief

overview of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. After the NRC’s prepared

statements, the meetings were open for public comments. Forty-seven attendees provided oral

statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. In addition to the

comments received during the public meetings, eighteen comment letters were received by the

NRC in response to the Notice of Intent.

At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractors reviewed the

transcripts and all letters to identify specific comments and issues. Each set of comments from

a given commenter was given a unique identifier (Commenter ID), so that each set of comments

from a commenter could be traced back to the transcript or letter by which the comments were

submitted. Specific comments were numbered sequentially within each comment set. Several

commenters submitted comments through multiple sources (e.g., afternoon and evening

scoping meetings). All of the comments received and the NRC staff responses are included in

the VYNPS Scoping Summary Report dated October 30, 2006.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-2 August 2007

Table A.1 identifies the individuals who provided comments applicable to the environmental

review and the Commenter ID associated with each person’s set(s) of comments. The

individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting, and in alphabetical

order for the comments received by letter or e-mail. To maintain consistency with the Scoping

Summary Report, the unique identifier used in that report for each set of comments is retained

in this appendix.

Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific

objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by the commenters. 

The comments fall into one of the following general groups:

 C Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the NRC

environmental regulations related to license renewal. These comments address

Category 1 or Category 2 issues or issues that were not addressed in the GEIS. They

also address alternatives and related Federal actions.

 C General comments (1) in support of or opposed to nuclear power or license renewal or

(2) on the renewal process, the NRC’s regulations, and the regulatory process. These

comments may or may not be specifically related to the VYNPS license renewal

application.

 C Questions that do not provide new information.

 C Specific comments that address issues that do not fall within or are specifically excluded

from the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to license renewal. These

comments typically address issues such as the need for power, emergency

preparedness, security, current operational safety issues, and safety issues related to

operation during the renewal period.

Comments applicable to this environmental review and the NRC staff’s responses are

summarized in this appendix. The parenthetical alphanumeric identifier after each comment

refers to the comment set (Commenter ID) and the comment number. This information, which

was extracted from the VYNPS Scoping Summary Report, is provided for the convenience of

those interested in the scoping comments applicable to this environmental review. The

comments that are general or outside the scope of the environmental review for VYNPS are not

included here. More detail regarding the disposition of general or inapplicable comments can

be found in the Scoping Summary Report. The Agencywide Document Access and

Management System (ADAMS) accession number for the Scoping Summary Report is

ML063030576.

This accession number is provided to facilitate access to the document through the Public

Electronic Reading Room (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html).
Appendix A

August 2007 A-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source (a)

VS-A Michael Mulligan Open House

VS-B Nancy Crompton Open House

VS-C Ellen Kaye Open House

VS-D Raymond Shadis New England Coalition (NEC) Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-E Evan Mulholland Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-F Chris Williams Nuclear Information and Resources Service (NIRS) Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-G Shawn Banfield Vermont Energy Partnership Afternoon Scoping Meeting 

VS-H Dan MacArthur Marlboro County Emergency Management Director Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-I Bill Burton Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-J Robert English Afternoon Scoping Meeting 

VS-K Carol Boyer Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-L Nancy Nelkin Afternoon Scoping Meeting 

VS-M Sally Shaw NEC Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-N Sarah Kotkov NEC Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-O Gary Sachs Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-P Ann Elizabeth Howes Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-Q David McElwee Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (Entergy) Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-R Deborah Reger Leftovers Affinity Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-S Cora Brooks Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-T Beth Adams CAN Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-U Jane Newton Afternoon Scoping Meeting

VS-V Governor Thomas B.

Salmon

Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-W Deb Katz CAN Evening Scoping Meeting 

VS-X Sunny Miller Traprock Peace Center Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-Y Beth McElwee Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-Z Ellen Cota Entergy Evening Scoping Meeting 

VS-AA Michael Flory Entergy Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-BB Shawn Banfield Vermont Energy Partnership Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-CC Claire Change CAN Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-DD Raymond Shadis NEC Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-EE Bernard Buteau Entergy Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-FF Marian Kelner Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-GG Ted Sullivan Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-HH John Dreyfuss Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-II Mike Hamer Evening Scoping Meeting
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-4 August 2007

Table A-1. (contd)

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source (a)

VS-JJ Chris Nord CAN Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-KK Dart Everett Brattleboro Development Center Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-LL Bill Pearson VT Earth Institute Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-MM Emily Tinkham Entergy Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-NN Clay Turnbill Nuclear Free Vermont/CAN/NEC Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-OO Dennis Girroir Entergy Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-PP Emma Stamas Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-QQ George Iselin Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-RR Sherry Zabriskie Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-SS Gary Sachs Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-TT Larry Lukens Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-UU Joan Horman Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-VV Beth Adams Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-WW Jon Block Attorney E-mail (ML061770066)

VS-XX Cora Brooks Letter (ML061840614)

VS-YY Tina Emery-Howe E-mail (ML061730420)

VS-ZZ Dart Everett Brattleboro Development Center Evening Scoping Meeting

VS-AAA Catherine Gjessing Vermont Agency of Natural Resources E-mail (ML061770066)

VS-BBB Mike Hebert E-mail (ML061730415)

VS-CCC Jacob Iselin Letter (ML061840615)

VS-DDD Becca King E-mail (ML061730399)

VS-EEE Thomas Matsuda E-mail (ML061740035)

VS-FFF Sunny Miller Traprock Peace Center E-mail (ML061770071)

VS-GGG Massachusetts Attorney

General Thomas F.

Reilly

Letter (ML061780088)

VS-HHH Sally Shaw NEC E-mail (ML061770056)

VS-III William Sherman Vermont Department of Public Service

(same comments in the letter and e-mail)

E-mail (ML061770052)

Letter (ML061840612)

VS-JJJ E. Stamas Letter (ML061920474)

VS-KKK Edward and Emma

Stamas

Letter (ML061840613)

VS-LLL Jonathon Von Ranson E-mail (ML061730427)

VS-MMM Pam Walker CAN E-mail (ML061730431)

VS-NNN Dory Zelman E-mail (ML061770078)

(a) The open house, afternoon and evening transcripts can be found in ADAMS under accession numbers: ML061840036,

ML061840033, and ML061840029, respectively.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

 A.1.1 License Renewal and Its Processes

 A.1.2 NRC Hearing Process

 A.1.3 Support of License Renewal at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

 A.1.4 Opposition to License Renewal at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

 A.1.5 Support of Nuclear Power

 A.1.6 Opposition to Nuclear Power

 A.1.7 Ecology

 A.1.8 Threatened and Endangered Species

 A.1.9 Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use

 A.1.10 Human Health

 A.1.11 Socioeconomics

 A.1.12 Postulated Accidents

 A.1.13 Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

 A.1.14 Alternative Energy Sources

A.1 Comments and Responses

A.1.1 Comments Concerning License Renewal and Its Processes

Comment: I was interested, the person before me was going through the benefits of nuclear

energy, but, as we all know, there are many, many hidden costs included in producing energy

from nuclear power. One of them being that there is a sizeable payroll at the Federal level, paid

for by our taxes, which is specifically for the purpose of seeing that nuclear energy continues to

operate fairly cheaply. So just think of that. The people who are here today getting paid by us,

the citizenry, we're paying for that in our taxes, but it's really a cost that should be associated

with the electric costs of nuclear power. (VS-H-4)

Comment: I think part of the problem is, as taxpayers, we're paying the NRC as our

employees, to be the knowledgeable representatives of public interest. The NRC is responsible

for overseeing the nuclear industry. And when they do a poor job, they risk our health and well

being, when you do not rigorously and objectively evaluate the impacts of nuclear power on us. 

(VS-L-1)

Comment: The Executive Summary of the 600 some odd page Environmental Impact

Statement, is full of little items like that. Here's another. The staff concludes that the generic

analysis of a severe accident, applies to all reactors.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-6 August 2007

The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases fall out onto open bodies of

water, groundwater releases and the societal and economic impacts are of small significance,

for all reactors.

That, with the stroke of a pen, wipes out all our concerns. They also conclude that the

environmental impacts of design-basis accidents, are of small significance for all plants.

And, because additional measures to reduce such impacts would be costly, don't worry, they

won't burden the Licensee with extra mitigations. (VS-M-3)

Comment: And one of my concerns, when I hear the NRC at this meeting, in regard to the data

that they use for their studies, is that they take much of their data, not from their own sources,

but from the Licensee. And, in my opinion, that's poor practice. (VS-O-2)

Comment: One of the problems that citizens have and citizen-intervenors have is that when

issues like this are found within a plant, typically a condition report will be written. That is not

public. That does not go into the NRC public document room. And then the item may or may

not be entered into the company's Corrective Action Program. That's a place where NRC buries

a lot of issues too. They sort of hand it back to the company and say you guys fix it and make

sure you keep records. But those records are not public and there's really no way to access

them unless you get involved in a legal proceeding and then maybe you can touch them. (VSDD-8)

Comment: I'd like to recite a couple of excerpts right from your own website, that I think help

support the position to allow Vermont Yankee to consider operation. It's the NRC primary

mission to protect the public health and safety and the environment. That's what we're talking

about tonight is the environmental effects. In the environment, the effects of radiation from

nuclear reactors, materials and waste facilities and you also regulate these nuclear materials

and facilities to promote the common defense and security. There's also a section there that

talks about reactor license renewal overview. And it states that the Atomic Energy Act and the

NRC regulations limit commercial power reactor licenses to an initial 40-year -- 40 years, as you

said, but also permits such licenses to be renewed. That original 40-year term for reactor

licenses was based on economic and anti-trust considerations and not on limitations of nuclear

technology. Due to this selective period, however, some structures and components may have

been engineered on the basis of a 40-year service life. The NRC has established a timely

license renewal process which we've heard something about tonight and clear requirements

codified in 10 CFR parts 51 and 54 that are needed to assure safe plant operation for extended

plant life.

The timely renewal of licenses for an additional 20 years, where appropriate to renew them,

may be important to ensuring an adequate energy supply for the United States during the first

half of the 21st century. (VS-EE-1)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Another point is that we are regulated in this industry and when you're regulated,

there's rules that you have to follow and those -- and we are governed by the NRC and we have

to follow all those rules. As we apply for this application, the look that is given to the site and to

all the processes that it has is exhaustive. It's a mess. And all of those rules have to be met. 

So let's let the facts decide what it is. If the NRC after their investigation into what's going on at

the plant and whether or not we're following the rules, if they conclude that we will have an

effect on the environment that are of such a nature that it doesn't meet the regulations, then

they need to not approve this license application. But if it does meet the rules and regulations,

then it needs to be approved. (VS-GG-3)

Comment: They have a very, very large team of inspectors looking at every possible aspect

you can look at for aging management, for how we're going to handle aging management. It's

the future replacement of certain parts that wear out, things like that, based on operating

experience, etcetera and everything. It's a very involved process. It's not taken lightly by the

NRC or Vermont Yankee. (VS-II-6)

Comment: I'll go back to my original question, who do you actually work for? Are these

meetings, these public meetings, merely an appeasement so you have the general public come

up to the microphone, make a few statements, and then they go away and you get to go on your

merry business and decide in collusion with this industry how it's going to go. Or are you 

actually taking into account the real concerns that are obvious, if you just sit and think about

them, we're talking about 35 million curies of Cesium-137 sitting in that spent-fuel pool. 

(VS-JJ-7)

Comment: I think that in every meeting that the NRC is a part of, they had better rethink who

they're working for and start thinking about the children and grandchildren who are going to

have to get out of this technology of nuclear energy and nuclear waste proliferation, and get into

something safer and more sustainable. (VS-PP-3)

Comment: I've spoken many times against nuclear power and I'm at the point where I feel like

nobody's listening as far as Vermont Yankee or Entergy. The government, the NRC for sure. 

(VS-RR-1)

Comment: Dozens of Entergy (Vermont Yankee) employees and their family members were

allowed to speak and citizens who had come on their own had to wait until late in the evening

and cut their comments short and questions short (earlier in the evening when questions were

taken). (VS-KKK-1)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-8 August 2007

Response: The comments are in regard to license renewal and its processes in general. The

Commission has established a process, by rule, for the environmental and safety reviews to be

conducted to review a license renewal application. The development of the Commission's 

regulations governing the license renewal process was already subject to public review and

comment. The comments provide no new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated

further.

A.1.2 Comments Concerning NRC Hearing Process

Comment: I think that many of us are quite disgusted by the fact that the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board has recently refused to hear, or refused to accept the contentions, the new

contentions of New England Coalition, based solely on their lack of timeliness in filing. And yet,

in a few weeks, we'll have another one of these public meetings. We think that these decisions,

the decisions on uprate and on re-licensing, are based, and should be based on science and

engineering, and to have a show of soliciting the views of the citizens, many of us believe is a

sham and a travesty and I think that is why people have not shown up today, not because it's a

little bit rainy. (VS-N-1)

Response: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rules on petitions and motions in

accordance with NRC regulations. The comment provides no new and significant information;

therefore, the comment will not be evaluated further.

A.1.3 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Station

Comment: In closing, the Vermont Yankee has an important and crucial role to play in the

future of your state. It is both environmentally and economically appropriate to grant the plant a

license extension. We know that there is a wide array of support for the continued operation of

this plant, for the reasons I have articulated here today. Its essential economic benefits. Its

environmentally sound operations, and its important role as a component of the Vermont energy

portfolio. (VS-G-4)

Comment: I'm probably one of the few people here from Windham County that endorses the

re-licensing of Vermont Yankee, and its, and hopefully looks upon with the environmental

issues, favorably. (VS-I-1)

Comment: Vermont Yankee is a safe, well run plant and is a great asset to the area. It

provides good paying jobs, provides an infrastructure to attract new businesses to the area. To

help, and help eliminate tons of pollutants that would otherwise be put into the air that we

breathe. And I look forward to another 20 years of operation at Vermont Yankee, and hope that

the NRC will approve the license renewal application. (VS-Q-2)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Since 1972, when the Vernon plant came online, the State of Vermont has avoided

some 100 million metric tons of fossil fuel pollution and that's not an inconsequential

environmental effect of life, particularly given the realities of potential replacement power later in

this century with the candidates principally being natural gas and coal, both of which cause

gaseous greenhouse emissions into the environment.

Point two is the fact that we're in the midst of a global warming debate in this country. And in

my view, decisions ultimately made by regulatory bodies such as the NRC must factor in the

realities of global warming and the clear and present danger suggested by unnecessary and

unwanted ingestions of improper pollution into the Vermont and the environment of the country.

Now I have an old-fashioned view, having watched this plant grow, having been in the

legislature of Vermont when it was authorized many years ago and that view is not likely

accepted by all, maybe viewed as heresy in some quarters, but it speaks to the notion that this

plant has been both safe and environmentally friendly over these many years and in that context

in terms of its contribution or I should say noncontribution to pollution in this state, has helped

make Vermont a cleaner place in which to live. Now we're engaged in our state in a

conversation about energy as we speak and this meeting tonight is an exceedingly important

meeting on that subject. Now there are some interesting participants in this discussion and I'm

aware of one. The Sharon Academy up in Sharon, Vermont, senior class, this past winter, put

together an energy plan and they went up to Montpelier and introduced the plan before the

House Natural Resources Committee. We had opportunity in the Vermont Energy Partnership,

myself and Amanda Eiby, got to visit with the students and offer a critique of their remarkable

work, but what we learned is this. These students in their analysis of Vermont's energy future

included that nuclear energy is “clean, reliable, affordable and long lasting.” And in opting for

renewal of the license issue before us tonight and beyond, to describe the “cultural negativity

about nuclear power as unjustified.” That was the students' view in their words.

The point is this. People of all ages and perspectives are entitled to participate in this debate

and maybe, just maybe, our kids might teach us a lesson or two on this important subject.

Now this Commission will travel many miles before it sleeps on these issues. You begin the

process here in Brattleboro tonight and I for one wish you well in your profoundly important

work. (VS-V-1)

Comment: Vermont Yankee provides the needed infrastructure to attract other businesses to

this area, so that young adults like me will be able to stay in Vermont and enjoy the area we've

grown to appreciate. We need to make sure that there are jobs available here to support those

who wish to make this area our home. Vermont Yankee goes a long way in helping to secure

this future for Vermonters. Vermont Yankee should stand tall in this community. In addition to

providing the most reliable, clean and safe source of energy throughout New England, their

commitment to community involvement, youth development, and vast employment opportunities
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-10 August 2007

makes them a crucial and highly beneficial component of this community. A renewal of their

operating license is integral to the continuation of the flourishing New England rural

communities that we've all come to love. (VS-Y-1)

Comment: It make sense to approve the license renewal. Entergy is committed to being

environmentally and socially responsible and has given a lot to this community. The financial

impact of not extending the license would affect Vermont negatively for many years. But more

importantly, the environmental impact of closing Vermont Yankee would pose even greater

threat. People have been told not to eat the fish out of the Connecticut River because of the

mercury levels. Well, Vermont Yankee and other nuclear power plants do not emit the poisons

or greenhouse gases which are slowly devastating our environment.

In addition, Vermont Yankee has a proven record of safe operations. Safety is and has been its

number one priority. Entergy is a business. Corporate Entergy is a business. And I can assure

you that Corporate Entergy would not put money into this license renewal process if they did not

believe that Vermont Yankee was a well run, well maintained, safe facility. Vermont Yankee is

committed to safe operation and if I did not believe this, I would not work there.

The environmental benefits of generating electricity without emitting greenhouse gases is a

wonderful legacy for our children and our grandchildren. I believe that we should approve the

license renewal process. (VS-Z-1)

Comment: Vermont Yankee's value to my home state can only become more valuable as time

goes on. As global warming becomes more and more destructive, we can remain an

environmentally friendly source of power with zero greenhouse gas emissions. As the world

energy market has become more competitive, we can continue to be a source of reliable,

economic, baseload power and that is why we encourage the NRC to renew Vermont Yankee's

license. (VS-AA-3)

Comment: Vermont Yankee has an important and crucial to play in the future of our state. It is

both economically and environmentally appropriate to grant the plant's license extension. We

know there's a wide array of support for the continued operation of this plant for the reasons I

have articulated here tonight: its essential economic benefits, its environmentally sound

operations and its important role as a component in the Vermont energy portfolio. (VS-BB-5)

Comment: Considering what I've presented, the worldwide recognition of the need for

additional nuclear power to help save our environment from the effluence of fossil fuels and to

help establish energy security and I would go on to say world peace, and considering the

existing guidance for granting license extensions, I would submit that it would be arbitrary and 

in defiance of the rules and guidelines already in place to not grant Vermont Yankee an

operating license extension if all requirements established in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54 are met. 

(VS-EE-3)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: You know, we're very proud of the impeccable environmental record that this plant

currently enjoys. We've had a sustained, safe, operational record with excellent environmental

stewardship. We pledge to continue that going forward. I'm also very proud of the people and

the processes we have in place that helps sustain that environmental performance. The scope

of the environmental audit conducted by the NRC was very broad. It touched on many subjects. 

There were many people here, both NRC staff and the contractors. They were very

challenging. They were very rigorous. They were very thorough. And we've resolved the

issues and we're answering questions, many questions that came up. Again, I am satisfied that

the process will hold true and the questions will be answered. And if we can provide

satisfactory record and good answers to the questions that came up, the license should be

renewed. (VS-HH-1)

Comment: I truly believe that the only way to keep this amazing area that we live in

environmentally friendly, while producing 34 percent of Vermont's electricity is to continue the

safe and reliable operation of Vermont Yankee. (VS-MM-1)

Comment: I look at the overall impact of Vermont Yankee, environmentally, economically, and

very personally, and I've got some pretty significant observations over the last 30-35 years, and

I'm still waiting to identify one that is truly negative, truly negatively impacting all of us. 

(VS-OO-1)

Comment: I haven't heard anything tonight that says there's anything new and significant. 

Actually, I haven't heard anything new, and I haven't heard anything that sounds significant. We

have met all the requirements. We have exceeded many of them. We continue to meet the

environmental requirements. We continue to be, as John Dreyfus said, good stewards of our

environment. This plant emits no carbon dioxide. In fact it emits nothing that would be

considered a hazard. We don't emit radioactivity. And the people who have spoken tonight

have, as far as I can tell, not raised a substantive issue that identifies a new or significant

environmental impact that would be an obstacle to the renewal of this plant's license. (VS-TT-1)

Comment: This letter is in support of renewing the operating license of the Vermont Yankee

nuclear facility. I believe the environmental benefits that Vermont Yankee provides are a crucial

part of ensuring that Vermont’s landscape remains clean and pristine. It has not gone

unnoticed that Vermont has one of the lowest emissions ratings in the country, largely because

of our nuclear plant in Vernon.

Nuclear energy avoids the emissions of harmful toxins or other pollutants into the atmosphere

that other large power facilities, like coal or natural gas are guilty of. More and more

environmental scientists have concluded that nuclear energy is the only power source that can

help combat global warming.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-12 August 2007

Vermont and the entire New England region is in need of this plant, and as long as it maintains

its high level of safe operations, there is no reason why this plant should not remain online.

Vermont Yankee is a necessary component to this state’s current and future energy portfolio,

and I hope that the NRC rules in favor of a license extension. (VS-YY-1)

Comment: It is estimated that by mid-century, the world will require a doubling of the current

worldwide energy demand of 14 terawatts of power. To achieve this demand will require the

equivalent of one 1,000 megawatt power plant going on line every day for nearly 38 years

(article from Discover, February 2005, pp 16-17 attached).

Although I assume the initial mandate to the NRC regarding environmental issues 30 to 40

years ago concerned the rather micro impact, that is of a limited area surrounding a nuclear

plant, certainly now the issue is equally the global concern of greenhouse gasses, foremost

carbon dioxide.

I am not an expert. I am a concerned citizen, concerned about the future of energy for the State

of Vermont, the future energy requirement for the world and the environmental impact the

sources of that energy will have.

Dr. Arthur Westing, a resident of Putney, VT, 10 miles up the road, is an expert. He has served

on the faculty of, or been a research fellow at several education institutions, including Harvard

University and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, served as the director of

the United Nationals Environmental Programme project on “Peace, Security, & the

Environment,” and is the author of many articles and books on the environment. At the

moment, Dr. Westing is in Sweden. He told me he wished he could be here to testify on the

importance of Vermont Yankee to the energy future of Vermont, and give his wholehearted

support to the relicensing. I am submitting an email from Dr. Westing to me giving me the

authority to give you two letters he has written on energy and environmental issues, as well as

his resume. His latest letter cites a British report on The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low

Carbon Economy which he uses to calculate the impacts shown on the following page.

Thank you for beginning this lengthy process for the relicensing of the Entergy Nuclear Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Plant. I hope the evidence shows a positive decision. (VS-ZZ-1)

Comment: The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant plays an integral role in Vermont’s

current energy portfolio, and must be part of our future. Vermont Yankee is a clean, emissions

free generating facility that provides stable, low-cost power to our state. These are all crucial

factors that businesses take into consideration when determining whether to remain here, or

relocate to Vermont. If Vermont Yankee goes off-line in 2012 where will we find replacement

power that is as clean and reliable? Vermont Yankee is critical to Windham County and 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Southeast Vermont in particular. Currently, the plant and its contractors employ full time

approximately 600 men and women, and provides $80 million to local Vermont businesses

through the purchase of goods and services.

Its clean power, sound operations, well paying jobs, and community participation and support

helps make the region a great place to live and work. For all of these reasons, I encourage the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend the license of Vermont Yankee for another 20 years. 

(VS-BBB-1)

Response: The comments support license renewal at VYNPS. The comments are general in

nature and provide no new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

A.1.4 Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Station

Comment: Because we have to live with the effects on the Connecticut River. We have to live

with the effects on our health, increased cancers. These are things that need to be looked

seriously, by the NRC, in this process. Not to mention the nuclear waste that's stored in our

backyard. It's bad enough that it's already there, it's at risk by an accident. It's at risk by

criminal act. (VS-L-3)

Comment: I do not believe that Vermont Yankee should be open one more day. We need to

close Vermont Yankee, not just think about extending licensing for 20 years. (VS-T-1)

Comment: I want to end with this notion of a vision. We envision a future of safety, prosperity

and health for all. People generate their own electricity in their own homes. Local energy

production is easy and accessible for all. We live in a world where safety, prosperity and human

health are what we value above all and it is something that we have to hold sacred for all of us,

not relicensing Vermont Yankee. (VS-W-4)

Comment: Until and unless we can ensure the health and safety of human beings, and of all

the environment, and all forms of life, we shouldn't even be using nuclear power. Let me

register my vote as not being in favor of a 20 year extension of Vermont Yankee. (VS-LL-7)

Comment: I think that the main issue is whether we are gonna let this outfit produce more

waste, contributing hot water to the rivers, and things that actually do contribute to the global

warming, and we need to decide whether it's suicidal, actually murderous, to allow these wastes

to be put on to future generations. (VS-QQ-3)

Comment: At what point do we take responsibilities for the damage we are doing with nuclear

energy and radiation? At what point do we say to ourselves, that we have gone too far, and that
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-14 August 2007

this is not about profit or power or comfort but about safety for us, our world, and its future? Do

we want to risk another Chernobyl, or another Three Mile Island? Safety is defined as a state of

being safe, freedom from injury or damage, the quality of ensuring against hurt, injury, danger or

risk, or the state of being protected from harm. Do we want to risk our safety with toxic nuclear

byproducts that jeopardize our future generations and ourselves? Please. I hope you can take

a moment and hear me from my heart to your heart, and then act from that place.

Do our personal comforts, and your profits, justify the risk of proceeding with nuclear power,

particularly at this staging facility? (VS-UU-1)

Comment: I think this plant should be closed as soon as possible, and that planned into the

closing of it should be planning for jobs for the people that have worked so well at Vermont

Yankee. (VS-VV-3)

Comment: Maybe you could allow the reactor at Vernon, VT be shut down and ask Entergy to

decommission as was promised. The radioactive waste is a serious, unresolved problem. 

Hazardous. No reason to increase our risk to cancer and catastrophy. No reason to approve

Entergy’s plant. (VS-XX-1)

Comment: I deeply oppose the 20 year lease renewal and the uprate in power. Please 

do not approve either of these. Please listen to the citizens you are supposed to represent and

protect. (VS-EEE-1)

Comment: Please respond to reason and our concern for the safety of our population, our

tourist industry, organic farms, our colleges, and our homes. All these things would be severely

and adversely affected by even a small release of nuclear radiation due to human error, aging

machinery or pipes, or terrorism. Please help us by closing and decommissioning this facility in

5 or 6 years as originally planned. Please help us reduce the risks to our health and safety

instead of increasing them. (VS-JJJ-5)

Comment: Please let our region become an example to the rest of the nation. Many regions

are growing in population and energy usage. Our region is stable and able to reduce our usage

through conservation. Please let us try. Please give us the incentive to try by closing this

nuclear plant by 2012. Please stop saying that we need nuclear power and there is not a

cleaner, safer solution. This is untrue in a region like ours where the population is stable, highly 

educated, and extremely concerned about the risks of aging nuclear power plants and poorly

stored, highly radioactive “spent” fuel rods. Please listen to our concerns and respond by

closing down this plant as planned. (VS-JJJ-7)

Comment: I am writing to express my grave concern about the re-authorization of the Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. I want the plant closed. Cheap, renewable and alternative

sources of power need to be supported by the government. Nuclear power is not the answer. I
Appendix A

August 2007 A-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

do not want to be irradiated. Nor my rivers, farmlands, children. I am a fisherman, an organic

gardener living a wholesome rural lifestyle. You may not know what this lifestyle is like. It is

about connecting with the land, with the seasons, with the ways of the earth. I am honored to

work with children with special needs. Don't you realize that all these environmental insults

cause diseases in our children? Why do you think so many have diseases like autism, mental

retardation, cancer? It is no coincidence, our modern practices of poisoning earth, air and water

have made us sick, literally. 

We must learn to live with greater integrity. Please stop this nuclear madness. There is no safe

way to store the spent fuel rods. There is no safe way to mine the uranium. There is no safe

level of radiation sent down our rivers and streams. There is many other ways to address

energy needs. Please help us protect our beautiful valley from further harm. Close the plant. 

Now. (VS-NNN-1)

Response: The comments oppose license renewal at VYNPS. The comments are general in

nature and provide no new and significant information; therefore, they will not be evaluated

further.

A.1.5 Comments in Support of Nuclear Power

Comment: We've had no national energy policy. We're talking about 20 years down the road. 

That's short-term, 40 years down the road is short-term. I started out dealing with energy in

1962, and one of my students made a hydrogen fuel cell, that's how I got enlightened in this 

thing. 1962, that's a lot of years ago. And I've been involved in learning about energy for all

these years. All right, now, what's going to happen? I really feel we not only need to re-license

Vermont Yankee, but we need more nuclear power plants throughout the country. (VS-I-3)

Comment: In surfing the web recently, I found an interesting article. It was an excerpt from

Physics Today. It was dated June 4th. It states, “Some two dozen power plants are scheduled

to be built or refurbished during the next five years in Canada, China, several European Union

countries, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa. In the U.S. and U.K., government 

preparations are underway that may lead to 15 new reactor orders by 2007. The new interest in

civilian nuclear energy results from attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increasing

concerns about energy security.” (VS-EE-2)

Response: The comments support nuclear power. The comments are general in nature and

provide no new and significant information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

A.1.6 Comments in Opposition to Nuclear Power

Comment: We need to be forward thinking. And my sense is that nuclear power is kind of

passe. We've all looked at this. We see what the risks are, and there are huge chunks in
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-16 August 2007

Russia that have been, in their terms, withdrawn from public use, for the foreseeable future

because of an accident. And, as far as I know, nobody has repealed Murphy's Law. So I'd like

to suggest that we be responsible and that we get this message today that we are asking all of

you to look beyond what has become an old mantra, and make use of the truly up-to-date

technology, that could allow all of us to feel good about living our lives without adding to the

environmental burdens. (VS-K-2)

Comment: Nobody knows what's going to happen in the future. There are people who believe

that this plant is safe. There are other people who believe that it’s not safe. There's no way to

determine this, I guess. Time will tell, but the criteria that I'd like to present is what happens for

each side if that side is wrong? If the people who believe the nuclear power plant is safe and

they're wrong, the land becomes polluted, thousands of people die. This will be an effect that

will be in effect for hundreds of thousands of years. If the people who believe that the nuclear

power plant is unsafe and they're wrong, what will be the effect? The effect will be that there

will be other sources of power, conservation and nobody gets hurt. So since nobody on the

planet knows which side is correct, I think that using this criteria might guide us in the right

direction. (VS-FF-1)

Response: The comments oppose nuclear power. The comments are general in nature and

provide no new and significant information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

A.1.7 Comments Concerning Ecology

Comment: Issues 18, 20, 23, 24, and 28 through 30 (Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish,

Premature emergence of aquatic insects, Losses among organisms exposed to sublethal

stresses, Stimulation of nuisance organisms, Entrainment, Impingement, and Heat shock) As

we understand it, these issues are associated with intake structures and thermal discharge

issues which require a NPDES permit. The requirements of the Clean Water Act and the

NPDES permit will provide assurance that the impacts of permitted intake structures and

discharges meet the applicable federal and state requirements. It would be helpful, however, to

have some limited site specific review of these issues. For example, have recent scientific

studies regarding intake structure and thermal impacts on migrating fish species and aquatic

organisms, in similar habitats or within this region, led to new knowledge applicable to these

issues? Are there any organisms present in the Vernon area which are particularly susceptible

to sublethal stresses or heat shock? Are there any specific study protocols recommended for

determining the impacts of intake and discharges on species present in the affected regions of

the Connecticut River? (VS-AAA-1)

Comment: Specifically, I've got concerns about the effect on the Connecticut River and on the

fish and other wildlife that live in and on the river. According to the environmental report drafted

for this license renewal process, Entergy states that it withdraws water to cool the reactor, from

the river, at a rate of up to 360,000 gallons per minute when using once through cooling. The
Appendix A

August 2007 A-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

majority of this water is discharged back into the river at temperatures that can reach 100

degrees Fahrenheit, at the point of discharge. The recently issued NPDES Permit Amendment,

which New England Coalition is appealing, allows for Vermont Yankee to increase the

temperature of the river by an additional one degree Fahrenheit over what it was previously

allowed. The environmental impact of this extra thermal waste discharged into the river, is

potentially significant. Temperature is critical for American Shad and other fish species,

particularly during migration and spawning.

Even this one degree increase in water temperature may adversely effect the Shad and other

species, reducing their population in the river system. In its report, however, Entergy does not

assess these impacts. Entergy's conclusion that the impact on the environment is small, is

based on the fact that the discharge complies with state and Federal pollution limits. There's no

further discussion of what effect another 20 years of increased thermal discharge will have on

the eco-system. Whether or not the discharge from Vermont Yankee is in compliance with its

State and Federal permits, Entergy should be required to take a hard look at, and assess a

direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the river eco-system of 20 more years of increased

thermal discharge. (VS-E-1)

Comment: I am concerned that the continued release of heated water into the Connecticut

River from Vermont Yankee is adversely affecting aquatic life in the river. Several school and

citizen awareness groups have measured temperatures as high as 10 degrees Fahrenheit

warmer below the plant than above, and it is my understanding that only 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit

is allowed. Since this has continued for many years, I fear that plant officials do not plant to

stop this. I ask that you please address this ongoing problem in your considerations of whether

or not to extend the license of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. (VS-CCC-1)

Comment: The increase in the river temperature needs to be fully analyzed for the affects over

the new 20 year lease period. This raise could seriously affect the environment. (VS-EEE-3)

Comment: Please save the Connecticut River from overheating. Many of us are also

concerned about the hot water that is being released into the Connecticut River. Studies have 

shown that the current levels of hot water are harmful and with the 20% “uprate” the

temperatures are rising to much higher levels. Why do you want to destroy the ecology of this

beautiful river? (VS-JJJ-6)

Response: The comments relate to aquatic ecology issues. Some of the comments

specifically relate to the potential impact on aquatic biota of the heated water that will be

released from VYNPS when once through cooling is used. This issue will be evaluated and

addressed in Section 4.7 of the SEIS. In addition, heat shock, entrainment, and impingement

will be evaluated and discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-18 August 2007

Comment: As an ecologist, I'm compelled to point out that environmental impacts are multivariate impacts. They are not generic. Life is not generic. And although biological systems are

resilient and they recover from damage, radiation exposure causes genetic impacts that will

change life forever. Genetic damage can be passed on to our offspring and theirs. It can 

change biological communities forever. I submit that the very idea of a GEIS is sheis. In NRC's

Executive Summary of their Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which I consider an

oxymoron. (VS-M-1)

Comment: I ask NRC to revisit the permitting of this defacto LLRW dumping ground, and

consider the impact of nuclides in river sediments which are the spawning beds for American

Shad and Salmon. I learned from VT Dept. of Health employee Larry Crist that Cobalt 60 and

Cesium 137 levels have been found in river sediments. Embryonic exposure to these isotopes

by fish or other aquatic biota have not been sampled or quantified. Laboratory experimentation

might reveal the potential for ecological impact. (VS-HHH-2)

As an organic farmer with livestock and vegetable crops, I consider the radiation emissions from

the plant's operation to be one more degrading influence in the environment, added to a number

of others, that affects both crop plants and livestock raised in this area. It is difficult to quantify

but I am confident from reading about the experiences of farmers in the area of this plant and

others that the radiation stressor exists. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the relicensing of

the Vernon nuclear plant beyond 2012. I am willing to use less electricity if the license

extension is denied, and to pay more for it. (VS-LLL-2)

Response: The comments relate to the effects of radiation from plant effluents on biota other

than man. The effects of radiation from VYNPS effluents on biota is not one of the 92 issues

evaluated by the NRC for license renewal. The levels of plant effluents are limited by radiation

standards for human exposure, and those limitations are generally considered to be sufficiently

protective of biota other than man. The NRC staff will review the reports of the environmental

radiological monitoring programs conducted by Entergy and the Vermont Department of Health

for the last several years to ensure that the levels of radioactive concentrations in the

environment are within expected levels. Entergy’s environmental radiological monitoring

program will be discussed in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS. 

Comment: Issues 43 and 46 (Bird collisions). The Agency is interested in bird mortality rates. 

In particular, the Agency is interested in whether the numbers and species of birds which have

experienced mortalities with the cooling towers and the power lines are an issue of concern. 

This concern is also applicable to the met towers on site. (VS-AAA-2)

Response: The comment relates to Category 1 terrestrial ecology issues. Bird collisions with

power lines will be discussed in Section 4.2 of the SEIS.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

A.1.8 Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species

Comment: Issue 45 (Power line right of way management). The Agency is interested in this

issue as it relates to rare, threatened and endangered species which may be present in

proximity to the power lines. In addition, the Agency is interested in preserving undisturbed

riparian buffers in areas of surface water or stream crossings. (VS-AAA-3)

Response: The comment relates to threatened and endangered species and terrestrial

resources, particularly riparian buffers. The NRC conducts an analysis of the impacts of license

renewal on aquatic and terrestrial resources including threatened and endangered species,

flood plains, and wetlands. The occurrence of Federally- and State-listed species on the

VYNPS site and associated transmission line rights-of-way will be discussed in Sections 2.2.5

and 2.2.6 of the SEIS. An analysis of impacts to these listed species is presented in Section 4.6

of the SEIS. The environmental impacts of power line rights-of-way management on flood

plains and wetlands will be discussed in Section 4.2 of the SEIS.

A.1.9 Comment Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use 

Comment: I am an ecologist and mother living in the 10-mile EPZ, downstream of the VT

Yankee Nuclear Reactor. I would like the NRC to expand the scope of the EIS to examine the

consequences of the surface spreading of radioactive septic waste and stockpiling of tons of

contaminated soil on fields adjacent to the Connecticut River. I think it is important to consider

the possibility that some radionuclides wash into the river in heavy rains and spring melt. A

1991 study of the suitability of the VY site for low level radioactive waste commissioned by the

VT Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority, and conducted by Batelle Company, concluded that

it was not a promising LLRW site due to short groundwater travel time, a shallow groundwater

depth, seeps discharging to the riverbank and springs discharging south of the site, poor

drainage in parts of the site, jurisdictional wetlands on the site, with one apparently significant

wetland under VT wetland law, potential liquifaction of some soils on the site during an

earthquake, and the need to remove and replace existing soils to meet the regulatory

requirement to enhance the retardation of the movement of radionuclides. (Battelle. 1991. Site

Characterization Data Report for the Vernon/VT Yankee Site Volume I - The Report. Wagner

Heindel and Noyes, Inc.) (VS-HHH-1)

Response: The comment is related to Category 1 surface-water quality, hydrology,

groundwater, and water use issues evaluated in the GEIS. These issues will be addressed in

Chapter 2 of the SEIS. The comment regarding soil liquifaction is addressed as a design basis

issue in Section 15 of the Appendix.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-20 August 2007

A.1.10 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues

Comment: I'm raising a child here. I hear that cancer rates near the plant are higher than in

other places. There's some studies. I hear that Strontium-90 turns up in baby teeth. So this is

an experimental thing and we're being experimented on. I don't think it should continue. 

(VS-C-2)

Response: The comment concerns Strontium-90 in baby teeth. In 2000, a report entitled,

“Strontium-90 in Deciduous Teeth as a Factor in Early Childhood Cancer,” was published by the

Radiation and Public Health Project. The report alleges there has been an increase in cancer

incidence due to strontium-90 released from nuclear power facilities. Elevated levels of

strontium-90 in deciduous (baby) teeth was claimed in the report as the evidence for the

increase in childhood cancer. This study has been largely discredited by the scientific

community for a number of reasons including the lack of controls, small sample sizes, and the

lack of environmental sampling and analysis (see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.html). The assessment of human health impacts in the SEIS

will determine if the facility is currently limiting and will continue to limit radiological releases to

within Federal limits, which are considered protective of the public. The comment provides no

new and significant information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

Comment: I would like to submit the BEIR 7 Report of the National Academy of Sciences. The

biological effects of ionizing radiation. The National Academy of Sciences told us that, in fact,

there is not a threshold dose phenomenon. The GEIS presupposes a threshold dose

phenomenon. Therefore, it claims that it does make sense to normalize early fatalities. That's

based on the BEIR 5 Report, not BEIR 7. I would like to suggest that you recalculate using the

conclusions of BEIR 7. What does BEIR 7 say about radiation risks to workers under exposure

of one REM per year. That was another little nugget in the Appendices of the GEIS. I'm just

curious. I would love to see that calculated. I think your Appendix E.4.1.2 is faulty, also based

on BEIR 7, because it's based on the notion of a threshold of effects. That does not seem to be

the case. Your Appendices E.8.2, these Appendices show the tables and the calculations

behind a lot of their conclusions in the GEIS.

Quantities and units, assumes non-stochastic effects will not occur if the dose equivalent from

internal and external sources combined, is less than 50 rems or fewer in a year. This, too,

contradicts the conclusions of the BEIR 7 Study. Your cost estimates also use BEIR 5, not 7,

and the costs are based on 1980 costs, or maybe they were updated to 1994, 12 years ago. 

(VS-M-6)

Comment: In Appendix E, I think it was Page E-43, we talk about ALARA limits. That stands

for As Low As Reasonably Achievable. These are radiation exposure limits for workers. And

they were derived using analytic techniques to identify the approximate point at which the cost

of providing additional protection, would exceed the risk averted. But what dollar value do you
Appendix A

August 2007 A-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

place on a workers life? I'm just curious. I guess I'll conclude with saying that it seems to me

that your Generic Environmental Impact Statement is fatally flawed, in many ways. 

Recalculations of early fatalities and latent fatalities, are biased. They are based on old

information, BEIR 5, not BEIR 7, and I humbly request that you recalculate them based on the

most currently available knowledge on the effects of radiation. Particularly, low level radiation. 

(VS-M-9)

Comment: I have a question that comes up, that I didn't ask in the beginning of the meeting,

which is, on what do you base radiation exposure? Is it the ICRP? International Committee on

Radiological Protection? Or is it on the European, on the European Committee on Radiation

Risk? (VS-O-9)

Comment: In July of 2005, and this has already been brought up tonight, the U.S. National

Academy of Sciences released its latest biological effects of ionizing radiation report, otherwise

known as BEIR VII. Basically what it pointed out was that no amount of radiation can be

considered safe. How ethical and moral is it then to site an elementary school directly across

the street from Vermont Yankee? Children are far more vulnerable to radiological damage that

adults. (VS-LL-4)

Comment: Regarding the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (the GEIS), I would like to

request that you consider the National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing

Radiation VII report new and significant information and recalculate early fatalities, latent

fatalities and any injury projections based on this information.

Herewith and in these comments I formally petition the NRC for a 2.802 rulemaking to reconcile

with current science, in particular, but not exclusively, The National Academy of Sciences BEIR

VII Report, the Part 100 tables in 10 CFR for radiation exposure. BEIR VII was published in

2005. Throughout the Generic Environmental Impact Statement you cite BEIR V, which came

out in 1990. This is not acceptable. If you insist on using a Generic EIS, an oxymoron at best,

you must at least reference the latest and best available science in your calculations of risk and

consequences.

“In 1990, the NAS estimated that the risks of dying from cancer due to exposure to radiation

were about five percent higher for women than for men,” said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of

the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. “In BEIR VII, the cancer mortality risks for

females are 37.5 percent higher. The risks for all solid tumors, like lung, breast, and kidney,

liver, and other solid tumors added together are almost 50 percent greater for women than men,

though there are a few specific cancers, including leukemia, for which the risk estimates for men

are higher.” (Summary estimates are in Table ES-1 on page 28 of the BEIR VII report

prepublication copy, on the Web at http://books.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html/28.html.)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-22 August 2007

Unlike the 1990 NAS report, BEIR VII estimates risks for cancer incidence rates as well as

mortality and also provides detailed risk figures according to age of exposure for males and

females, by cancer type. This is a great advance over the previous report. The BEIR VII report

has thoroughly reviewed available human and animal cancer data and scientific understanding

arrived at using cellular level studies. Cancer risk incidence figures for solid tumors for women

are also about double those for men.

The BEIR VII report estimates that the differential risk for children is even greater. For instance,

the same radiation in the first year of life for boys produces three to four times the cancer risk as

exposure between the ages of 20 and 50. Female infants have almost double the risk as male

infants. (Table 12 D-1 and D2, on pages 550-551 of the prepublication copy of the report, on

the Web starting at http://books.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html/550.html).--IEER July 2005. 

(VS-HHH-3)

Comment: In the GEIS you mention: “Because of a threshold dose phenomenon, it does not

make sense to normalize early fatalities.” I believe you reference BEIR V and other sources. It

is my understanding that the BEIR reports never proved the existence of a threshold dose

phenomenon, and the current BEIR VII report explicitly concludes that there is no evidence that

such a phenomenon exists. Therefore the NRC’s attitude that public or worker exposure to

radiation from nuclear power plants can be “below regulatory concern” MUST be re-examined,

and revised. I call upon you to suspend the license renewal process for VT Yankee until such a

time as this re-examination and recalculation of all tables in the GEIS related to radiation

exposure and projected consequences is completed. (VS-HHH-5)

Comment: Third, the actual human health impacts of an accident with radiation release should

be recalculated using assumptions from BEIR VII, not an arbitrary and false threshold dose

model. The GEIS reports radiation risks to nuclear workers of 1 REM/year based on BEIR V. 

These should be recalculated using BEIR VII and the latest science in medical journals which

include exposure to internal radiation sources--alpha and beta emitters, via inhalation or

ingestion. Recent work on people exposed to depleted uranium might be enlightening. In the

Appendices of the GEIS, Appendix E.4.1.2. is faulty in that it is based on the notion of a

threshold dose. This should be entirely re-done in the light of BEIR VII which definitively states

there is no evidence of such a threshold dose. The calculations on page E-39 in the

appendices assumes non-stochastic effects will not occur if the dose equivalent from internal

and external sources combined is less than 50 REM in a year. This too must be recalculated in

the light of BEIR VII.

RE page E-43: ALARA limits were derived using analytic techniques to identify the approximate

point at which the cost of providing additional protection would exceed the cost consequences

of the risk averted. If BEIR VII is correct, any exposure to extra radiation from nuclear reactors

is costly in terms of human health, and the consequences are cumulative. What dollar value

does the NRC place on worker's lives? (VS-HHH-7)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: The comments relate to the NRC’s radiation protection standards. NRC and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consider available information and recommendations

from a number of sources in the development and periodic reassessment of radiation standards

in the United States. Those sources include the National Commission on Radiation Protection

and Measurements (NCRP), International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP), National

Academy of Sciences, and others.

In spring 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies published, “Health

Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation

(BEIR) VII Phase 2.” A pre-publication version of the report was made public in June 2005. 

The major conclusion of the report is that current scientific evidence is consistent with the

hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship between exposure to

ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with

the system of radiological protection the NRC uses to develop its regulations. Therefore, the

NRC’s regulations continue to be adequately protective of public health and safety and the

environment. None of the findings in the BEIR VII report warrant changes to the NRC

regulations. The BEIR VII report does not say there is no safe level of exposure to radiation; it

does not address “safe versus not safe.” It does continue to support the conclusion that there is

some amount of cancer risk associated with any amount of radiation exposure and that the risk

increases with exposure and exposure rate. It concludes that the risk of cancer induction at the

dose levels in NRC’s and EPA’s radiation standards is very small. Similar conclusions have

been made in all of the associated BEIR reports since 1972 (BEIR I, III, and V). The BEIR VII

report does not constitute new and significant information; therefore, the comments will not be

evaluated further.

The petition for rulemaking made by Sally Shaw, in comment VS-HHH-3, has been forwarded to

the Office of the Secretary for the Commission for appropriate action.

Comment: I believe we have to take responsibility right now for the effect that we are having

because we are already seeing its effects upon our children and grandchildren. We know that

mercury in the ponds in the fish that we happily go out and catch on a Sunday already in

Vermont, we can't allow the children to eat more than four ounces a month and we have seen

the effects of children who have more than that. The illnesses and cancers and neurological

damage already caused by different kinds of pollutants in Vermont is staggering. We certainly

don't need any more. (VS-B-5)

Comment: But what I want the NRC to weigh heavily, it's the waste issue, environmentally, and

the cancer issue. Are there cancer clusters around nuclear power plants? Are there elevated

rates of breast cancer around nuclear power plants? I read reports that say that there are and it

is unfair to experiment with a population when these are questions hanging in the air. It's

unconscionable. (VS-C-4)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-24 August 2007

Comment: As you know, the state of Vermont posts radiation measuring devices, TLDs,

around the plant perimeter. And the state reports that three times in the last decade or so, that

the state limit of 20 millirem per year has been exceeded at the fence line. And we took a quick

look at those reports for those three years, and then also at a study, I believe, done by Duke

Engineering for Vermont Yankee, and found that the TLDs in the same sector were the ones 

that read high in each of those instances. And, you know, this is not an anomaly for a bad

detection instrument, because they are changed out quarterly, and the excess is the average

over a year.

The other thing that we noticed is that the only other abnormally high reading, that occurred in

each of those three instances, was at the interior of the Vernon Elementary School. The other

thing that we noticed was that the turbine hall and the offending TLD, and the elementary

school, line up axially. There's a straight line to be drawn from the turbine hall, to the one

monitor that read high, to the elementary school reading high.

The state folks thought this might be an artifact of excess of radon in the school. But, of course,

we don't generally use TLDs to go chasing radon. The other thing that we noticed, was that

there was no correlation between the measured amount of radon in the school, for those

instances, and the high TLD readings. From an amateur science point of view, we believe

there's enough here to warrant real investigation. I should point out to you that we have not

looked for correlation on weather or meteorological conditions, but it might well be a

consideration that these high readings are a result of temperature inversion and downdraft from

the release stack. (VS-D-2)

Comment: Here at Vernon, as in the rest of the country, it's part of the operating license that

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gives the companies that operate these power plants, as

part of that process and part of that license, they're allowed to routinely emit radioactive

releases, in both the air and water. I'm sure everybody in this room knows that. Long-term,

that's a problem. We'd like to know how much has been released by the operation of Vermont 

Yankee, year-to-date, or operational lifetime to date. And how much is projected under routine

operational conditions? How much is going to be released over the proposed license

extension? (VS-F-3)

Comment: They state that among the 150 million people who live within 50 miles of a U.S.

Nuclear Power Plant, I prefer to call it a reactor, not a plant. About 30 million who will die of

spontaneous cancers. That's one in five people, by their calculations. And they say that since

we can't prove a one of them was caused by radiation, therefore the NRC doesn't have to worry

about them, note bene. They admit that five calculated fatalities associated with nuclear

powered induced cancers will occur. So I ask which one of us, or our children, living within 50

miles, will die of radiation induced cancer, over the lifetime of this plant. That's the cost of

progress. Tough luck, sucker. Most of the people who die of radiation induced cancers, will live

within ten miles. Thus, there's a very good possibility that we will know, we in this room, will
Appendix A

August 2007 A-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

know some of them. At last count, my husband and I counted, between us, 28 people we know

who have died or are living with cancer, in our extended community. Can I prove that their

cancers are radiation related? No. Therefore, the effects, the impact of these deaths, on our

life, is considered by the NRC to be of small significance. (VS-M-2)

Comment: Richard Monson of the Harvard School of Public Health stated, quote, the scientific

research base shows that there is no threshold below which low levels of ionizing radiation can

be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial. I'm going to repeat that. There is no threshold

below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial. 

The health risks, particularly the development of solid cancers in organs, rise proportionately

with exposure. At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the

overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk. Every nuclear reactor emits small

amounts of radiation. Even, supposedly, zero-emission reactors. (VS-O-4) (VS-SS-2)

Comment: There's an article about Vermont Yankee from 1980, about the town of Vernon, and

how much anxiety--1980, we're talking about. How much anxiety exists in the communities

around this plant. And not only does this plant--let's say it--causes cancer, causes cancer of

unborn, yet unborn children. Not only does it cause cancer, it causes heart attacks for the

anxiety that people live with. (VS-S-1)

Comment: Secondly, radiation monitoring is now inadequate and will be inadequate. In

Western Massachusetts, the Department of Health is doing no radiological monitoring. (VS-X-1)

Comment: Thirdly, health monitoring is inadequate. And it will be inadequate. (VS-X-2)

Comment: Vermont Yankee routinely emits radioactive material into the air, soil and water. 

Presumably these emissions are permissible. But who knows? Permissible emissions are not

the same thing as safe emissions. (VS-LL-3)

Comment: Let me give you a quick review of some results from accidents at other nuclear

facilities.

A 400 percent increase in leukemia incidents in the population living downwind of the Pilgrim

nuclear power reactor in Massachusetts in the first five years after fuel was known to have

leaked excess radioactivity.

Three to 400 percent increase in lung cancer in the general population within the plume of the

Three Mile Island accident.

Six to 700 percent increase in leukemia in the general population within the plume of Three Mile

Island.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-26 August 2007

Eight thousand percent increase in thyroid cancer in Belarus children living near Chernobyl,

reported six years after the meltdown.

Further effects found in victims of the Chernobyl accident, less than 10 years after the meltdown

include the following. A 500 percent increase in thyroid cancer in children in Ukraine. A 75

percent increase, incidence of heart disease.

A 200 percent increase in respiratory and digestive disease. A 200 percent increase in birth

defects.

Among atomic workers, a 250 percent increase in all cancers. And finally, a 1200 percent

increase in all cancers exist around the Sheffield [sic] reprocessing facility in England. 

(VS-LL-5)

Comment: 1. Subjects to include in a supplement to the GEIS for Vermont Yankee and

analyze in depth:

1.5 Extent of groundwater contamination on (and beneath) site, including, but not limited to

tritium contamination.

1.6 Extent of any off-site groundwater contamination, including, but not limited to tritium

contamination of drinking water wells and other off site ground water locations. (VS-WW-2) 

Comment: there is ample evidence in the publicly available records for Vermont Yankee that

numerous spills occurred during operations under the original license and the facility engaged in

shoddy record keeping to document the extent and location of such events.1 Thus, including a

complete inventory and analysis of all the items in the list within the scope of the EIS for

Vermont Yankee license renewal makes good practical sense based on the historical record for

this licensee. Further, as the NRC is aware, tritium contamination--which is a part of the

historical record for this facility--has become a major issue at reactor sites across the country.

Thus, on and off site tritium contamination due to past (and continued) operation of the Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Station should be thoroughly investigated, including all sources and

pathways on and off site, to assure if the NRC renews VY’s license it will not permit continued

radioactive contamination of groundwater. (VS-WW-5)

Comment: In July of 1975, did faulty valves discharge radioactive water into the Connecticut

River and Atlantic fisheries? In 1995 did faulty fuel assemblies interfere with valve closing? An

adequate scope of environmental assessment will require an extensive period for assessing

contamination levels in air, water, soil, plant, animal tissues. Adequate scope will establish

radiation monitoring in a 100-mile radius of the Vernon reactor in Massachusetts, New

Hampshire and Vermont, on an ongoing basis for the remainder of the license period.

(VS-FFF-3)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: The comments relate to potential health effects from radiation exposure. The GEIS

concluded that public radiation exposure is a Category 1 issued based on the assumption that

the plant continues to meet NRC and EPA dose regulations. As part of its search for new and

significant information, the NRC staff will review recent results from the licensee’s effluent and

environmental radiological monitoring programs. In addition, the NRC staff will review recent

reports from the environmental radiological monitoring program conducted by the Vermont

Department of Health (VDH) around Vermont Yankee. The staff regards information from the

effluent and environmental reports over the last several years as the best source of information

to use to assess the expected levels of radiological impact during the license renewal period. 

The radiological effluent and environmental monitoring programs and the impacts from

VYNPS’s radiological effluents will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.

In 1990, the U.S. Congress requested that the National Cancer Institute study cancer rates in

the areas surrounding nuclear facilities, such as nuclear power plants, to determine if there are

detrimental effects on the population. VYNPS was included in the study. This extensive report

found no evidence that nuclear facilities may be linked causally with excess deaths from

leukemia or from other cancers in populations living nearby. The comments concerning cancer

provide no new and significant information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

Comment: The company uses an oxidizer called glutaraldehyde in small parts, two-tenths of a

part per million. It triggers asthma. Two-tenths of a part per million exceeds California's

occupational exposure standards. In all the regulation, we don't find any place that the

regulation anticipates spray. It anticipates fumes. It anticipates skin contact, but I don't think

any regulator ever figured you would spray people with this stuff. The glutaraldehyde plus,

surfactant, anti-rust compounds, other pesticides, other biocides, and fluorine and bromine

compounds are used by the company. The water gets circulated in the cooling towers. It flows

out in spray. It goes up to a mile downwind. And I just want to point out that in terms of

concentrations as those droplets travel, they dry and we don't know what the concentrations are

when they land on the skin, but unless it's quantified, we have to assume that it's toxic. Unless

it's quantified, we have to assume that there are health effects and those things need to be

measured in the Village of Vernon and across the river in Hinsdale. (VS-DD-10)

Response: The comment relates to potential releases of chemicals in the cooling tower drift

from Vermont Yankee. Specifically, the comment relates to a chemical called glutaraldehyde

that Entergy added to the cooling water as part of a commercially available biocide mixture. 

Entergy discontinued use of the glutaraldehyde in the fall of 2005. The use of chemicals in the

cooling water at Vermont Yankee is regulated by air and water permits, such as the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, issued by the Vermont Agency for Natural

Resources. The NRC staff will review those permits and discuss the environmental impacts of

chemical releases in the cooling tower drift in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-28 August 2007

Comment: Issue 89 (Water Quality) The Agency believes that groundwater and surface water

quality are issues of great importance to Vermonters and should be subject to a site specific

analysis. With respect to groundwater, it would be very useful to determine the natural

background levels of radionuclides at the Entergy Vermont Yankee facility and in the vicinity of

regional monitoring devices. What is the potential contribution to groundwater of constituents

from land spreading of low-level constituents on site? How will both the natural and

anthropogenic background levels be used when determining whether future releases from the

facility exceed health standards? (VS-AAA-6)

Response: The comment concerns potential radiological contamination in ground and surface

water. Groundwater is monitored by Entergy both within the boundaries of the VYNPS site and

outside. Entergy has installed test wells for monitoring the ground water around the periphery

of the on-site land-spreading plot where the sludge from the on-site septic tanks is periodically

disposed. The State of Vermont also monitors the ground water at several locations in the

vicinity of the site. The results of Entergy’s and the State’s monitoring programs are published

annually. These monitoring programs will be described in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS. 

Cumulative radiological impacts will be discussed in Section 4.8.3 of the SEIS.

A.1.11 Comments Concerning Socioeconomics

Comment: From an economic standpoint, I would just quickly say that a stable, relatively lowcost power provider will help to maintain and expand businesses here in Vermont, while at the

same time providing for an opportunity to bring and attract new businesses to the state. In a

time where Vermont faces an increasing, aging population, the plant provides employment to

600 highly skilled men and women. These individuals and the company provide more than 200

million in economic benefits to the Windham County Region and the state as a whole. 

According to the Vermont Public Board, I'm sorry, the Public Service Department, the company,

through the State's Power Purchase Agreement, will provide customers in Vermont,

approximately 250 million dollars in savings over the life of the contract. (VS-G-2)

Comment: We have seen and been instrumental in the plant's continued enhancements and

upgrades, most recently during the power uprate process. The cost of Vermont Yankee's power

to Vermont consumers like myself is also far below regional market prices. As a baseload

generator, we are able to provide lower cost power which is so critical for this state. (VS-AA-2)

Comment: From an economic standpoint, a stable, relatively low-cost power provider helps to

maintain and expand businesses in Vermont, while at the same time providing an opportunity to

attract new business. In a time when Vermont faces an increasing, aging population the plant

provides employment to 600 highly skilled men and women. Those individuals in the company

provide more than $200 million in economic benefits to the Wyndham County region and the

State of Vermont as a whole. (VS-BB-2)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: According to the Vermont Public Service Department, the company through the

power purchase agreement, will provide Vermont customers approximately $250 million in

savings over the life of the contract. This estimate, it should be noted, was made when energy

prices were far lower than they are today. And in fact, at 3.95 cents per kilowatt hour, Vermont

Yankee power today costs Vermonters 40 percent less than other sources of electricity. This

matters most to Vermont's elderly and the poor. (VS–BB-3)

Comment: The economic impact of shutting down or not granting a license extension for

Vermont Yankee is very, very severe. To take one third of the electricity out of the state, one

third of what it needs to run, that electricity has to be generated somewhere and come from

some other means. (VS-GG-1)

Comment: Living within about 14 miles of a nuclear plant weighs on the minds of people, and

my friends and neighbors virtually unanimously feel a strain whenever they think about Vermont

Yankee. I am in both the construction trades and farming, self-employed in both fields, and as a

contractor, dealing with others in that line of work, I have seen how strongly many people in

construction feel an aversion to the Vernon, Vt., area because of uneasiness about the nuclear

plant. I have heard builders voice scruples against building spec housing in that area. They

wouldn't want to live there themselves and don't feel right about selling a family a house so

close to the potential danger of meltdown, or the actual, ongoing radiation health hazard from

the plant's operation. The town of Vernon remains quite sparsely populated despite taxes being

low, and I believe appropriate concern about the nuclear power plant explains why. The effects

of worry don't cease at the town boundary, either—by harming the peace of mind, they

negatively influence the choices of home buyers, adders-on and renovators, and of businesses

looking to relocate in a radius of easily a dozen or perhaps 20 miles. (VS-LLL-1)

Response: The comments relate to socioeconomic issues. Socioeconomic issues will be

discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.

A.1.12 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents

Comment: I'm very concerned about dry-cask storage, alongside the Connecticut River which

flows through Massachusetts and Connecticut to the Long Island Sound and just the idea that

nuclear radioactivity could be carried by that water all the way to Long Island Sound should give

us great pause. I believe we have to take responsibility right now for the effect that we are

having because we are already seeing its effects upon our children and grandchildren. 

(VS-B-4)

Comment: We, there's many of us in the local citizenry know that our environment, our homes,

our farms, our entire livelihood are at risk here. If there's ever a sizeable release of

radioactivity, then our property values will plummet. Our ability to sell, possibly even eat our 
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-30 August 2007

own produce, will be diminished. And I can't imagine a greater environmental impact than that. 

I mean we're talking about all or nothing, here. And I don't know whether you want to try to do a

mathematical analysis of all or nothing, or not. 

But from my perspective, it doesn't make any sense. If there's any possibility, that there's going

to be any kind of impact like that, then I think that the NRC can only include that in the

environmental scoping. (VS-H-2)

Comment: At a recent ACRS hearing in Rockville, Maryland, NRC staff, I think maybe it was

NRR staff, testified that in a design-basis accident or loss of cooling accident, under upgraded

conditions, which they're not looking at, of course, with this re-licensing thing. The entire

quantity of the core would be released in about 30 seconds. And accident impacts after uprate,

are greater than the 20 percent uprate, they may approach 40 percent, maybe more. And this

might result in a 500 roentgen exposure at the limiting location, which happens to be very near a

residence, which happens to be on the plant perimeter. I submit that such an accident would

have a significant impact on the person or family living there. So I would ask the NRC to

recalculate. That goes on and on, I'm going to skip. (VS-M-4)

Comment: The other thing, quarrel I have with your cost estimates, is that you skip Indian

Point, hypothetical accident costs for Indian Point. I don't blame the NRC for skipping Indian

Point. Lots of folks live down there. The cost of an accident would be astronomical, but it's not

good science to leave out a big outlier like that, in this case. (VS-M-7)

Comment: This afternoon is the first time, maybe the second time I've heard that the reactor is

70 feet in the air, which is a decision as to whether or not any kind of explosion would suck

water and dirt into the air and emit, you know, to the hills, but it would probably be buffeted. 

Like there is a higher rate of survivor-hood, on the other side of the mountains from Hiroshima. 

That it's at, you're buffeted by the earth. (VS-P-1)

Comment: I urgently request that you refuse to re-license the VT Yankee Nuclear Power Plant 

I am extremely worried about the dangers of this aging plant and all the harm it can do to us, as

residents of the Pioneer Valley. I live immediately downwind, to the S. of Vernon, and I am an

educator. We all know we will not be protected from the radiation of a nuclear accident. Yes,

we need cheap electrical power. I am unwilling however, to risk our lives for this. I will insure

my car, my home, etc, but there is no insurance to protect us from radiation damage to our

health, or from a terrorist attack. Already there are radiation and chemical leaks. What are you

trying to do to us? (VS-DDD-1) (VS-MMM-1)

Comment: Another quarrel I have with the GEIS is that early fatality calculations are based on

a 50-mile radius from reactors, however graphs in the report only show numbers for a 150-mile

radius. Where are the numbers for a 50-mile radius?
Appendix A

August 2007 A-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

The GEIS cost estimates on an accident at a reactor, based on outdated cost information from

1980 updated only to 1994, 12 years ago, is flawed for a number of reasons. First, the outdated

cost information, aforementioned, should be updated to reflect current reality. Second, you did

not include Indian Point. This is disingenuous. Although it may be an “outlier” due to the large

population living within 50 miles of its reactors, nevertheless an accident there would have an

enormous impact on the economy of New England, and the entire country. It should not be left

out of your accident consequence cost calculations. (VS-HHH-6)

Response: The comments relate to Category 1 design-basis and severe accidents issues. 

Environmental impacts of postulated design basis and severe accidents will be discussed in

Chapter 5 of the GEIS.

A.1.13 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

Comment: Vermont Yankee had gotten permission to store contaminated soil on site, starting

back, I think in 1998, maybe a little earlier. And, at the time, the amount was some excavated

soil from a construction project, about 135 cubic yards. And then roughly at 35 or 40 cubic

yards per year, they anticipated generating through contaminated sanding salts from the roads

from silt in the cooling towers, and also from waste sludge. And, in 2004, Entergy received

permission to increase that amount. They had accumulated, they thought, about 500 cubic

meters of contaminated soil on site, and they wished to dispose of, on-site, an additional 150

cubic meters per year. That's about ten big dump truck loads. And this disposal site or, excuse

me, this storage site is on the south end of the site, just south of the cooling towers. It is

constantly sprayed down with what is called drift, sideways spray from the cooling towers. It is

on the riverbank. We believe that the phenomenon of bio uptake, of sedimentary separation, of

chemical combination, can leach and separate and concentrate the radioactive material in that

disposed of or stored soil, complicating decommissioning, polluting the river, winding up in the

biota. And so we believe that should also be investigated as part of the environmental

assessment. (VS-D-3)

Comment: So we have to run the other way to nuclear. You have to really think hard about all

of the nuclear waste that's going to be with us forever. And will Entergy be with us forever. As

long as it takes for the radiation to dissipate. (VS-L-5)

Comment: Especially if Entergy gets its way and does not even have to provide berms around

the casks. And, of course, there's also a flooding danger. In 1991, there was a study regarding

the construction of a low-level waste repository down on the plant grounds, and it was deemed

not wise. (VS-N-3)

Comment: Nuclear is not cheap electricity. Protect the waste for 100,000 years, tell us how

much that's going to cost. Spend some of that money to protect that waste, and then tell us it's

cheap, affordable or inexpensive electricity. I challenge you on that. To anyone who claims that
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-32 August 2007

there was a benefit to nuclear power, please show me this cost benefit analysis, including the

price of dealing with this waste. Because the rate we're given as for the power purchase

agreement, from 2002, does not tell us the true cost of the economics behind this. (VS-O-1)

Comment: But we know that this is not clean, there's no answer for the waste. You know

Vermonters don't want this. (VS-RR-2)

Comment: We were asking the same questions then that we're asking the NRC now, and that

is, why produce power when you don't know what to do with the waste? When you don't know

what to do with the waste. When you don't know what to do with the waste. When the waste,

now, has become subject to the possibility of a terrorist attack. (VS-VV-2)

Comment: CAN contends that the following are proper subjects of environmental concern that

should be fully investigated prior to renewal of the Vermont Yankee license to operate:

1. Subjects to include in a supplement to the GEIS for Vermont Yankee and analyze in depth:

1.1 Accumulation of low-level radioactive waste on site.

1.2 Accumulation of chemical wastes on site.

1.3 Extent of on and off site contamination due to radioactive materials, chemicals and

other VY waste in on and off site locations, including, but not limited to disposal in the

Brattleboro and other area landfills that are now part of the Windham Solid Waste Management

District and/or out of state landfills utilized by the WSWMD.

1.4 Extent of site contamination due to chemical and other hazardous wastes, including,

but not limited to PCB contamination in paint, accumulated TCE, PERC and other organic

solvents, lead, and asbestos. (VS-WW-1)

Comment: 1. Subjects to include in a supplement to the GEIS for Vermont Yankee and

analyze in depth: 

1.7 Extent of radionuclide inventory and location of radioactive waste accumulated in

on-site disposal locations for contaminated silt, sand, soil, sewage and other materials. 

(VS-WW-3)

Comment: In the event that Vermont Yankee is given an additional twenty years (or less) of

operation under license renewal, now is the time to access the above listed environmental

issues in order to inventory and fully analyze the extent of these problems at the originally

contemplated end-of-life for this reactor. This inventory and analysis is appropriate, as the use

and improper disposal of many of the environmental hazards listed above, along with on-site

disposal of construction waste during construction of the facility, were commonly accepted and

customary business and industrial practices during a major portion of the original license period.

 (VS-WW-4)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Issue 87 (Waste Management) The Agency is suggesting that low level radioactive

waste issue should be evaluated on a site specific basis. Title 10 Vermont Statue Annotated

contains §7066 (c) states:

No generator of low-level radioactive waste in the state existing on the date of enactment of this

action may increase its generation of waste in a year by more than 20 percent of the total

annual volume of waste from all generators estimated for disposal by the secretary of natural

resources, under subdivision 7065(a)(3) of this title, unless that generator receives a favorable

determination from the secretary of natural resources that disposal capacity will be available as

provided by section 3.04(11) of the compact agreement.

The Agency would like to know whether Entergy Vermont Yankee will increase production of

low-level radioactive waste as a consequence of the renewal and, if so, will any increase remain

in compliance with the state statutory requirements regarding low level radioactive waste

generation, minimization, and reporting. (VS-AAA-5)

Comment: Assessors will compare cultural willingness to isolate materials no longer in use,

when those materials pose a health risk, whether is no longer interest in those materials, or

whether substantial bribes are available to sell nuclear remains illegally, in both prosperous and

desperate times. An adequate assessment team will include sociologists who can assess the

human factors relevant for environmental protection for the length of time needed for isolating

wastes produced in a twenty year period, not the environmental protection needed in a twenty

year period. (VS-FFF-5)

Comment: I think the uranium that's mined to operate this nuclear power plant, is coming from

native land, from very, people that have lived for over 30, what, 40 years, with the tailings of the

uranium mining. And why doesn't the environmental scoping include the people that live, you

know, with these tailings, with the still births and the water, from the water, from the polluted

water, from the polluted air. (VS-R-1)

Comment: For the people who are trying to tell us that nuclear energy is clean and it doesn't

contribute to greenhouse gases, are not taking into consideration the amount of nonrenewable

energy used to dig up and process the uranium, to make it into a fissionable form. (VS-U-1)

Comment: In the uprate proceeding before the Vermont Public Service Board, Entergy

presented quite a remarkable witness, Dr. Ernest Moniz, M-O-N-I-Z, from MIT and he is a

former Assistant Secretary of Energy and I had the privilege of cross examining the good doctor

and he made some startling admissions. Number one is that all of the fuel, commercial nuclear

fuel produced in the United States to his best recollection was produced at the Portsmouth

enrichment plant and the Paducah enrichment plant and both of those plants, which absorb

enormous quantities of electricity in the process, are supplied by coal-fired stations.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-34 August 2007

My question for Dr. Moniz was well, then the pollution gets here ahead of the fuel, doesn't it?

And in fact, the mercury that some speaker referred to earlier, those heavy, heavy coal-fired

plants in Ohio and the ones that provide electricity to enrich nuclear fuel, among the dirtiest, do

send their mercury to our waters and our fish. (VS-DD-1)

Comment: The facts show us that huge amounts of pollution are released during the mining

and processing of uranium for fuel rods. (VS-JJJ-2)

Response: The comments relate to Category 1 uranium fuel cycle and waste management

issues. The environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle including waste disposal will be

addressed in Chapter 6 of the SEIS.

A.1.14 Comments Concerning Alternative Energy Sources

Comment: We also do not have to demand so much electricity. We don't really require it. Our

inflated desires for the expansion of electrical power have been -- are a 20th century notion of

progress at any cost. The cost is now coming due and we are going to have to begin paying for

the expansion....And I very much want to hear the NRC, the Regulatory Commission and other

leaders in our country talking about conservation. This is indeed a war. It's as if we are at war

against our unchecked desire to progress at the expense of other nations and at the expense of

the environment. And we can indeed change our ways and show a willingness to conserve. 

(VS-B-2)

Comment: I don’t think it should continue. It should be closed down. We should be looking for

safer forms of energy production and we should be conserving. (VS-C-3)

Comment: The Partnership fully supports the re-licensing of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Plant in Vernon and I will explain to you why. It is no secret that Vermont's demand for

energy is continuing to grow. It may be a less known fact, however, that Vermont faces

uncertainty over its future energy supply. Currently, one-third of Vermont's electric supply

comes from Hydro Quebec. These long-term contracts with the state will begin to expire in

2014, and there is no guarantee that these contracts will either be renewed or renegotiated

given the company's, Hydro Quebec's more local business opportunities in the province. 

Another approximate one-third of our supply here in Vermont, is made up of a wide array of both

in-state and out-of-state sources, renewable and non-renewable. The Partnership supports the

in-state development of renewable sources, and we encourage the increased used of energy

efficiency in the expansion on conservation measures. However, the fact remains a reliable

energy portfolio, here in Vermont, must be made up elsewhere, of base load sources of power. 

Vermont Yankee accounts for the last one-third of our Vermont portfolio.

About 34 percent of Vermont's total electricity supply needs are met by the Vermont Yankee

Plant. So let me put this debate into proper context. Vermont has not brought on a single,
Appendix A

August 2007 A-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

significant power generating facility in over 20 years. And there are no plans to do so in the

near term. To make matters worse, proposals to develop small scale generation in Vermont,

have been met with sharp criticism and serious opposition.

In a time when energy costs are at their highest, Vermont Yankee will not only play an essential

role in our state's energy portfolio, it is critically important to the Vermont economy and

environment. (VS-G-1)

Comment: In 2005, alone, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, Vermont Yankee avoided

emissions of 7,700 tons of sulphur dioxide, 2,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 2.5 million tons of

carbon dioxide. Emissions of sulphur dioxide, lead to the formation of acid rain. Nitrogen oxide

is the precursor to both ground-level ozone and smog. And greenhouse gases, like carbon

dioxide, contribute to global warming.

We live in a country where half the electricity generated comes from coal-burning sources. Yet,

in Vermont, we can be very proud to say that that's not the case. Vermont Yankee does not

release harmful greenhouse gases or other toxins into the atmosphere which are the primary

cause for global warming. The issue of global warming, a climate change, has rapidly reached

alarming levels.

And power-generated facilities have been at the heart of that crisis. In the United States, coal is

the leading power provider with over 600 plants operating. Of these plants, of the 600 plants,

36 percent of all U.S. emissions are accounted by those plants' generation. It has become

abundantly clear that the nuclear energy is the only emission-free source that can meet

consumer demand, reliably and at a reasonable cost. Leading environmentalists, from around

the world, like Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Green Peace, have come to the conclusion that

nuclear power is the only source that can help remedy and save the planet from catastrophic

climate change.

Just last month, Dr. Moore said in the Washington Post, nuclear energy is the only large scale,

cost effective energy source that can reduce these emissions, while continuing to satisfy the

growing demand for power. And these days, in these days it can do so safely. He went on to

say that it's extremists who fail to consider the enormous and obvious benefits of nuclear power,

also fail to understand that nuclear energy is practical, safe and environmentally friendly.

Without Vermont Yankee, Vermont utilities would be forced to buy additional power on the spot

market that would be less reliable and certainly considerably more expensive. So the

Partnership asks, do Vermonters really want to pay more and to depend on power from fossil

fuel sources, such as natural gas and coal, which contribute to the global warming and the

earth's degradation? The Vermont Partnership thinks not. (VS-G-3)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-36 August 2007

Comment: I feel that in any electrical generation, no matter what type of process you are using,

there are benefits and risks. And I firmly believe that the benefits of nuclear power, greatly

exceed the risks. I know a lot of you are in disagreement. The main reason that I feel this way

is other than hydro-electric power, all of the other forms of electrical generation involve carbon

fuels. Either coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, you name it. All of these are going to produce

gases that are going to be harmful to the environment. They are going to produce greenhouse

gases. And I know some people don't believe in global warming, certainly the President of the

United States doesn't agree about global warming, but it does exist. (VS-I-2)

Comment: Because fossil fuels are going to diminish. China wants them, everybody else

wants them. They’re polluting the atmosphere. They’re going to kill the earth in just a very, very

few decades. Now with nuclear power we have the ability to get the fuel right here in North

America. We can use nuclear power to generate electricity. We can use nuclear power to

electrolyze water and get hydrogen. And hydrogen is going to be the fuel of the future. 

(VS-I-4)

Comment: About 30 years ago the Union of Concerned Scientists developed a program that

provided the way that the United States could be 70 percent solar-powered by the year 2000. 

Well, here it's 2006, and we're talking about energy problems and energy shortages.

Well, for the last 25 years, I've lived in a solar home that I built, and I've lived off the grid with

solar electricity from portable tag panels. If you came into my house, you wouldn't notice much

difference from your house. I have computers, I have monitors, I have televisions, I have a

microwave. I have a washing machine. I cook on electric hot plates in the summer and I cook

on a wood cook stove in the winter. I don't use any oil to heat my house. So when people tell

you that we need to risk the very ground that we stand on, that we need to risk making it

uninhabitable for 15 generations, in order to heat our homes and have electricity, it simply isn't

true. Technologically we can solve energy problems, we can do it without destroying the

environment. The problem is political and social. We need to say we want renewable energy, 

we are not willing to pay the price of the destruction of the earth, to heat our homes. (VS-J-1)

Comment: And I would like to suggest that we follow up and that each of us become

responsible for learning that, for example, our own Department of Energy has very firm studies

that clearly tell us that if we exerted the political and social will, we would have no need for any

of the risky enterprises that we use now to meet our needs for energy and heat. (VS-K-1)

Comment: I want to add that I question this assumption that we need more and more energy

and that the only choices are centralized forms of energy that use fossil fuels, coal that uses,

uranium. This is not an automatic assumption. One aspect of this renewal, as I understand it,

is to consider alternatives. And I want to ask my neighbors, who live in this area, to really look

seriously at alternatives. There are so many renewable options. There's solar, there's wind,

and people have a way of making it sound like, oh, well you know you really can't do that, that's
Appendix A

August 2007 A-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

not practical. That's not true. It's very practical, it's very doable. This is an article that's very

low researched. It's being done in other countries. It's being done in Western Europe. People

are putting solar panels on their homes and getting paid by the utility for producing that 

electricity. So we need to open our minds and not get into an either/or situation where people

saying well coal plants are so bad for the environment and it's making, causing global warming. 

(VS-L-4)

Comment: No other power generation source comes close to having to expend so much

money and so much energy, just to convince us that it won't kill thousands of us. If Entergy,

Excelon and others just invested in wind and solar, none of this would be necessary. I do hope

that you will consider that possibility in your NEPA required look at alternatives to re-licensing

ENVY. (VS-M-8)

Comment: In order for nuclear to cover the carbon-based emissions, better used in coal and in

natural gas plants, etcetera, we would have to have a new nuclear power plant built every two

weeks, between now and 2050. I don't think that's going to happen, sir. (VS-O-3)

Comment: But if we were to stop the creation of nuclear waste, and stop our mental

dependence on extremely bright street lights. Over, hugely over air-conditioned environments

and brought our electrical usage, personally at home, down to seriously conservative levels, that

we would feel some relaxation of social economic status stress, that is the equation of the

success of industrial America. And it's, you know, you're at that big decision point in your life,

where you straighten up and start respecting incredible simplicity, and really learn solar panel. 

Really contemplate wind farms and harness the hydro-electric potential in the rivers and

streams and waterfalls. And gauge down to accepting that as the amount of electricity that you

can look at and use. (VS-P-2)

Comment: Greenhouse gas emissions are a real problem and we need to do something about

it. We need to stop relying on fossil fuels for the generation of electricity and turn more towards

nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is safe, clean and readily available for use in this country, and

it does not contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions and helps keep our green mountains

green. To not allow Vermont Yankee to operate an additional 20 years, would be a significant

impact on our environment. (VS-Q-1)

Comment: I want to speak to alternatives. In my home town of Corinth, we publish Northern

Woodlands magazine. Last month--I want to give these, I don't have enough for all 25

employees, but I want to give you all a copy to read tonight in your hotel. “Energy From Wood: 

Turning Woodchips Into Power, Heat and Ethanol.” We have the answers. We have the

alternatives. We've listened to Amory Levans* [phonetic], Rocky Mountain Institute, and other

experts. We can use energy efficiency. (VS-R-3)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-38 August 2007

Comment: And, you know you do have a choice. Every worker has a choice. I don't think it's

our job to provide alternative jobs, but we can convert that plant, we can still have a good

economy, we can convert that plant, run it on gas, like I said we can use alternatives and

provide the same amount of energy. (VS-R-4)

Comment: We can develop the technology at a reasonable price, relatively much more

reasonable price than creating nuclear, keeping this plant alive, create wind power, geothermal,

which hasn't been mentioned. Geothermal energy and hydro energy to create sustainable

energy resources. I came from Maine. We closed Maine Yankee [sic]. They have a viable

renewal energy plan in Maine. They have a dam that actually has little elevators that lift the fish

uphill and people can buy into energy produced by that type of energy. Geothermal. There's a

lot of hope in what that can do. We have a heated core from the center of the Earth, that we're

not utilizing, we're not resourcing ourselves with that yet, except in areas of--when I say “we” I'm

thinking of this area. But other areas of the world and other parts of the country rely on 

geothermal energy for electricity and fuel already. So there are things that we can do and that's

what I think we should be focusing on, and it should be a regional discussion since it affects

regional issues. (VS-T-4)

Comment: In New York State, Congresswoman Nita Lowey commissioned a study by the

National Academy of Sciences about whether Indian Point could be replaced, the Indian Point

reactors. And it, in fact, found that Indian Point reactors could be replaced in the State of New

York. It wouldn't be easy, but it was possible. But why don't we have a National Academy of

Science study here? Why haven't our legislators called for that so that we can have an look at

what it would take to replace Vermont Yankee, not done by the NRC as part of their

environmental impact study which is set up to permit Vermont Yankee to go ahead, not done

just by the Public Service Commission which has mixed loyalties in terms of this, but a real 

study. It is the will that we have to exert on our legislators to do what's right. We need a clear

vision at this point of a safe energy future, a future that we know is safe for our children. (VS-W3)

Comment: Our work at the plant helps to make Vermont a cleaner, more prosperous place to

live. Without Vermont Yankee, the 620 megawatts that we currently supply to the New England

grid would have to come from a fossil fuel power plant. Wind power, the Connecticut River

hydro project and energy conservation, while all nice ideas, simply cannot replace the steady,

reliable, baseline power that we produce. Since opening in 1972, Vermont Yankee has

prevented more than 100 million tons of fossil fuel emissions from entering the atmosphere. 

This has been prevented not only by rendering an in-state coal plant unnecessary, but also from

reducing the amount of out-of-state electricity that we have to purchase, most of which would

come from coal plants, as coal still accounts for half of the power produced in America today. In

2005, Vermont Yankee avoided the emissions of 7,700 tons of sulphur dioxide; 2,000 tons of

nitrogen oxide and 2.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Emissions of sulphur dioxide lead

to the formation of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides are a key precursor of both ground level ozone
Appendix A

August 2007 A-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

and smog and greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide contribute to global warming. The 2,000

tons of nitrogen oxide prevented by Vermont Yankee last year is the equivalent of what would

have been generated by 105,000 vehicles. For comparison, in Vermont, we have 280,000

registered cars. (VS-AA-1)

Comment: The partnership [Vermont Energy Partnership] fully supports the relicensing of the

Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon and I will explain why. It is no secret that

Vermont's demand for energy is continuing to grow. But it may be a less known fact that

Vermont faces uncertainty over its future energy supply. Currently, one third of Vermont's

electric supply comes from the Hydro Quebec -- from Hydro Quebec. And these long-term

contracts will begin to expire starting in 2014. There is no guarantee that the contracts will

either be renewed or renegotiated, given the other more local business opportunities Hydro

Quebec has in the province. Another approximate one third of Vermont's electric supply is

made up of a wide array of both in-state and out-of-state renewable sources and nonrenewable

sources. The Partnership supports the in-state development of renewable energy supplies,

encourages the increased use of energy efficiency and the expansion of conservation

measures. However, the fact remains a reliable energy portfolio must be made up of a

baseload source of power. Vermont Yankee accounts for the last one third of the Vermont

portfolio, energy portfolio. About 34 percent of Vermont's total electricity supply needs are met

by Vermont Yankee today. So let me put this debate in further context. Vermont has not

brought online a significant power generating facility in over 20 years and there are no plans to

date to do so in the near future. To make matters worse, proposals to develop small-scale

generation in Vermont have been met with sharp criticism and severe opposition.

In a time when energy costs are at their highest, the Vermont Yankee plant will not only play an

essential role in our state's energy portfolio, it is critically important to Vermont's economy and

environment. (VS-BB-1)

Comment: Today, we live in a country where half of the electricity generated comes from coalburning sources, yet Vermonters can be proud to say that that is not true here. Vermont

Yankee is a clean, emissions-free facility. Unlike fossil fuel-generating facilities, nuclear power

does not release harmful greenhouse gases and other toxins into the atmosphere that are the

primary cause for global warming.

It is becoming abundantly clearly that nuclear energy is the only emissions-free source that can

meet consumers' demand for reliability and at a reasonable cost. Leading environmentalists

around the world, like Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, have come to the

conclusion that nuclear power is the only source that can help remedy and save the planet from

catastrophic climate change. Just last month, Dr. Moore said in the Washington Post “nuclear

energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these greenhouse

emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. In these days, it can do so

safely.” He went on to say, “the extremists who fail to consider the enormous and obvious
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-40 August 2007

benefits of nuclear power also fail to understand that nuclear energy is practical, safe and

environmentally friendly.” In closing, without Vermont Yankee, Vermont utilities will be forced to

buy additional power on the spot market that would be less reliable and considerably more

expensive.

Do Vermonters really want to pay more and be dependent on power from fossil fuel sources

such as natural gas and coal which now contribute to global warming and the earth's

degradation? The Vermont Energy Partnership thinks not. (VS-BB-4)

Comment: Entergy, because it's also a public -- not a public, but a privately-owned utility

company, also sells its electricity out on the market and trades. Traders buy it and compete for

whatever can be generated. So for Vermont Yankee, all of its electrical generating capacity 

has been planned out for 2006. That's the rest of this year and for part of 2007. All that

electricity has already been sold and paid for, speculatively, by traders, by the national grid, by

whoever Entergy can sell the power to.

So there isn't any way that they can now change the cost of that electricity that they've sold it for

and I don't know the numbers. I just know that it was sold. So it's committed to this generation

of a set price of baseload power and baseload power means that it's running 24/7 at a very

even amount and I think Vermont Yankee is now at 650 kilowatt hours or something -- huh? 

Megawatt hours, right, sorry. So they've already sold all this to the grid and the grid has already

agreed to a price, but the national grid or the regional grid actually for New England currently

has a surplus. There's extra electricity out there. We don't actually have to have part of the

electricity that's coming from VY right now. And I don't know the technical aspects of how the

grid works, what happens to this extra electricity.

But what we need to do is to investigate other ways of producing this electricity and to make it

economically unfeasible for Entergy to continue running Vermont Yankee at its rate right now,

which does not mean firing all the workers. (VS-CC-1)

Comment: Energy efficiency and conservation are the easiest and lowest cost ways of

reducing that energy demand. It's already been estimated that even in Vermont, if we replace

five lightbulbs with compact fluorescents and a refrigerator or other major appliance like an air

conditioner or home heating, other large electrical demand with energy-efficient or EnergyStarrated appliances, we could reduce the demand in Vermont by 25 percent. Now this does

require the participation of every household or double participation by half the households. But I

don't think that that's an unreasonable goal to have, especially since it would mean that we

would no longer have to depend on Vermont Yankee's electrical generation. (VS-CC-2)

Comment: So in order to think about what other choices we have and what we need to do, as

individuals, it's really hard to think about wind power and solar power and what can we do as

individuals. The best thing that I can think of that we need to do is to read. Read books, read
Appendix A

August 2007 A-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

magazines, read articles, go to the web and Harvey Wasserman has a wonderful book out

called Solar Topia which is a fantasy, but it gives you something to hold on to and something to

dream about and something to think about of how you can apply it to your every day life. In it he

says that basically wind power right now, as it is technologically developed is capable of

replacing a majority of the electrical generation in the United States from fossil fuels and nuclear

power. We're not just talking about only nuclear. (VS-CC-3)

Comment: Now some of the complaints about wind power are that it kills birds. Well, the first

wind towers that went up and I can't remember where the path in California where they went up,

those wind towers were placed -- yes -- those wind towers were designed without thinking about

the birds. They were like the erector set towers that have lots of braces, four legs and cross

bracing and then finally the wind turbine at the top. Well, what was happening was that the

birds were resting on these bracings and then when they'd see a squirrel or a chipmunk or

whatever they wanted to get, these birds of prey would then fly down and get knocked out by

the blades as they were coming around. Well, now the towers are not built like that. They're

single pole structures, so there's nothing the birds can rest on. The other thing is that the

turbines turn so slowly now that you'd really have to have a suicidally-depressed bird to fly into

one of these and get knocked out. So the arguments about birds is really unfounded [sic]. (VSCC-4)

Comment: the other thing about nuclear power, not nuclear power, wind power is that it's not

something that's just a dream. In 2002, the Conference on American Wind Power Generating

Association, was attended by maybe 1500 people. Last year, it was attended by more than

5,000 people. It had grown so much that it is not something that's just a pipe dream. You can

go and visit wind towers that are installed in Vermont, in New Hampshire and in Massachusetts

right now and see how they operate. You can listen that they're not noisy and you can talk to

the residents there who live next to them who really like their wind power. (VS-CC-5)

Comment: And if it is a fossil means, whether it's oil, coal or gas, it's going to increase the

pollutants that are going in the air. It will affect the environment, much, much, more worse than

what the effect is of nuclear power. The 100 million tons that the government talked about, that

is a very, very significant amount of pollutants in the air and there's empirical data that supports

that that has caused global warming and that is now causing the oceans to heat up and that is

having a dramatic effect on things like hurricanes. The number of hurricanes that we're having

now is a direct result of this global warming. (VS-GG-2)

Comment: Another thing I wanted to touch on here, just very briefly, is that there was a report

by the National Academy of Sciences that talked about Indian Point. One of the key

conclusions of that report are that the economic and environmental impact of closing those

plants, shutting those plants down, was very significant. And that was the key conclusion of it. 

So I urge you to educate yourself, read about it, and understand, you know, the impact of

closing down a plant like Vermont Yankee. (VS-HH-2)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-42 August 2007

Comment: When we first started making power in this country, a lot of heavy polluters. We're

all ruining the environment. We're damming up rivers for hydro, a lot of coal-fired power plants,

the most abundant source of electricity in this country is coal. Fifty-eight percent of our power in

the United States is made from coal. We're the largest coal burning country in the world, as a

matter of fact. We're starting to see a lot of the results of that over the years. (VS-II-1)

Comment: We're looking at 20 more years of operation from this facility right here. I believe

that there will be a better technology one day and than our current technology for making power. 

I honestly believe that. We're on the verge of a lot of those things right now to this. Hydrogen

cell power, but scientists are predicting right now that maybe ten years, possibly twenty years to

be able to make megawatts of hydrogen cells. Ironically, nuclear power plants produce

hydrogen. But then we use some more energy to take that hydrogen and re-combine it back

with the oxygen and make water out of it and put it back to the power plant. So imagine if you

have a hydrogen cell sitting outside a nuclear power plant to make power from that hydrogen. 

Stepping stones of technology. I think that we can't get from one point to another point to being

completely nuclear free without going through that process. We started out with plants years

ago, but we've improved on those technologies. We've made them more efficient. We've

learned from our lessons of the past and made better plants to continue on in the future with. 

(VS-II-2)

Comment: One day, we'll reach that point where we can probably start shutting down these

plants. But that day isn't today. Six hundred twenty megawatts of power electric. What scares

me is how are going to, if we shut this plant down in 2012, where are going to produce that

power from right now? That's baseload electricity. That's not wind power with a 20 percent

efficiency factor. Those numbers you can look them up on NEPAX. It's a website that tells how

much power the capacity, how much those places actually stay online. (VS-II-3)

Comment: I'll support any power made from any source that's safe like that. I believe Vermont

Yankee is a very safe plant having worked there for as long as I have. But I don't believe that

we're going to be ready in the next 10 or 15 years to get away from nuclear power. It's not

feasible. We're not going to be able to produce 620 megawatts without going to coal, without

going to gas power, which gas has been touted as being the clean source of energy, it's not. It

produces half of the amount of waste that our coal plants produce. (VS-II-4)

Comment: Oil is out of the question. Oil is like less than 10 percent, less than 5 percent of the

entire production of power in this country, just because of the unavailability of it and that we

need it for automobiles and other things like that, other smaller, small-type things. But consider

that. Consider where we're going to get our power from if we shut this plant down. We have to

get it from somewhere. It's not in my back yard. It's here. It's safe. We have a proven track

record of being safe. Why not continue for 20 more years. (VS-II-5)

Comment: I wanted to address first an issue that has come up over and over again that

Governor Salmon, I think was the first to speak to the issue of global warming and how nuclear
Appendix A

August 2007 A-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

is purported to be a solution, a near-term solution for global warming, just to say that it has been

shown in numerous studies, chief among them, out of Rocky Mountain Institute which is run by

world renown Emory Lovins and his wife, Hunter, a couple of researchers back in the late 1990s

looked at global carbon mitigation strategies, using nuclear and using renewables as two

alternative paths. And they discovered a finding that they put two different ways which I think

are provocative. One, that for every $100 spent on nuclear that could otherwise have been

spent on what we call renewables, an extra ton of carbon is released to the atmosphere that

would have otherwise been prevented. And that's because, as Ray Shadis pointed out earlier,

it's going to take many, many years of many, many hundreds of nuclear plants to begin to cut

back on the acceleration of global carbon using nuclear. And the energy efficiency and

renewable strategy is a much simpler, more direct, cost-effective way to go about it. (VS-JJ-1)

Comment: According to Rich Smalley, who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner for chemistry in

1996 for his work on nanotechnology by mid-century the world will require a doubling of its

current world-wide energy demand of 14 terawatts of power. To achieve this demand will

require the equivalent of one 1,000 megawatt power plant going online every day for nearly 38

years. And this is from Discover of February 2005 and I have it in the testimony here. Although

I assume the initial mandate of the NRC regarding environmental issues 30 to 40 years ago

concerned the rather micro impact that is of the areas immediately surrounding a nuclear plant,

certainly now the issue is equally a global concern of greenhouse gases, foremost carbon

dioxide. (VS-KK-1)

Comment: Dr. Arthur Westing, a resident of Putney, Vermont, 10 miles up the road, is an

expert. He has served on the faculty or been a research fellow at several education institutions,

including Harvard University, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. He has

served as the director of the United Nations Environmental Program Project, Peace, Security

and the Environment, and is the author of many articles and several books on the environment. 

At the moment, unfortunately, he is in Sweden. He told me he wished he could be here to

testify on the importance of Vermont Yankee to the energy future of Vermont and give his

wholehearted supported to the relicensing. I am submitting an email from him to me giving me

the authority to give you two letters he has written on energy and the environmental issues, as

well as his résumé. His latest letter cites a British report on the role of nuclear power and low

carbon economy which he uses to calculate the impact shown on the following page.

Thank you for beginning this lengthy process for the relicensing of Entergy and Nuclear

Vermont Yankee Power Plant. I hope the evidence supports a positive decision.

I think this is very important. It shows that for CO2 production from various sources of power,

that kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt of electricity for cradle to grave or a full production cycle. 

Coal, it's 891. Natural gas is 356. Photovoltaics, interestingly enough is 50, while wind and

nuclear are 16. Nuclear power is very important to the future energy of this world and this state

and please, I hope you consider relicensing it. (VS-KK-2)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-44 August 2007

Comment: They were also in error to dismiss as, quote, inadequate, alternative energy

sources. We need to understand that solar wind, biomass, geothermal and others are safe,

clean, dependable, and most important, sustainable. Conservation and efficiency should also

be added to the list. If given the billions in Federal subsidies that nuclear has enjoyed over the

years, these alternative energies could easily meet our energy needs without harming the

environment. (VS-LL-6)

Comment: Vermont Yankee produces enough electricity to power about 620,000 homes and it

does not burn fossil fuel. Over the years, this has avoided millions of tons of fossil air pollution. 

If Vermont Yankee were to close, it would be replaced with large amounts of fossil fuel

generation and greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming. (VS-MM-2)

Comment: Global warming. Are you concerned about global warming? Twenty years ago,

folks were, scientists were making quite a bit of noise about it, and the administrator at the time

said, nah. Do you believe it? And if you do believe global warming is an issue, and you think

it's upon us, do you want your power coming from coal-burning facilities that generate

greenhouse gases and smog? We know that our use of electricity contributes to global

warming. If you believe we can fulfill our electric needs in Vermont without Vermont Yankee's

baseload electricity, if you want economical power, then please listen closely. If you are

concerned about greenhouse gases, we can't afford this distraction of dangerous, dirty,

expensive source of electricity. Low cost, safe, clean power, zero greenhouse gases

emissions. That must be wind and solar. (VS-NN-1)

Comment: But I do believe that in the long run, we really need to embrace safe, clean energy--

wind, solar, and other sustainable long-term renewables....A reliable source of power must

include baseload power, so let's buy windpower from New York, if Governor Douglas won't get

out of the way and let the public get their wind generation in Vermont, when the wind's not

blowing we'll use hydro, and as a last resort, we'll use the power that we get off the open

market, not spot market, though. Vermonters overwhelmingly embrace renewable energy. 75

percent want wind. There's probably even more that want solar. Small-scale renewables. 

When the first incentive program came out in Vermont two years ago, they thought it would last

for two years. In seven months, it was all used up. People wanted solar. People wanted wind. 

Our elderly, who must choose between electricity, or food, or medicine, they need solar hot

water systems. They need energy audits. They need efficiency upgrades of their homes and

their apartments. And there's jobs in doing that. Lots of jobs. Vermont needs jobs. We need

plumbers, carpenters, engineers, concrete workers, electricians, energy planners, and that's

exactly why we need to implement a clean, renewable energy program today, putting nice

tradespeople to work. (VS-NN-2)

Comment: We're making that bet, and I think that that's a foolish bet because I think we're not

so dumb, that we're willing to take that risk, and I also think we're not so dumb that we can't
Appendix A

August 2007 A-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

create better technologies, safer technologies, other than continuing to rely on fossil fuels and

nuclear power and all the old standbys that we've continued to try to pretend are our only

choices. We have lots of choices to make, lots of decisions to make, and they can create jobs,

they can create energy, they can create a better life for the future inhabitants of this region. If

we're so smart to create this technology, so well, that we can be positive it's gonna be safe over

the next 20 years, why aren't we smart enough to make it better, to create safer nuclear power

plants with safer designs, and to close those that are no longer capable of operating safely? 

And why aren't we capable of beginning to create more wind and solar and conservation

technologies that could create immediate jobs for many more people who wouldn't have to be

as highly educated as the people who build nuclear power plants or decommission them? 

(VS-PP-2)

Comment: I think the solution, even better than soft-path technology of windmills and solar and

photovoltaics, which we need, is conservation. (VS-QQ-2)

Comment: We know there's other answers. I, for one, live off the grid. I don't rely on this

power, we don't need it, and like Clay said, 75 percent of Vermonters know this, and we can

move on. (VS-RR-3)

Comment: So let's take Commissioner David O'Brien who's the head of the state department

of Public Service. He put a $60 million figure on the cost that would come to Vermont

ratepayers if VY closed in 2008. Vermont Yankee provides roughly 250 megawatts to Vermont. 

That represents one-third of our Vermont total energy demand, which is about 750 megawatts.

A recent PSB study determined that energy efficiency measures could reduce Vermont's total

electricity use by 20 percent, or 150 megawatts. Let's apply that savings to what VY provides. 

Then we'd reduce the amount of power needed to replace VY to 100 megawatts. That's 250

minus 150. If it would cost Vermont 60 million bucks to replace the 250 megawatts over four

years, it would cost us 40 percent of that or $24 million to replace the 100 megawatts that would

remain, if we implemented all the efficiency measures we could. Now we're down to $24

million. Spread that over four years. That's $6 million a year, divided by 250,000 households in

Vermont, and the increase in each household's electricity bill for the entire year would be

roughly $24.00. That's not even considering the contribution from industrial and commercial

users. That doesn't sound like a lot of money to invest in freeing Vermont from this role in the

production of hundreds of tons and millions, hundreds of tons of radioactive waste, millions of

curies of deadly nuclear substances created by the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, stored on

the banks of the Connecticut River. It doesn't sound like a lotta money to spend to get rid of

Vermont Yankee. (VS-SS-1)

Comment: in 18 years in Princeton, all those years we have a windmill, thanks to the citizens

of that town, and they've now decided to improve on the windmill that has been there, and it has

provided well for, without any pollution at all, for 30 percent of the energy needed for that
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-46 August 2007

community. And I believe they're adding another windmill. I'm not sure of the statistics. But I

then went to Maine. Maine got rid of its nuclear power plant, Maine Yankee, I'm not sure what

year, and the governor of Maine has led the people that work for the government to create a

plan, a 50-point plan of creating renewable energies in the state of Maine. They're encouraging

cities and towns to develop renewable energies that they will market elsewhere, that universities

can use, that can provide jobs for people, that can be safe and viable for the next generations. 

Why don't we go that direction? I attended a recent conference at Smith College at which there

was all different kinds of renewables presented, and for the first time, I found out about

geothermal energy and that people in Massachusetts, at least there, I'm not sure about Vermont

or anywhere else, are utilizing geothermal energy for commercial buildings as well as residential

properties, either by going straight down to the center of the Earth, not the center, but down

where it's hotter than it is on the surface--I'm not sure how many feet down you have to go--but

going straight down or else spreading out along a piece of land next to your building and

creating energy right from the Earth itself, with of course no pollutants in that process at all. 

(VS-VV-1)

Comment: The assessment team will compare the environmental impact of wind, solar, hydro

and geo-thermal alternatives as if they enjoyed the full insurance and financial benefits enjoyed

by nuclear energy utilities, and report those comparisons year by year for operations for 10,000

generations-- or for the length of time future generations will need to manage our waste without

benefit. (VS-FFF-4)

Comment: The facts show that our region could produce power more cheaply and without any

pollution or risk of pollution by starting to install wind towers offshore or in the hills of our region

over the next 5 years. The facts show that this region could reduce its power needs significantly

by educating people about compact fluorescent bulbs, insulation, heat pumps, more efficient

appliances, solar hot water heaters, and hundreds of ways of conserving energy. The mere

price of electricity is currently a huge incentive for conservation, but other tax incentives could

also help us to reduce our power needs to a level that would allow the Vernon facility to close in

5 years. (VS-JJJ-4)

Response: The comments relate to alternative energy development and conservation. The

environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal will be addressed in Chapter 8

(alternatives) of the SEIS; they include conservation (demand-side management) and

renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy.

| Part II – Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

|

| Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff transmitted the Generic Environmental Impact

| Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

| Station, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1437, Supplement 30, referred to as the draft 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [SEIS]) to Federal, State, and local government |

agencies; certain Indian tribes; and interested members of the public. As part of the process to |

solicit public comments on the draft SEIS, the NRC staff: |

|

 • Placed a copy of the draft SEIS into the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room, its license |

renewal website, and at the Vernon Free Library in Vernon, Vermont; the Brooks Memorial |

Library, in Brattleboro, Vermont; the Hinsdale Public Library in Hinsdale, New Hampshire; |

and the Dickinson Memorial Library in Northfield, Massachusetts. |

|

 • Sent copies of the draft SEIS to the applicant; members of the public who requested copies; |

representatives of certain Indian tribes; and certain Federal, State, and local agencies; |

|

 • Published a Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS in the Federal Register on December 22, |

2006 (71 FR 76706); |

|

 • Issued public announcements, such as advertisements in local newspapers and postings in |

public places, of the availability of the draft SEIS; |

|

 • Announced and held two public meetings at the Latchis Theater in Brattleboro, Vermont, on |

January 31, 2007, to describe the results of the environmental review and answer related |

questions; |

|

 • Issued public service announcements and press releases announcing the issuance of the |

draft SEIS, the public meetings, and instructions on how to comment on the draft SEIS; and |

|

 • Established an e-mail address to receive comments on the draft SEIS through the Internet. |

|

During the comment period, the NRC staff received a total of 32 comment letters and e-mail |

messages in addition to the comments received during the public meetings. |

|

The NRC staff has reviewed the public meeting transcripts and the 32 comment letters and |

e-mail messages that are part of the docket file for the application, all of which are available in |

the NRC's Public Document Room. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.2, contains a summary of the |

comments and the NRC staff's responses. Related issues are grouped together. Appendix A, |

Part II, Section A.3, contains references cited in the NRC staff's responses. Appendix A, Part II, |

Section A.4, contains excerpts of the January 31, 2007, public meeting transcripts, and Section |

A.5 contains the comment letters. |

|

Each comment identified by the NRC staff was assigned a specific alphanumeric identifier. That |

identifier is typed in the transcript at the end of the discussion of the comment or in the margin |

at the beginning of the discussion of the comment in a letter. The speakers at the meetings are |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-48 August 2007

| listed in speaking order. Table A-2 gives the commenter's ID and affiliation (if stated) and the

| source of the comment (i.e., public meeting transcript or comment letter).

|

| The NRC staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following:

|

| • A comment that was actually a question and introduces no new information.

|

| • A comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general (or

| specifically, VYNPS) or that makes a general statement about the licensing renewal

| process. It may make only a general statement regarding Category 1 and/or Category 2

| issues. In addition, it provides no new information and does not pertain to 10 CFR Part 54.

|

| • A comment about a Category 1 issue that provided new information that required evaluation

| during the review, or provided no new information.

|

| • A comment about a Category 2 issue that provided information that required evaluation

| during the review, or provided no such information.

|

| • A comment regarding alternatives to the proposed action.

|

| • A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS or the

| draft SEIS.

|

| • A comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 10 CFR Parts 51 or 54)

|

| • A comment on safety issues pertaining to 10 CFR Part 54.

|

| • A comment that was editorial in nature.

|

| There was no new and significant information provided on Category 1 issues, and for most

| Category 2 issues, no information that required further evaluation. Therefore, the conclusions in

| the GEIS and draft SEIS remained valid and bounding for most issues, and no further

| evaluation was performed.

|

| Comments without a supporting technical basis or without any new information are discussed in

| this appendix, and not in other sections of this report. Relevant references that address the

| issues within the regulatory authority of the NRC are provided where appropriate. Many of

| these references can be obtained from the NRC Public Document Room.

|

| Within each section of Part II of this appendix (A.2.1 through A.2.15), similar comments are

| grouped together for ease of reference, followed by the NRC staff's response. Where the

| comment or question resulted in a change in the text of the draft report, the corresponding 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

|

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS |

|

Commenter |

ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Section(s) |

Where |

Addressed |

A-1 Sally Shaw Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.4 |

A-2 Sally Shaw Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.1 |

A-3 Sally Shaw Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.9 |

B-1 Dr. Patrick Moore Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.3 |

B-2 Dr. Patrick Moore Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

B-3 Dr. Patrick Moore Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.12 |

B-4 Dr. Patrick Moore Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.3 |

B-5 Dr. Patrick Moore Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

C-1 Thomas P. Salmon Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

C-2 Thomas P. Salmon Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

D-1 Gary Sachs Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

D-2 Gary Sachs Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.1 |

D-3 Gary Sachs Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

D-4 Gary Sachs Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.1 |

D-5 Gary Sachs Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

E-1 Claire Chang Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

E-2 Claire Chang Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.11 |

E-3 Claire Chang Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.4 |

E-4 Claire Chang Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

E-5 Claire Chang Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

F-1 Amanda Ibey Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

F-2 Amanda Ibey Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

F-3 Amanda Ibey Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

F-4 Amanda Ibey Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.10 |

F-5 Amanda Ibey Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

F-6 Amanda Ibey Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

G-1 Howard Shaffer Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

H-1 Paul Bousquet Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

H-2 Paul Bousquet Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.9 |

H-3 Paul Bousquet Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

H-4 Paul Bousquet Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.12 |

H-5 Paul Bousquet Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.5 |

I-1 Daniel Marx Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.7 |

I-2 Daniel Marx Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

J-1 Arthur Greenbaum Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

J-2 Arthur Greenbaum Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

K-1 Emma Stamas Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

K-2 Emma Stamas Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

K-3 Emma Stamas Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-50 August 2007

| Table A-2. (contd)

|

| Commenter

| ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

| Section(s)

| Where

| Addressed

| K-4 Emma Stamas Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.5

| K-5 Emma Stamas Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.4

| K-6 Emma Stamas Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13

| K-7 Emma Stamas Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.13

| K-8 Emma Stamas Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| L-1 Sarah Kotkov Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.11

| L-2 Sarah Kotkov Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.11

| L-3 Sarah Kotkov Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| L-4 Sarah Kotkov Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.4

| M-1 Teresa Caldwell Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.4

| M-2 Teresa Caldwell Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| M-3 Teresa Caldwell Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| M-4 Teresa Caldwell Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.4

| M-5 Teresa Caldwell Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.1

| M-6 Teresa Caldwell Afternoon Meeting Transcript A.2.4

| N-1 Diana Sidebotham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| N-2 Diana Sidebotham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.11

| N-3 Diana Sidebotham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| N-4 Diana Sidebotham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| N-5 Diana Sidebotham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| N-6 Diana Sidebotham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.1

| N-7 Diana Sidebotham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.4

| N-8 Diana Sidebotham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.11

| N-9 Diana Sidebotham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.1

| O-1 Deb Katz Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| O-2 Deb Katz Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.9

| O-3 Deb Katz Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| O-4 Deb Katz Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.9

| O-5 Deb Katz Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.1

| O-6 Deb Katz Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.13

| P-1 Beth McElwee Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2

| Q-1 Bruce Wiggett Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.10

| Q-2 Bruce Wiggett Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2

| Q-3 Bruce Wiggett Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2

| R-1 Andy Davis Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| R-2 Andy Davis Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| S-1 Chris Williams Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| S-2 Chris Williams Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.4
Appendix A

August 2007 A-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table A-2. (contd) |

|

Commenter |

ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Section(s) |

Where |

Addressed |

S-3 Chris Williams Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |

T-1 Michael LaPorte Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

U-1 Bill Maguire Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

V-1 Ed Sprague Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

V-2 Ed Sprague Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12 |

W-1 Norman Raymond Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

X-1 Ann Howes Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.4 |

Y-1 Bernie Buteau Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.3 |

Y-2 Bernie Buteau Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12 |

Y-3 Bernie Buteau Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

Z-1 Jim Herrick Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

Z-2 Jim Herrick Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.11 |

Z-3 Jim Herrick Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.4 |

Z-4 Jim Herrick Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.1 |

Z-5 Jim Herrick Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

AA-1 Larry Cummings Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

AA-2 Larry Cummings Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.3 |

BB-1 Dave Mannai Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

BB-2 Dave Mannai Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

CC-1 Nick Caristo Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

CC-2 Nick Caristo Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

CC-3 Nick Caristo Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

DD-1 William Schulze Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

EE-1 Dick Brigham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12 |

EE-2 Dick Brigham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.9 |

EE-3 Dick Brigham Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.4 |

FF-1 Ida Belivet Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12 |

GG-1 Kent Belivet Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.4 |

HH-1 Roy Ramsdell Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

II-1 Brian Tietze Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2 |

JJ-1 Karen Murphy Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.1 |

JJ-2 Karen Murphy Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.9 |

JJ-3 Karen Murphy Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.8 |

JJ-4 Karen Murphy Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12 |

JJ-5 Karen Murphy Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.11 |

JJ-6 Karen Murphy Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

KK-1 Nina Keller Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15 |

KK-2 Nina Keller Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.13 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-52 August 2007

| Table A-2. (contd)

|

| Commenter

| ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

| Section(s)

| Where

| Addressed

| KK-3 Nina Keller Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.4

| KK-4 Nina Keller Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| KK-5 Nina Keller Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.1

| LL-1 Norm Redemacher Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2

| MM-1 Clay Turnbull Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.13

| MM-2 Clay Turnbull Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.1

| MM-3 Clay Turnbull Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| MM-4 Clay Turnbull Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.9

| NN-1 Gary Sachs Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| NN-2 Gary Sachs Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| NN-3 Gary Sachs Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| NN-4 Gary Sachs Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| NN-5 Gary Sachs Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| NN-6 Gary Sachs Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| NN-7 Gary Sachs Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.1

| OO-1 Sally Shaw Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.9

| OO-2 Sally Shaw Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| OO-3 Sally Shaw Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| OO-4 Sally Shaw Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.6

| OO-5 Sally Shaw Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.6

| OO-6 Sally Shaw Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| OO-7 Sally Shaw Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.12

| OO-8 Sally Shaw Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.9

| OO-9 Sally Shaw Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.9

| PP-1 Len Akin Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.2

| QQ-1 Howard Shaffer Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.15

| RR-1 John Shadis Evening Meeting Transcript A.2.4

| SS-1 Jesse Andersen Letter (ML070670094) A.2.10

| SS-2 Jesse Andersen Letter (ML070670094) A.2.2

| SS-3 Jesse Andersen Letter (ML070670094) A.2.9

| SS-4 Jesse Andersen Letter (ML070670094) A.2.13

| SS-5 Jesse Andersen Letter (ML070670094) A.2.12

| SS-6 Jesse Andersen Letter (ML070670094) A.2.15

| SS-7 Jesse Andersen Letter (ML070670094) A.2.13

| SS-8 Jesse Andersen Letter (ML070670094) A.2.2

| TT-1 Marcia Bourne Letter (ML070660048) A.2.5

| TT-2 Marcia Bourne Letter (ML070660048) A.2.1

| TT-3 Marcia Bourne Letter (ML070660048) A.2.15

| TT-4 Marcia Bourne Letter (ML070660048) A.2.12
Appendix A

August 2007 A-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table A-2. (contd) |

|

Commenter |

ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Section(s) |

Where |

Addressed |

UU-1 Walston Chubb Letter (ML070730161) A.2.9 |

VV-1 Pam Clark Letter (ML070670098) A.2.15 |

VV-2 Pam Clark Letter (ML070670098) A.2.13 |

WW-1 Jessica Culliry Letter (ML070730192) A.2.12 |

XX-1 Diane Curran Letter (ML070730200) A.2.11 |

YY-1 Sarah Edwards Letter (ML070730163) A.2.11 |

YY-2 Sarah Edwards Letter (ML070730163) A.2.11 |

ZZ-1 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070730196) A.2.9 |

ZZ-2 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070730196) A.2.9 |

ZZ-3 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070730196) A.2.9 |

ZZ-4 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070730196) A.2.9 |

ZZ-5 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070730196) A.2.9 |

ZZ-6 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070730196) A.2.9 |

ZZ-7 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070730196) A.2.9 |

AAA-1 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-2 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-3 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.15 |

AAA-4 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-5 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-6 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.1 |

AAA-7 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.1 |

AAA-8 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-9 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-10 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-11 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-12 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-13 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-14 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-15 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-16 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-17 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-18 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

AAA-19 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071130167) A.2.9 |

BBB-1 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.9 |

BBB-2 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.9 |

BBB-3 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.9 |

BBB-4 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.15 |

BBB-5 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.9 |

BBB-6 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.9 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-54 August 2007

| Table A-2. (contd)

|

| Commenter

| ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

| Section(s)

| Where

| Addressed

| BBB-7 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.9

| BBB-8 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.1

| BBB-9 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.1

| BBB-10 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML070790165) A.2.9

| CCC-1 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.1

| CCC-2 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.12

| CCC-3 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.12

| CCC-4 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.11

| CCC-5 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.11

| CCC-6 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.11

| CCC-7 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.7

| CCC-8 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.6

| CCC-9 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.6

| CCC-10 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.6

| CCC-11 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.6

| CCC-12 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.7

| CCC-13 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.7

| CCC-14 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.6

| CCC-15 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.14

| CCC-16 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.14

| CCC-17 Catherine Gjessing Letter (ML070730207) A.2.7

| DDD-1 Jim Herrick Letter (ML070670096) A.2.11

| DDD-2 Jim Herrick Letter (ML070670096) A.2.4

| DDD-3 Jim Herrick Letter (ML070670096) A.2.1

| DDD-4 Jim Herrick Letter (ML070670096) A.2.15

| EEE-1 Sarah Hofmann Letter (ML070790146) A.2.12

| FFF-1 Sherrill Hogen Letter (ML070670179) A.2.1

| FFF-2 Sherrill Hogen Letter (ML070670179) A.2.4

| GGG-1 George Iselin Letter (ML070670099) A.2.12

| GGG-2 George Iselin Letter (ML070670099) A.2.13

| HHH-1 Mariana Leonard Letter (ML070660049) A.2.5

| HHH-2 Mariana Leonard Letter (ML070660049) A.2.4

| HHH-3 Mariana Leonard Letter (ML070660049) A.2.12

| III-1 John Linville Letter (ML070670101) A.2.15

| JJJ-1 Daniel J. Marx Letter (ML070790160) A.2.6

| JJJ-2 Daniel J. Marx Letter (ML070790160) A.2.7

| JJJ-3 Daniel J. Marx Letter (ML070790160) A.2.6

| KKK-1 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.1

| KKK-2 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.4
Appendix A

August 2007 A-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table A-2. (contd) |

|

Commenter |

ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Section(s) |

Where |

Addressed |

KKK-3 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.15 |

KKK-4 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.6 |

KKK-5 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.7 |

KKK-6 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.9 |

KKK-7 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.12 |

KKK-8 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.12 |

KKK-9 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.15 |

KKK-10 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730156) A.2.1 |

LLL-1 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730158) A.2.1 |

LLL-2 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730158) A.2.6 |

LLL-3 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730158) A.2.7 |

LLL-4 Sunny Miller Letter (ML070730158) A.2.9 |

MMM-1 Amos Newton Letter (ML070670186) A.2.1 |

NNN-1 Bill Pearson Letter (ML070670173) A.2.9 |

OOO-1 Lee Perry Letter (ML071130166) A.2.6 |

PPP-1 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-2 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-3 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-4 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-5 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-6 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-7 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-8 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-9 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-10 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-11 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-12 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-13 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-14 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-15 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-16 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-17 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-18 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-19 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-20 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-21 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6 |

PPP-22 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |

PPP-23 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-56 August 2007

| Table A-2. (contd)

|

| Commenter

| ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

| Section(s)

| Where

| Addressed

| PPP-24 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-25 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-26 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-27 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-28 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-29 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-30 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-31 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-32 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-33 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-34 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-35 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-36 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-37 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6

| PPP-38 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-39 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.7

| PPP-40 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.6

| PPP-41 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML070730154) A.2.13

| QQQ-1 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.1

| QQQ-2 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.1

| QQQ-3 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.1

| QQQ-4 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.1

| QQQ-5 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.1

| QQQ-6 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.12

| QQQ-7 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.12

| QQQ-8 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.9

| QQQ-9 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.12

| QQQ-10 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.9

| QQQ-11 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.9

| QQQ-12 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.7

| QQQ-13 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.8

| QQQ-14 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.7

| QQQ-15 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.12

| QQQ-16 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.12

| QQQ-17 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.13

| QQQ-18 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.13

| QQQ-19 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.13

| QQQ-20 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.13
Appendix A

August 2007 A-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table A-2. (contd) |

|

Commenter |

ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Section(s) |

Where |

Addressed |

QQQ-21 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.13 |

QQQ-22 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.13 |

QQQ-23 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.13 |

QQQ-24 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.11 |

QQQ-25 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.11 |

QQQ-26 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.15 |

QQQ-27 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML070810232) A.2.1 |

RRR-1 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.9 |

RRR-2 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.9 |

RRR-3 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.15 |

RRR-4 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.6 |

RRR-5 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.6 |

RRR-6 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.12 |

RRR-7 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.12 |

RRR-8 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.9 |

RRR-9 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.6 |

RRR-10 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.7 |

RRR-11 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.7 |

RRR-12 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.9 |

RRR-13 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.9 |

RRR-14 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.9 |

RRR-15 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.9 |

RRR-16 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.9 |

RRR-17 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.11 |

RRR-18 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.11 |

RRR-19 Sally Shaw Letter (ML070730204) A.2.13 |

SSS-1 Ed Stamas Letter (ML070670105) A.2.15 |

TTT-1 Emma Stamas Letter (ML070660081) A.2.1 |

TTT-2 Emma Stamas Letter (ML070660081) A.2.13 |

TTT-3 Emma Stamas Letter (ML070660081) A.2.13 |

TTT-4 Emma Stamas Letter (ML070660081) A.2.4 |

TTT-5 Emma Stamas Letter (ML070660081) A.2.13 |

TTT-6 Emma Stamas Letter (ML070660081) A.2.13 |

UUU-1 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7 |

UUU-2 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7 |

UUU-3 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-4 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7 |

UUU-5 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-58 August 2007

| Table A-2. (contd)

|

| Commenter

| ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

| Section(s)

| Where

| Addressed

| UUU-6 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-7 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-8 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-9 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-10 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-11 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-12 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-13 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-14 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-15 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-16 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7

| UUU-17 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-18 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-19 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-20 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-21 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-22 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-23 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-24 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-25 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-26 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-27 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-28 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-29 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-30 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-31 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-32 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-33 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-34 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-35 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-36 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-37 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7

| UUU-38 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-39 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7

| UUU-40 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7

| UUU-41 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7

| UUU-42 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-43 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7

| UUU-44 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14
Appendix A

August 2007 A-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table A-2. (contd) |

|

Commenter |

ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Section(s) |

Where |

Addressed |

UUU-45 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-46 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-47 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-48 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7 |

UUU-49 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-50 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-51 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-52 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-53 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-54 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-55 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-56 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-57 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-58 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-59 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-60 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-61 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-62 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-63 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-64 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-65 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-66 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-67 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-68 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-69 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-70 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-71 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-72 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-73 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-74 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-75 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-76 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-77 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-78 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-79 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-80 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-81 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-82 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |

UUU-83 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-60 August 2007

| Table A-2. (contd)

|

| Commenter

| ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

| Section(s)

| Where

| Addressed

| UUU-84 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-85 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-86 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-87 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-88 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-89 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-90 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-91 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-92 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-93 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-94 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7

| UUU-95 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7

| UUU-96 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-97 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-98 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-99 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-100 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-101 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-102 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-103 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-104 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-105 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-106 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-107 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-108 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-109 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.13

| UUU-110 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-111 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-112 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-113 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-114 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-115 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-116 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-117 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-118 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-119 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.7

| UUU-120 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-121 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14

| UUU-122 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14
Appendix A

August 2007 A-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table A-2. (contd) |

|

Commenter |

ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Section(s) |

Where |

Addressed |

UUU-123 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-124 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-125 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.14 |

UUU-126 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-127 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-128 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-129 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-130 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-131 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-132 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-133 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-134 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-135 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-136 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-137 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-138 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-139 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-140 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-141 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-142 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-143 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-144 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-145 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-146 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-147 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-148 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-149 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-150 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-151 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-152 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-153 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-154 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

UUU-155 Ted A. Sullivan Letter (ML070710215) A.2.11 |

VVV-1 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.6 |

VVV-2 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.7 |

VVV-3 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.7 |

VVV-4 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.7 |

VVV-5 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.7 |

VVV-6 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.7 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-62 August 2007

| Table A-2. (contd)

|

| Commenter

| ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

| Section(s)

| Where

| Addressed

| VVV-7 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.7

| VVV-8 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.7

| VVV-9 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.7

| VVV-10 Robert W. Varney Letter (ML070670187) A.2.7

| WWW-1 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071430102) A.2.11

| WWW-2 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071430102) A.2.12

| WWW-3 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071430102) A.2.15

| WWW-4 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071430102) A.2.12

| WWW-5 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071430102) A.2.12

| WWW-6 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071430102) A.2.12

| WWW-7 Eleanor Gavin Letter (ML071430102) A.2.12

| XXX-1 Raymond Shadis Letter (ML071430101) A.2.7

| (a) The afternoon and evening transcripts can be found under accession

| numbers ML070530012

| and ML070530014, respectively.

|

|

| response refers the reader to the appropriate section of this SEIS where the change was made. 

| Revisions to the text in the draft SEIS are designated by vertical lines beside the text in the final

| SEIS.

|

| A.2 Comments and Responses

|

| Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

|

| A.2.1 Comments Concerning the License Renewal Process, p. A-65

|

| A.2.2 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,

| p. A-73

|

| A.2.3 Comments in Support of Nuclear Power, p. A-79

|

| A.2.4 Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

| Station, p. A-79

|

| A.2.5 Comments in Opposition to Nuclear Power, p. A-83

|

| A.2.6 Comments Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use Issues, p. A-84
Appendix A

August 2007 A-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

A.2.7 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology, Terrestrial Ecology, and Threatened and |

Endangered Species Issues, p. A-93 |

|

A.2.8 Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues, p. A-119 |

|

A.2.9 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues, p. A-121 |

|

A.2.10 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues, p. A-142 |

|

A.2.11 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents, p. A-143 |

|

A.2.12 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues, p. A-157 |

|

A.2.13 Comments Concerning Alternatives, p. A-177 |

|

A.2.14 Comments Concerning Editorial Issues, p. A-196 |

|

A.2.15 Issues Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review for License Renewal: |

Safeguards and Security; Operational Safety; Aging Management; Emergency |

Preparedness and Response; Cost-Benefit; and Energy Policy, p. A-208 |

|

A.2.1 Comments Concerning the License Renewal Process |

|

Comment: We hope very much that you will address some of the issues which I've raised and |

which other members of the public will in a reevaluation of your environmental statement |

because, at this point, many of us feel it is quite deficient. (N-9) |

|

Comment: There is a great opportunity but it won't be found in this NEPA review, or in the |

environmental impact statement or in the dog and pony shows that the NRC comes out and tells |

us that we are really privileged that they come here to hear us complain about what they are |

doing. That's an insult. (O-5) |

|

Comment: The NRC presentation was totally lifeless. The use of the word “generic” to apply to |

measures used by the NRC to evaluate environmental impact says to me that NRC is using a |

boiler plate approach to this reactor. I believe you have made up your minds to approve the |

license extension, and mold the “facts” to fit your decision. (FFF-1) |

|

Comment: It's been my understanding that any nuclear power plant that has come up for an |

uprate or a license extension has been granted one automatically. I know a number of people |

who wanted to come to this meeting who didn't want to bother because they felt that it was a |

foregone conclusion, the NRC has made up their mind, and that they just have to listen to us |

complain and that it's already been decided. (M-5) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-64 August 2007

| Comment: The only thing clear is that nobody without a vested interest in the plant’s continued

| operation supports relicensing it. The NRC has proven that it is not a regulatory entity, rather it

| is an industry-run public relations propaganda machine, interested only in preserving and

| protecting corporate profit. Public safety and long term sustainability have been forgotten. 

| (MMM-1)

|

| Comment: To this purpose you stifle my voice and power as a citizen by building a regulatory

| maze of ever shifting aisles with no attainable objective except your own. Where logic degrees a

| straight continuous line of purpose that ends at Shut it down, you the NRC break that line into

| an infinite number of points, each of which must be dealt with as a separate battle, each which

| must be fought in endless tedious meetings and hearings that break the will and finances of

| committed individuals and groups who fight for the future of community, home, neighbor and

| child. Against all sanity you have designed a glide path for this tired old reactor to increase its

| output and waste generation by 20% and extend its life for another 20 years. 

|

| As has been the case over the past 35 years, our comments and concerns regarding issues will

| be voiced with absolute sincerity but have no chance of achieving amelioration of your

| pre-determined result. The 670 page environmental impact statement will be absorbed into the

| dull gray labyrinth of your calculated process, calculated to render us powerless and useless

| against your total control of the outcome. (DDD-3)

|

| Comment: To this purpose, you stifle my voice and power as a citizen by building a regulatory

| maze of ever shifting aisles with no attainable objective except your own. Where logic decrees

| a straight, continuous line of purpose that ends at shut it down, you, the NRC, break that line

| into an infinite number of points, each of which must be dealt with as a separate battle and each

| which must be fought in endless, tedious meetings and hearings that break the will and finances

| of committed individuals and groups who fight for a future of community, home, neighbor and

| child.

|

| Against all sanity, you have designed a glide path for this tired old reactor to increase its output

| in waste generation by 20 percent and extend its life for another 20 years. As has been the

| case over the past 35 years, our comments and concerns regarding issues will be voiced with

| absolute sincerity but have no choice, excuse me, have no chance of achieving amelioration of

| your predetermined result. The 670 page environmental impact statement will be absorbed into

| the dull grey labyrinth of your calculated process, calculated to render us powerless and useless

| against your total control of the outcome. (Z-4)

|

| Comment: It is clear that the title given naming these discussions as “License Renewal” is

| prejudicial. In all future references, let's agree to name deliberations and comments as related

| to Vermont Yankee Nuclear's License Renewal/Non-renewal. (KKK-1; LLL-1)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: They and we understand that an Agency, must have guide lines, but this is a |

Democracy and people have a right to demand oversight, hear both sides and decide on their |

own if they want to see these old reactors to be pushed to 120% more power and to be pushed |

beyond their original licensing period. (BBB-8; AAA-6) |

|

Comment: The extent to which this EIS is site-specific is called into doubt by what appears to |

be a cookie-cutter approach, fill in the blanks review. To the extent that this canned EIS, it is |

non-conservative. If we were to look at the environmental assessment for another plant license |

renewal, for example Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Plymouth, MA) how much of the language |

would be the same? Vermont citizens at a the SEIS public meeting were surprised to find NRC |

Staff blithely reading from presentation view-graphs captioned, Pilgrim License Renewal EIS. If |

NRC is working from a template then care must be exercised to avoid the checklist, |

fill-in-the-boxes mentality. This is not good regulation. In order for the public to better |

understand the depth of NRC review, copy of that template should be provided at the beginning |

of the process and in advance of the scoping meeting so that the public can most efficiently and |

effectively provide comment (play the game). (QQQ-4) |

|

Comment: NRC has not produced a Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement that is |

credible to the people of Vermont and those living in the vicinity of Vermont Yankee. The SEIS |

is neither comprehensive nor put forth in appropriate detail. It is instead in almost every way |

perfunctory, lacking in rigor. We have cited but a few examples of where the SEIS was errant, |

but they are indicative of the poor quality of the entire document and NRC process which |

remains a disservice to the citizenry and their natural environment. (QQQ-27) |

|

Comment: This letter is a complaint to the NRC that the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station in |

Vernon, VT has been negligent and misleading in their GEIS Supplement 30. (TTT-1) |

|

Comment: In the environmental scoping process, the New England Coalition raised new, |

significant and site-specific issues affected by license renewal which the NRC, in responding to |

scoping meeting comments, ignored, trivialized or otherwise failed to answer. (JJ-1) |

|

Comment: On June 23, 2006, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VANR) filed scoping |

comments with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the relicensing of the Entergy |

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS). The scoping comments requested a site |

specific, rather than generic, analysis of several issues in the context of the license renewal |

process for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power facility. The Generic Environmental Impact |

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 30, Regarding Vermont Yankee |

Nuclear Power Station was received by VANR on December 27, 2006. The majority of issues |

and questions raised by VANR have not been addressed in Supplement 30. These issues |

include; bird collision, power line right-of-way management, design basis accidents, waste |

management, and water quality concerns, as well as, the plant design basis for external events |

such as, flood and earthquake. As such, the EIS does not entail a site specific evaluation of the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-66 August 2007

| potential impacts of extending the VYNPS license on several issues of importance to VANR and

| the citizens of Vermont. The EIS represents a lost opportunity to assess potential impacts,

| identify whether any of these issues could have real impacts, and if so, address them

| -appropriately. It is not clear whether some of these issues will be resolved in the context of

| ongoing NRC oversight if the plant relicense request is approved. (CCC-1)

|

| Comment: NRC Staff held a scoping meeting over six months ago and they have now

| incorporated responses to citizen comments in the SEIS. Many commenters were disappointed

| that their comments were not answered individually and directly. We observed that NRC Staff

| grouped excerpts from various comments in ways that obviated the meaning of that individual

| comment and then often responded in a dismissive or overly legalistic (gotcha) manner. 

| (QQQ-2)

|

| Response: The NRC staff performed a comprehensive and thorough review in preparing the

| draft SEIS. As part of NRC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the NRC

| seeks to engage the public prior to developing a draft SEIS as well as after publishing the draft

| SEIS and prior to publishing the final SEIS. The NRC staff relies on these comments to help

| identify new and significant issues or updated information sources. Following receipt of

| environmental scoping and draft SEIS comments, the NRC staff evaluates the input to

| determine whether changes are necessary in the scope of its review, or whether to make

| changes to the draft SEIS prior to publishing the final SEIS. The NRC staff determined that

| these comments either did not include new and significant information to challenge the generic

| conclusions reached in the GEIS, or did not provide updated information for the NRC staff to

| use in reaching site-specific conclusions. 

|

| Even though the complete comment may not be presented in the SEIS, all of the comments are

| carefully considered. In an effort to provide concise responses to comments received, the NRC

| staff identifies the essence of the comments and categorizes them by issue. The NRC staff

| does not change the comment; it merely applies the response more broadly to similar

| comments. This approach enables the NRC staff to address comments in an efficient manner

| and is a standard practice for license renewal environmental reviews. The complete transcripts

| for the scoping and draft SEIS meetings can be found in ADAMS (accession nos.

| ML061840036, ML061840033, ML061840029, ML070530012, and ML070530014). The

| ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at

| http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm.

|

| Comment: The public comment form provided for tonight's meeting by the NRC expired on

| 6/30/06. (NN-7)

|

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: Although the form “NRC Public Meeting Feedback” provided at the January 2007 |

public meetings in Brattleboro, Vermont, did show an expired expiration date, the NRC staff did |

evaluate all comments submitted on those forms. The form has since been revised with an |

updated expiration date. |

|

Comment: Both Paul and I are curious what you mean when you said at the meeting in the |

Montpelier Pavillion Bldg. that the original licensing was made “short” i.e. 40 years for economic |

and anti-trust reasons, that they are really constructed to run for 60 years, on average. (BBB-9; |

AAA-7) |

|

Response: Extensive studies and experience have shown that commercial nuclear power |

facilities can be safely operated for more than 40 years. As a result, the NRC has provided an |

option in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) that allows owners of nuclear |

power reactors to seek license renewal for up to an additional 20 years with no limitations on |

the number of times the license may be renewed. The decision whether to seek license |

renewal, including the length of the renewal period, rests entirely with nuclear power reactor |

owners and typically is based on the plant’s economic viability and whether it can continue to |

meet NRC safety and environmental requirements. The NRC bases its decision regarding |

license renewal on whether the facility will continue to meet the requirements for safe operation |

and whether the protection of the environment can be assured during the renewal term. |

|

Comment: 1. The SEIS should state for scale and comparison purposes, how many license |

renewals have been applied for, and how many have been completed. |

2. The SEIS should state for scale and comparison purposes how many license renewal |

applications have been turned down and the reasons for which they were rejected. |

3. The NRC Staff should have documented and explained to the public the cases where did |

NRC Staff find significant site-specific environment issues. Knowing what those issues were, if |

any, and how they were addressed would have, along with the review template, assisted the |

public in choosing what issues, if any, to explore in the NRC process at Vermont Yankee. |

(QQQ-5) |

|

Response: As of May 2007, 32 nuclear power plants have applied for license renewal. |

Twenty-four facilities have received renewed operating licenses, and eight applications are still |

being evaluated. Information regarding how many nuclear power plants have applied for and |

received renewed licenses can be found on the NRC’s website at |

www.nrc.gov/reactor/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html. Additionally, “NUREG-1850: |

Frequently Asked Questions on License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” provides an |

overview of the license renewal process and discusses new environmental issues identified |

during NRC reviews. |

|

Comment: On review of the draft environmental impact statement (“SEIS”), it appears that |

NRC staff limited outside verification of Entergy environmental impact data and conclusions to |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-68 August 2007

| historical observations of such entities as the National Fisheries and Wildlife Service, National

| Marine Fisheries, The Vermont Department of Health, and Vermont Agency for Natural

| Resources.

|

| a. There is no record that NRC Staff ly confirmed the data and conclusions upon which it based

| its draft EIS? Nor did NRC Staff appear to develop any of its own data? 

| b. No NRC staff measures, observations, or studies are included? 

| c. In estimating health impacts, for example, NRC Staff consult and/or apply no locally focused

| epidemiological studies, disease registries, or other health statistical resources. 

| d. In detailing radioactive off-gas releases to the atmosphere from Entergy Vermont Yankee’s

| 300-foot tall release stack (Section 2.1.4.2), for example, NRC does not address the fact that

| neither NRC nor the State of Vermont maintains their own detection equipment on the stack to

| verify Entergy’s reported measurements? 

| e. Given that in NRC’s historical experience nuclear plant owner-operators, including Vermont

| Yankee have on occasion provided the NRC with inadvertently or purposefully false or

| incomplete data, NRC Staff’s uncritical wholesale acceptance of such data in licensing without 

| is unwarranted. (QQQ-3)

|

| Response: The comment questions the independence of the environmental review conducted

| by the NRC staff. The NRC staff has indicated throughout the SEIS the efforts made to verify

| the validity of the information used as bases for conclusions regarding impact. The NRC staff

| conducts a review of available data; it does not conduct measurement or research programs or

| develop new data. As part of the NRC reactor oversight program, NRC inspectors review

| licensee programs and observe a licensee’s implementation of those programs, including the

| effluent and environmental radiological monitoring programs. 

|

| The NRC staff also reviews environmental data and reports from a wide range of sources

| including Federal and State agencies. For example, the NRC staff examined cancer data

| published by VDH (http://healthvermont.gov/pubs/cancerpubs/cancer_in_Vermont2005.pdf) and

| discussed with VDH additional studies that VDH has conducted.

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: My primary concern here is that the GEIS, the generic environmental impact

| statement, which I’ve already spoken about at an earlier meeting, and the assumptions behind

| your supplemental environmental impact statement are based on erroneous and incomplete

| information, and therefore, your environmental review is neither thorough nor conservative. It

| has not been properly done. (A-2)

|

| Comment: These flaws are fatal, they are not particularly difficult to understand. Information

| that allows the environmental impact statement to avoid these flaws is readily available on the
Appendix A

August 2007 A-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

record. If that information is rejected and this document is deemed adequate, it’s only, it will |

only be because decision makers are intent on substituting their opinions, the privileges of |

nuclear theology for common sense, common decency, verifiable substance and the rule of law. |

This draft environmental impact statement includes the NRC’s staff’s analysis that considers |

and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, its environmental impacts of |

alternatives to the proposed action and mitigation measures available for reducing and avoiding |

adverse impacts, that’s taken directly from the abstract. |

|

This recommendation made in the environmental impact statement is based on the analysis and |

findings in the GEIS, which was written ten years ago, it’s not site-specific and among other |

things, it’s written based on the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments received during |

the scoping process. One of those public comments was mine in reference to the BEIR 7 report |

released by the National Academy of Science in 2006. Apparently the NRC decided that this |

new study by America’s top scientists was not good enough to warrant consideration to upset |

the generic environmental impact statement. (D-4) |

|

Comment: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has bifurcated the environment review |

process for license renewal of aging nuclear power stations into a Generic Environmental |

Impact Statement (GEIS) and a Site Specific Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). In 1996, |

NRC engaged in rulemaking and issued a GEIS, which stated, in sum, that 20 years of |

additional operation generally would not result in significantly increased environmental impacts. |

On all of the environmental issues raised and dismissed in the GEIS, NRC takes the position |

that the public had its chance to comment back in 1996. At the time Vermont Yankee was slated |

for decommissioning like its sister plants in the region: Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, |

Connecticut Yankee, and Millstone L In that setting, it would not have dawned on the people of |

Vermont or the region to have scanned the Federal Register looking for Notice of Rulemaking, |

or to have participated had they stumbled across the notice. NRC now rules that any issue |

covered in the GEIS may not be raised in the site-specific process unless it is new and |

significant information though it is anybody’s guess as to what might qualify. Objections or |

issues ostensibly covered in the GEIS may be raised only in a petition for rulemaking. (QQQ-1) |

|

Response: These comments address perceived shortcomings in the NRC’s GEIS. The NRC |

developed the GEIS to address issues that arise at most or all nuclear power plants. The GEIS |

separates issues into two categories. Category 1 issues are those issues that are generic to all |

nuclear power plants or certain classes of nuclear power plants and that have SMALL |

environmental impacts. Category 2 issues are those issues that must be evaluated for each |

nuclear power plant or those with certain characteristics. Although the GEIS draws generic |

conclusions and provides a significant body of information, the NRC staff seeks out and |

evaluates new and significant information, as well as updated information, in the course of each |

license renewal review. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-70 August 2007

| These comments are related to the overall license renewal process. The comments provide no

| new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to

| these comments. 

|

| Comment: I believe Vermont Yankee deserves an , site-specific analysis. In this

| environmental impact statement, any environmental, economic, employment, sociological

| impacts and costs of routine radiation releases that will, as the course of operation, result from

| this license extension, they are simply denied with no evaluation. (D-2)

|

| Comment: Among other things, an safety assessment is an absolute, fundamental minimum

| requirement for any possibility of license renewal. (N-6)

|

| Comment: There must be an safety assessment, there must be. (KK-5)

|

| Comment: I believe it’s imperative that we have an independent safety assessment, just like

| they had in Maine. I’m very pleased to see that there are some senators in New York that are

| moving in that direction on the national level and I would think that any employee at Entergy

| would be pleased to see an independent safety assessment as well. (MM-2)

|

| Comment: The NRC Generic Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate, and should have

| been preceded by an independent safety assessment of all the plant’s components. (TT-2)

|

| Response: The comments propose that an Independent Safety Assessment (ISA) be

| performed at Vermont Yankee as part of the license renewal process. At the direction of the

| Commission, the NRC staff performed a very thorough and detailed comparison of the

| inspections performed today pursuant to the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) to those

| areas inspected during the Maine Yankee ISA to determine where gaps, if any, in the ROP may

| exist. The comparison confirmed that the current ROP inspection procedures, coupled with

| NRC review standards, effectively examine all key aspects of the Maine Yankee ISA. This

| means that the NRC staff is essentially performing the inspection elements of an ISA at each

| operating nuclear power plant in the country on a routine basis. After review of the results of

| the staff’s efforts, the Commission remains convinced that the ROP, as currently implemented,

| effectively embodies the inspection elements of the Maine Yankee ISA and that it provides

| better oversight than an ISA since an ISA is a one time, "snapshot" inspection whereas the ROP

| provides continual evaluation.

|

| Comment: As our public servants, please use freedom of information act inquiries

| independently conducted site visits, recorded interviews and anonymous interviews as

| necessary to paint clear pictures of what our future in New England will look like, if your

| collective findings and/or your personal recommendations are true, and if they are in error; if

| they prevail, or if human factors or acts of nature defy your predictions.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

WE REQUIRE THAT YOU INCLUDE DIVERGENT VIEWS WITHIN YOUR AGENCY’S |

RESPONSE. (KKK-10) |

|

Response: The NRC is an independent agency established by the Energy Reorganization Act |

of 1974 to regulate civilian use of nuclear materials. The NRC’s mission is to regulate the |

nation’s civilian use of by-product, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate |

protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to |

protect the environment. As part of this mission, the NRC is responsible for the review and |

issuance of initial licenses and renewed licenses for nuclear power facilities. |

|

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) is an advisory committee under the |

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as |

amended. The ACRS is independent of the NRC staff and reports directly to the Commission, |

which appoints ACRS members. The operational practices of the ACRS are governed by the |

provisions of the FACA. The ACRS is composed of recognized technical experts in their fields. |

It is structured so that experts representing many technical perspectives can provide |

independent advice, which can be factored into the Commission’s decision-making process. |

Most ACRS meetings are open to the public, and any member of the public may request an |

opportunity to make an oral statement during the committee meeting. |

|

During the license renewal process, the ACRS acts as an independent, third-party, oversight |

group that reviews and makes recommendations to the Commission on the safety aspects of |

renewal applications. The ACRS mandate does not include NEPA reviews. |

|

In conducting the environmental evaluation presented in the SEIS, the NRC uses information |

from a variety of sources, including the applicant’s Environmental Report (ER), data and |

information collected during a site audit, information provided by local, State, and other Federal |

agencies, and published scientific literature. The NRC’s role in the environmental review |

process is to provide a fair and unbiased evaluation of the impacts of operations during the |

license renewal term. |

|

The environmental assessment conducted by the NRC for license renewal is mandated by |

NEPA. NEPA requires that the assessment be conducted by the agency that takes the action, |

in this case, the NRC. NEPA does not require an independent review of environmental |

assessments by the National Academy of Sciences or another independent scientific body. The |

EPA has the responsibility to review EISs that are prepared by other Federal agencies |

(including the NRC). This review responsibility is a requirement placed on the EPA by NEPA. |

The EPA’s review provides a measure of the NRC’s adherence to NEPA. Additionally, the EPA |

comments on draft EISs under its statutory areas of responsibility such as clean water and |

clean air. Other Federal agencies are invited to participate in the scoping process and are |

afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the draft EISs. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-72 August 2007

| The comment is related to the overall license renewal process. The comment provides no new

| and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this

| comment.

|

| A.2.2 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

| Station

|

| Comment: The brave little State of Vermont leads this nation in the context of its energy

| portfolio contributing the very least of carbon dioxide and other noxious substances ingested

| into the environment.

|

| And that’s something that all of us, all of us, ought to care about and ought to be concerned

| about and the reason for that again was covered but it relates to, yes, this nuclear facility in

| Vernon, a few short miles down the road, and it relates to the wisdom of entering into long-term

| contracts with Hydro Quebec for hydroelectric power. And now the issue is how can Vermont,

| which is now number one, as the cleanest state in the Union on the CO2 and related issues

| front, somehow strive diligently to hold onto its position and to hold onto that position. It is not

| rocket science to understand that relicensure of this nuclear facility would add vitally to our 

| quest for continuing baseload reliable and cost effective energy, as would success in artful

| negotiations with our friends in Quebec to replicate in some significant way the hydroelectric

| contracts of the 1980s.

|

| Now even if we are hugely successful in this quest, we can make a contribution to the nation,

| we can make a contribution by showing our leadership here in this state. Our contribution will

| not show up so much as a speck on the horizon in terms of reversing the trend of climate

| change in this country but our leadership potential is significant and greatly in a significant

| potential fulfillment. (C-1)

|

| Comment: The need for Vermont to secure a reliable, affordable and clean electricity portfolio

| has never been greater which leads the partnership to reiterate its support for the license

| renewal of Vermont Yankee. (F-1)

|

| Comment: While the partnership believes these steps outlined above should be implemented,

| we cannot ignore nor deny that the foundation for any successful electricity portfolio starts with

| baseload sources of power, this is why it is vital that we continue to secure HydroQuebec and

| Vermont Yankee beyond their current operating licenses. Vermont Yankee, our state’s lone

| significant in-state source of power, has been safely and reliably providing Vermonters with

| electricity for over 30 years. It has continually met the NRC’s highest safety standards largely

| due to the dedicated men and women who work at the plant and live with their families in the

| surrounding communities.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

It is important to keep in mind the public safety issues that are sure to arise if Vermont does not |

have an adequate supply of baseload power. With the New England Region strapped for power |

as it is, we cannot responsibly close the plant and cavalierly assume that our neighbors will |

provide us with sufficient let alone reasonably priced power. Should rolling blackouts and |

brownouts have to be implemented, the stress it will place on our public safety and health will |

be enormous. (F-3) |

|

Comment: Vermont Yankee is a safe, is safe and good for the environment and economy, it |

has provided Vermonters with reliable, affordable and clean power for more than three decades |

and it has done so safely. We know there is a strong array of support throughout the state for |

the plant’s continued operation and we believe that granting Vermont Yankee a license |

extension is a responsible and necessary action. (F-6) |

|

Comment: Vermont Yankee has been a very low environmental impact baseload, 24/7 |

producer of a major portion of Vermont’s electrical energy, it deserves to be a part of Vermont’s |

energy future along with green renewables, hydroelectric, wind, solar, biomass and |

conservation. Let’s get off all fossil fuels to generate electricity. (I-2) |

|

Comment: I support an environmentally sound electric portfolio, nuclear and Vermont Yankee |

are part of it. I’ve been driving a hybrid car for two years, home heating with wood for over 25 |

years and have replaced oil furnaces at six residences that we rent to local folks. I’ve done |

replacement windows and I purchase 25 percent of all of my electric through Vermont Cow |

Power. I’ve had the opportunity to see firsthand the amount of safety technology and training |

the plant, the industry and the NRC has put into Vermont Yankee to allow it to be safe and |

reliable. |

|

From the original design of the plant, with concrete walls several feet thick, to the ongoing |

upgrades and maintenance of the plant, I believe it is a safe plant, the millions of dollars spent |

on security, plant upgrades and training is part of the reason for this. Another part of its |

success is the process here today. The NRC, other industry organizations learn, listen and |

implement ideas from concerns raised. The development of technology needs to continue with |

power generation, as it is doing in other fields. Nuclear power, I believe, is a safe, cost effective |

component of our energy needs. |

|

It is also a key component in solving greenhouse emissions and I encourage you to continue |

having Vermont Yankee to be part of our Vermont energy portfolio, keeping prices affordable |

and promoting economic development in the state while contributing to our economy. (J-1) |

|

Comment: Vermont has played a vital role in the sustainability, Vermont Yankee has played a |

vital role in the sustainability of the lifestyle we all enjoy here. By supplying a clean, reliable and |

renewable source of energy, Vermont Yankee has lessened our dependency on fossil fuel and |

thus helped us to keep our environment free of these added pollutants. I have worked as a |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-74 August 2007

| contractor at Vermont Yankee for the past eight months and have had the opportunity to interact

| with many of their employees. In doing so, my confidence in their ability to run a safe and

| efficient nuclear power plant has only grown.

|

| I have seen first hand the accountability, ownership and level of personal involvement the

| employees of Vermont Yankee take in all of their daily work activities. I have learned of their

| outstanding track record of safely providing energy at fair and favorable prices. And I know

| firsthand the importance of the economic infrastructure they provide to attract and retain

| employees from many surrounding communities. To extend the operating license for Vermont

| Yankee would be to continue supporting an environmentally, economically and socially

| responsible culture that has been established here.

|

| It is this type of community which we want to encourage, as our global energy requirements

| become greater and our environmental responsibility larger, nuclear power is a clear path to aid

| in tackling both of these very ominous issues. I encourage the NRC to look around this

| community and take note of the many positive influences from Vermont Yankee and I ask them

| to extend the operating license for another 20 years so we can all share in the benefits of this

| community for many years to come. (P-1)

|

| Comment: Vermont Yankee supplies 34 percent of Vermont’s electricity consumption and,

| without it, Vermont would be even more dependent on out of state sources to meet its electricity

| needs. Currently, Vermont purchases approximately 50 percent of its power from outside

| sources. (Q-2)

|

| Comment: Long-term safe operation, a major source of energy for the State of Vermont,

| significant contributions to the State of Vermont green energy fund, substantial local and

| statewide expenditures during, directly into the economy, it’s for these reasons that I believe VY

| should receive an extension of its operating license. (Q-3)

|

| Comment: I know it’s a good plant and I know that adding another 20 years to its license is a

| good thing, it’s good for a number of reasons. First of all, it’s good for my company, Entergy, it’s

| also good for my fellow employees that I love dearly, and a lot of them probably now will be able

| to have a career like I have had there. But foremost, foremost, it’s good for Vermont, it’s a good

| thing for Vermont, it’s good for the United States and it’s good for our Planet Earth, believe it or

| not. (T-1)

|

| Comment: The reliability of the plant is ensured by a robust corrective action program, it’s also

| ensured by a robust predictive and preventive maintenance program to ensure our plant runs

| reliably day in and day out. Vermont Yankee is a reliable source of economic power generation

| to the New England grid. As such, we supply electricity to the power grid 24 hours a day and

| have done so for the last 447 days continuously, since our last scheduled refueling and

| maintenance outage which, by the way, was Vermont Yankee’s best.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

I’m proud to be part of the committed and dedicated Vermont Yankee team of professionals and |

I look forward to providing a clean, safe and reliable source of energy into this community well |

into the future. (U-1) |

|

Comment: I stand here tonight to recommend to relicense the nuclear plant here in Vernon. |

(V-1) |

|

Comment: I want to voice to the NRC that I believe that we should extend the license to |

Vermont Yankee, not just to save my job, but in my time being there, I received lots of training |

and have come to understand the preparation and the work that goes into running this plant to |

make it safe and reliable. I also believe that nuclear power is a safe, clean alternative with low |

and no emissions. (W-1) |

|

Comment: I just want to say one thing about safety...it profoundly has effected the way that I |

do things in my own life and I know it has the same effect on the folks who work at Vermont |

Yankee and that innately permeates the culture that we have there that continues us to be able |

to operate the plant safely, to design new and different ways of operating the plant, the systems |

that we maintain that you’ve heard, the systems that we add to the site, everything is done with |

safety in mind. (Y-3) |

|

Comment: And I would recommend that we extend the license of Vermont Yankee for another |

20 years. (AA-1) |

|

Comment: In the last ten years at Vermont Yankee, I’ve had responsibility here in fuel cycle |

management, core design, core management, reactor engineering and some involvement with |

the dry fuel storage project that is presently ongoing. I understand and view the license renewal |

of Vermont Yankee from the perspective and insights as a local resident, a farmer, a former |

NRC regulator and that of a Vermont Yankee employee. Not many people here tonight can say |

they share that same vantage point and perspective. And from each and every one of those |

perspectives, I can only reach one conclusion and that’s the license renewal for Vermont |

Yankee is the best environmentally sound choice to meet Vermont’s energy needs, since it’s |

safe, it’s non-greenhouse gas emitting, it’s clean, reliable, efficient and cost effective, and it’s |

local, a source of vitally needed baseload supply of electricity. (BB-1) |

|

Comment: And since 1972, safe, clean, reliable operation of Vermont Yankee has prevented |

millions of greenhouse emissions, millions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, |

including carbon dioxide, from entering the Vermont environment. |

|

In conclusion, looking at Vermont’s future energy needs and the impacts on our environment, |

there is no alternative that is more beneficial to both the environment and the ability to meet the |

energy demands of Vermont. When all the facts are considered, not just part of them, simply |

said, it’s the green choice. (BB-2) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-76 August 2007

| Comment: The citizens of the State of Vermont can be proud that they have the lowest per

| capita greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, I think that was hard work and it wasn’t

| done overnight. The State of Vermont can be very proud of that rating and the culture at

| Vermont Yankee to operate safely directly contributes to this status of the lowest overall

| greenhouse emissions, we don’t produce any. (CC-1)

|

| Comment: I’m asking the people of Vermont and the NRC to maintain the State of Vermont’s

| status as the lowest emission of greenhouse gasses per capita and to keep Vermont electric

| rates competitive, so I ask the NRC to continue and to approve, to approve the continued safe

| and efficient operation of Vermont Yankee. (CC-3)

|

| Comment: A large reason why the Vermont environment is where it is today is because of our

| operation, it produces no acid rain or greenhouse gasses. In a year, a typical 1,000 megawatt

| coal fired plant emits 100,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 75,000 tons of nitrogen oxides and 5,000

| tons of fly ash into the environment. It also contributes large amounts of CO2 to the global

| warming problem. Going forward in Vermont, we need to have a diverse mix of energy options

| for the good of the state and the people. Solar, wind power, hydro and nuclear should all play a

| role in Vermont’s energy future. Extending Vermont Yankee’s license is the smart thing to do

| both economically and environmentally. (DD-1)

|

| Comment: There is a lot of technology, a lot of data, a lot of number crunching that went into

| the study that the NRC is looking at, I would like to focus on the human face at Vermont

| Yankee. I have a human factors background, it’s also what I think makes it at the end of the

| day is the people.

|

| We look at our community and a number of folks have acknowledged that it isn’t the people we

| don’t like, it’s nuclear power. Well guess what? It’s the people that run the nuclear power plant,

| it’s the same people that are in the community, the same people that are teachers, the same

| people that lead scouting groups, the same ones that volunteer at the hospital or Rescue, Inc. 

| These are the people that work at the power plant, they are not different than the other folks. 

| The one thing they have in common is the common purpose to run that plant safely and keep it

| that way for another 20 years.

|

| They are in the fabric of this community, they are here to stay, they live in the three surrounding

| states and they are not going to endanger their homes because this is home. So, at the end of

| the day, we have all the technology and all the studies, but what we are really left with is the

| people and it’s the people that run that and keep it safe. (HH-1)

|

| Comment: On balance, over the last 35 years, if you look at the current proposed

| environmental impact, it provides a strong report card for Vermont Yankee relative to being an

| environmental and economically sound unit. What other kind of facility operates for almost 35

| years and still is considered by experts, both within the federal government, and local and state
Appendix A

August 2007 A-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

government, as an economically sound, safe and environmentally friendly source of electric |

power? In my opinion, we should renew the license for Vermont Yankee. (LL-1) |

|

Comment: I do encourage that you consider us with a licensed extension for the next 20 years |

so that we can continue to be an important player in the community. (II-1) |

|

Comment: And my point tonight is every time I see a bald eagle flying over an intake structure, |

or cruising over our buildings or up the river fishing, I look around and I am proud to work at a |

company that I feel is green and that proves it by the wildlife around there. That’s the only place |

in Vermont I have seen a bald eagle, and that’s all I’ve got to say. (PP-1) |

|

Comment: I want to register my agreements with your major conclusions. The environmental |

impacts from VY are small. (SS-2) |

|

Comment: Considered from the narrow perspective of the environment and leaving out for the |

moment safety and economics, licensing VY for another twenty years is really an easy call. The |

very, very remotely potential catastrophic negative affects are all to people and property. Since |

people can move it is really just property. The environment will be secure no matter what. |

(SS-8) |

|

Response: The comments are supportive of license renewal at VYNPS and are general in |

nature. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were |

made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

A.2.3 Comments in Support of Nuclear Power |

|

Comment: The 103 nuclear plants that are now operating in the United States, producing 20 |

percent of the U.S.’s electricity, half of that, by the way, is using dismantled Soviet warheads, |

Russian warheads, for the power source as a result of the reduction in nuclear arms, the |

equivalent of 100 million cars taken off the road, if that same power was being produced by |

coal, which 50 percent of our power is produced by. That’s a lot of cars, that’s a lot of CO2. |

|

There is no other power source that results in a larger mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions |

than nuclear energy, so at least it must be given credit on that count. (B-1) |

|

Comment: I believe that nuclear energy is the only large baseload source of electricity that can |

effectively reduce fossil fuel consumption while at the same time satisfying the growing global |

demand for power. (B-4) |

|

Comment: I believe there will be a resurgence, there is a resurgence already going on across |

the globe, we just need to get on board here in the U.S., and Entergy is one of the companies |

that is pursuing new technology, ESBWR, looking at sites down in Mississippi. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-78 August 2007

| One of the things I was thinking about and I guess I subconsciously dressed in all green tonight

| for a reason, and I’ve always considered myself to be concerned about the environment and I

| think that nuclear power is an overall positive contributor to the environment in that it does not

| create gasses, global warming. (Y-1)

|

| Comment: [At] refineries, you just burn the oil and burn the gas and put the sulfur dioxide into

| the atmosphere without thinking about it, but if you witness it and see what’s going on, you will

| appreciate the environmental friendliness of nuclear power. (AA-2)

|

| Response: The comments are supportive of nuclear power and are general in nature. The

| comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the

| SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| A.2.4 Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

| Station

|

| Comment: My primary concern is that, as was in evidence with the slides that referred to

| Pilgrim and not from Yankee, that this is really not an environmental impact statement for

| Vermont Yankee and the communities who are suffering the effects of Vermont Yankee, but it is

| more accurately terms an environmental insult statement. The good news is that, as an

| ecologist, I can tell you that environmental systems are very resilient, natural systems are very

| resilient, but they only restore themselves if you stop the environmental insults, and then they

| can restore themselves. If you continue to insult them, they will continue to degrade. (A-1)

|

| Comment: Now Hellen Caldecott has written this book, it’s called Nuclear Power is not the

| Answer, it’s not the answer to our energy problem, it’s not the answer to global warming and it’s,

| but it is the answer for Entergy to make lots and lots of money and it is the answer for us, as the

| common people, to stay beholden to the corporation and to the central government. The only

| way we can get out from underneath this is if each one of us takes personal responsibility for all

| of our actions every day from this day on and that’s the only way we are ever going to make any

| change. (E-3)

|

| Comment: The fact of the matter is we cannot afford to keep these aging plants going, we

| must gradually phase them out. We are not asking for Vermont Yankee to shut down tomorrow,

| we are asking for it to phase out over a five year period and, during that five year period, we

| here in this part of the world are very, very fortunate to have several factors that can allow us to

| replace that plant. (K-5)

|

| Comment: So I think that, to call this green is, this plant that is producing, that is leaking

| radiation and producing highly toxic waste that will last basically forever and will be here forever

| is just absurd. (L-4)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: I think that this plant is unsafe and it should be decommissioned, I do not believe it |

should have a 20-year license extension. (M-1) |

|

Comment: I’m here to urge the NRC not to relicense Vermont Yankee. (M-4) |

|

Comment: And I’m afraid of this plant and I know that there is a lot of people who think that I’m |

hysterical or that I’m misguided and uninformed, and I think I’m very informed and I think I’m |

very aware of the risks that this plant raises. So all of you, when you go to bed tonight, I hope |

that you don’t sleep near this plant and I hope that you’re not downwind from it but, if you are, |

think to yourself could I be making a mistake? Could I be wrong in supporting this plant? And if |

I am, then I am subjecting an entire community to unacceptable risks. (M-6) |

|

Comment: The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution is entirely opposed to license |

renewal. (N-7) |

|

Comment: I would rather see this decommissioned as soon as possible because there is no |

waste answer, but I would also like to make sure that Mr. Leonard uses his power, as your boss, |

to see to it that all of you are employed until it’s time to retire and employed in the capacity of |

diligently, prudently and professionally decommissioning the high level radioactive waste dump |

in Vernon. (S-2) |

|

Comment: When you come into Vermont, you have the opportunity to try the older forms of |

lifestyles that are wood burning stoves and a pedestrian lifestyle. I do have great worry about |

nuclear waste storage and I don’t think that it’s a money issue because it’s not going to, it’s not |

going to phase my life as a money issue, it’s something to do. I don’t think that it’s, I don’t think |

it’s insurmountable to dismantle and I do think that this community would feel excited by |

transforming our engineering capability into a very large hydro electric community, starting with |

this project. (X-1) |

|

Comment: As a logical pragmatist who loves and honors this paradise in which I live, my |

response is simple, shut it down, secure the waste, decommission it and never build another. |

But you, the NRC, the hired guns of a very profitable industry, don’t view the issues from the |

same perspective and you bend your full energy towards making the beast ever bigger and |

giving it life without end. (Z-3) |

|

Comment: For the life of your grandchildren and the health of the world, we demand the NRC |

deny Vermont Yankee the relicensing permit. As we say in Vermont, smarten up, NRC, we all |

see through your charade. (EE-3) |

|

Comment: The things I look forward to with 20 more years of Vermont Yankee running here 15 |

miles from where I was born and raised are pretty exciting, I look forward to my children or |

perhaps my wife getting breast cancer, I look forward to the time when I can hug them and feel |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-80 August 2007

| only one of their breasts up against my breast because the other has been removed because of

| a tumor because there is 88,300 cubic yards of radioactive waste stored on the Connecticut

| River.

|

| I look forward to my kids having Downs Syndrome and I look forward to this community growing

| in all its new and mutated ways. I look forward to spending a hard life with my father or perhaps

| my children as they die a slow death of prostate cancer. I look forward to swimming in a

| warmer Connecticut River. I look forward to my friends returning from the Iraq War with post

| traumatic stress syndrome and something unknown, something that’s killing them that’s caused

| by depleted uranium which comes from nuclear power. I’m really into that, I think that will be

| great to hang out with my friends as they die a slow and painful death.

|

| I’m looking forward to more wars, I’m looking forward to more waste reprocessing and more

| efficient smart weaponry, and increased infant mortality is something I can barely hide my

| excitement about. And finally, I look forward to a time when I can abandon my home, the place

| where I grew up, because of a nuclear accident or simply because too much waste has

| accumulated and the environment becomes unsuitable for human habitation. (GG-1)

|

| Comment: I proposed this before and someone mentioned it this evening, that the workers

| who are keeping us safe right now and doing as good a job as can be done at the reactor, that

| you be retrained as part of the shutting down of Vermont Yankee because I know it’s going to

| be shut down, it’s not going to be relicensed. (KK-3)

|

| Comment: I took the opportunity to travel to the Ukraine and went on a tour of the now

| infamous exclusion zone. So, if any of you would care to get the full sensation of what the

| environmental impact of nuclear power is, take a little waltz around there, it’s huge, it’s global,

| it’s absolutely terrifying. These people, it’s not only the land that’s been corrupted, they have

| been corrupted. They’re entire genetic heritage has been given the short end of the stick, their

| children are deformed and will continue to be so.

|

| This is the risk, it’s that simple. Yes, things are profitable, things are leaning this way or that

| way for where the energy is coming from and how comfortable you can live, but the true

| environmental impact inevitably and invariably is what you are seeing over there in Belarus and

| it in cities like Gomol in Pripyat, which is eerie. It was a, the people there too, the workers there,

| that was the flagship plant for them, that was the a number one, biggest, safest producer for the

| Soviets, and it ruined their empire and that’s what you are flirting with here. (RR-1)

|

| Comment: I urge the NRC to refuse to renew Vermont Yankee’s license, so that the citizens of

| this region can work hard to conserve 200 MW of energy each year and produce 400 MW of

| clean and SAFE energy over the next 5 years instead! (TTT-4)

|

| Comment: We urge you to close this facility as soon as it is possible. (HHH-2)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: This response to dissent is almost as scary as allowing Entergy to make money |

from an upgrade to an aged reactor and probably to extend its license. (FFF-2) |

|

Comment: As a logical pragmatist who loves and honors this paradise my response is |

simple—shut it down, secure the waste, decommission it and never build another. But you, the |

NRC, the hired guns of a very profitable industry, don’t view the issues from the same |

perspective and you bend your full energy towards making the beast ever bigger and giving it |

life without end. (DDD-2) |

|

Comment: The existence of this reactor threatens our continued existence. To close nuclear |

reactors as their life-expectancy diminishes is appropriate. Don’t put this reactor on life-support. |

(KKK-2) |

|

Response: The comments oppose license renewal at VYNPS and are general in nature. The |

comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the |

SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

A.2.5 Comments in Opposition to Nuclear Power |

|

Comment: You people of the industry should be ashamed, you’ve placed good paying jobs |

and careers ahead of responsibility. You’ve read your pipeline of propaganda and you feel |

reasonably sure you can keep your bomb material and cancer causing waste out of our |

environment, you must feel somewhat sure or you couldn’t sleep at night. |

|

Have you ever wondered why your industry needs to dump so much time and money on the |

public relations around the reactor towns? Are you abnormally, are your abnormally large |

donations intended more as bribery than charity? Of course they are, you are trying to pacify |

the public while you shove your dirty industry down their throats. You know the majority of |

people don’t want anything to do with this dangerous form of energy, so they have to be bribed. |

The bottom line is that this power plant and all the others are a liability to our future. |

|

You are poisoning not only ourselves and our environment but also the coming generation’s. |

Every day, every minute that you are generating electricity, you are creating an obscene amount |

of atomic bomb making material and cancer causing toxins stored in temporary vessels |

seemingly without a clue as to what to do next. I’ve heard people from the outside of the fence |

refer to the people inside the fence as evil. I think of you more as greedy and misinformed. |

People, you’ve been lied to, there is no nuclear renaissance, there are no new safe waste-free |

reactors ready to go on line, just a dying industry treading water until the final science shuts |

them down. |

|

We need help in figuring out how on earth to ever clean up the mess your industry has created. |

I leave you with a misinformed quote from my ex-brother in law who was known to encourage |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-82 August 2007

| other workers to go deeper into hotter areas of the plant to make more money. He was an

| electrician at Vermont Yankee for 14 years before he died, middle-aged, of leukemia. He said,

| in all seriousness, don’t worry, nukes melt down, not up. Don’t be misinformed, people, you

| know your industry is biased, maybe a career change is in order. Vermont is at the edge of

| creating true renewable energy, careers, and they should use some of you bright minds

| currently being wasted on your poisonous, gluttonous industry. (H-5)

|

| Comment: We do not need this kind of power and we can do better than it, it’s old fashioned,

| it’s not sustainable, it’s expensive. (K-4)

|

| Comment: Because we understand our connection to Earth and the need for Earth and human

| to work together in harmony and balance, we reject nuclear technology as a cancer on Earth. 

| We have been poisoning ourselves for some time. (HHH-1)

|

| Comment: There is no way that the nuclear industry can guarantee that New England’s air,

| water, soil, trees, plants, animals and humans are safe from the lethal contamination of a

| meltdown or terrorist attack No chorus of loyal Vermont Yankee employees, no stack of fine

| print will serve to convince me or my friends that our land and persons are safe. (TT-1)

|

| Response: The comments oppose nuclear power and are general in nature. The comments

| provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in

| response to these comments.

|

| A.2.6 Comments Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use Issues

|

| Comment: I’m concerned also about the NRC’s inability to grasp that the use of open cooling

| or once-through cooling is a violation of the Clean Water Act. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of

| Appeals in Manhattan ruled Thursday, I think it was last week, that it was improper for the EPA

| to let power plants circumvent environmental laws. This decision was a rejection of EPA’s

| refusal to adopt closed-cycle cooling as the best technology available.

|

| About half of the nation’s power plants, these are both nuclear and fossil fuel plants, use the

| closed-cycle method which operates like a car radiator, reusing the same water and only

| requiring small amounts of new water to replace what is lost to evaporation. The system uses

| at least 95 percent less water than once-through systems, these systems draw from waterways

| and expel warmed water back into these waterways. It’s only common sense that if a

| technology exists to minimize or mitigate the impacts on the natural environment that a

| responsible corporation would want to use them and a responsible regulatory agency would

| want to require that they use them. This may, again, be up to the courts to enforce and that’s

| really sad, that’s really sad because we are paying the salaries of these people who are

| refusing to regulate. (OO-4)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: (Pg. 2-8). The DSEIS identifies three modes of operation for the circulation of |

cooling water through Vermont Yankee: open-cycle, hybrid-cycle, and closed-cycle. |

Open-cycle withdraws 518 million gallons of water per day (mgd) from the Connecticut River. |

Closed-cycle mode requires only 14.4 mgd. Hybrid-cycle mode utilizes a range of flows from |

14.4 mgd to 518 mgd. According to the DSEIS, the applicant selects the mode of operation |

needed to comply with temperature limits established in the NPDES permit issued by the |

VTDEC. Therefore, while the technology is in place at this facility to reduce the withdrawal of |

water from the Connecticut River by over 97 percent compared to the flow required for |

open-cycle mode (and consequently minimize entrainment and impingement mortality of aquatic |

organisms), it is only used when temperature limits dictate. Thus, we recommend that the |

FSEIS fully discuss and evaluate the comparative environmental impacts of the alternative |

modes for the circulation of cooling water. While the FSEIS need not suggest the answers to the |

ultimate permitting questions to be answered by the VTDEC under the Clean Water Act, it |

should characterize the relative impacts of the alternatives, such as the differing amounts of |

heat to be discharged, the differing extent and intensities of the thermal plumes, the differing |

numbers of organisms to be impinged and/or entrained by the intake structure under the |

different alternatives. (VVV-1) |

|

Comment: Page 2-8: In this section there is no mention of how the plant’s operation has |

changed since it first went on-line. It is the Department’s understanding that initially the plant |

operated in closed cycle year-round. Then, gradually the plant operated in open or hybrid cycle |

more often as variances to the state’s thermal discharge limits were granted through the |

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 316(a) process. We recommend that the FSEIS |

contain a chronology of how the plant has operated from the 1970s up through today. (PPP-1) |

|

Comment: The Department recommends that the FSEIS evaluate at least two more |

alternatives: (1) continued operation of VY under a year-round closed-cycle mode of operation; |

and (2) continued operation of VY under the present NPDES permit requirements, but with |

removal of the Vernon Dam. (PPP-40) |

|

Comment: Your SEIS fails to grasp that Entergy’s use of open cooling or once through cooling |

is a violation of the Clean Water Act. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manattan recently |

ruled that it was improper for the EPA to let power plants circumvent environmental laws. This |

decision was a rejection of the EPA’s refusal to adopt closed-cycle cooling as the best |

technology available. About half of the nation’s power plants use the closed-cycle method, |

which operates like a car radiator, reusing the same water and only requiring small amounts of |

new water to replace what is lost to evaporation. The system uses at least 95 percent less water |

than once-through systems, which draw from waterways and expel warmed water back into |

those waterways.” source: http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ |

20070127/NEWS01/701270339/1025/NEWS09 (RRR-4) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-84 August 2007

| Response: The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes environmental programs, including the

| National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (Section 402), to

| protect domestic waters and directs the EPA to issue implementing regulations. The EPA has

| delegated responsibility for administering the NPDES permit program to the Vermont Agency of

| Natural Resources (VANR). It is through the NPDES permit program that the VANR authorizes

| Entergy to discharge cooling water from the VYNPS to the Connecticut River and sets

| discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions for the protection of

| receiving waters. 

|

| Section 316 of the CWA requires the thermal component of any discharge to be controlled to

| protect indigenous shellfish, fish, and wildlife on the body of water into which the discharge is to

| be made (Part a) and requires that cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology

| available to minimize adverse impacts to these populations (Part b). The requirements of

| Sections 316(a) and 316(b), as well as relevant portions of the Vermont Water Quality

| Standards, are implemented through the NPDES permit program on a case-by-case basis. 

| Only July 9, 2004, the EPA issued the Phase II regulations that addressed cooling water

| systems at power stations. The 316(b) Phase II regulations requiring best technology available

| were recently remanded by the 2nd Circuit Court, and effective July 09, 2007, the EPA

| suspended the Phase II rule (72 FR 37107).

|

| On February 20, 2003, Entergy applied for an amendment to its existing thermal effluent

| limitations to increase the temperature of the Connecticut River by 1EF at downstream Station 3

| relative to the upstream temperatures as measured at Station 7 for the NPDES summer period

| (May 16 through October 14). In support of its application, Entergy also submitted a 316(a)

| Demonstration Report and other documents and follow-up information as requested by the 

| VANR. After reviewing the information, the VANR issued an amended NPDES permit to Entergy

| on March 30, 2006 (which was stayed by the State of Vermont Environmental Court on

| August 28, 2006). The permit granted the 1EF temperature increase only for the period of

| June 16 through October 14, citing insufficient information regarding impacts to migrating

| salmon smolt during the period of May 16 through June 15.

|

| The Commission considers the findings of the VANR to be a bona fide Section 316(a)

| determination and interprets CWA Section 511(c)(2) as requiring it to take this determination at

| face value. Because the VANR has already assessed the thermal impacts related to the

| variance request as part of the NPDES permitting process, an independent analysis of impacts

| (including cooling options and the heat equation used to calculate plant-induced temperatures)

| is not required as part of the evaluation presented in this SEIS in support of license renewal. 

| (Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-07-16, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC. and

| Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.-License Renewal For Vermont Yankee Nuclear Generating

| Station, dated April 11, 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML0710102170).

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

The SEIS provides the NRC staff’s assessment of impact and is not required to document past |

cooling operation modes. Approval of such changes was granted by the NPDES issuing |

authority, after a thorough assessment of impact. The NRC staff did not evaluate alternative |

cooling water operation modes because the applicant has a valid NPDES permit that specifies |

the cooling water mode of operation on an annual basis. The NRC staff’s evaluation is |

conservative since continuous closed-cycle cooling would result in less impact. The NRC staff |

believes that the Vernon Dam, built in 1909, would likely continue to produce power during the |

license renewal period, and removal of the dam was not considered a likely alternative. |

|

Comment: Page 2-9: The dimensions of the discharge structure are provided, but not for the |

intake structure. The FSEIS should include intake dimensions so that approach velocities can |

be determined. (PPP-2) |

|

Response: The dimensions of the intake structure have been added to Section 2.1.3 of the |

SEIS. |

|

Comment: Page 2-21: The dSEIS states that TransCanada (owner of the Vernon Project) |

regulates the river discharge to maintain a minimum sustained flow of 1,250 cfs. A more |

appropriate characterization is that TransCanada regulates river flow to maximize power |

production, while maintaining a minimum flow of 1,250 cfs (or inflow, if less) below the dam at all |

times. (PPP-3) |

|

Response: The purpose of Section 2.2.2.1 is only to describe the seasonal and regulated flow |

rates of the Connecticut River. No change was made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-23: The dSEIS notes that “Vernon Pond” may fluctuate as much as 8 feet. |

However, according to the Order Amending License for the Vernon Project, dated June 22, |

1992, “NEP responded that their ability to regulate a wider range of river flows could actually |

reduce pool level fluctuations. They further responded that their ability to fluctuate the pond |

would be small, on the order of one foot, and that any fluctuations would be gradual...” [Federal |

Energy Regulatory Commission. June 22, 1992. Order Amending License, Project |

No. 1904-008.] The Department recommends that the FSEIS verify the licensed operating |

range and the actual operating range of the Vernon Project with TransCanada. (PPP-4) |

|

Response: The statement quoted from the FERC (1992) document referred to in this comment |

relates to concerns about river flows and pond elevations downstream of the Vernon Project |

(i.e., Vernon Dam). The New England Power Company expressed concern about their ability to |

regulate flow at Turners Falls because of the operations at Vernon Dam. Their statement does |

not relate to the surface elevations of Vernon Pool, which is upstream of Vernon Dam. |

|

Comment: Page 2-23: The Cooling Water Use section discusses the recent power uprate at |

VY and its potential impact on consumptive water use. However, NRC staff bases its |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-86 August 2007

| determination on the current NPDES permit limits, not the amended limits presently under

| appeal. Depending on how the appeal is decided, this evaluation may not be valid. Also, the

| determination in this section appears to be inconsistent with the evaluation on page 2-32, which

| considers an outcome resulting in an increased thermal limit. 

|

| The dSEIS does not adequately or clearly discuss the uprate, the 316(a) variance request, the

| license extension, or how these actions relate to each other, including operationally. The

| environmental implications may include effects of an increased thermal limit, and entrainment

| and impingement. This should be remedied in the FSEIS. (PPP-5)

|

| Response: The recent power uprate is discussed briefly in the “Cooling Water Use” section to

| show its contribution to the rate of water withdrawal from Vernon Pool during the NPDES

| summer and winter periods. Plant operations (i.e., cooling water withdrawal and discharge

| rates) under the power uprate must comply with the limits set forth in the NPDES permit

| requirements for VYNPS (as amended or renewed).

|

| The NEPA evaluation presented in this SEIS focuses on the renewal of the operating license

| (OL) for the VYNPS, operated by Entergy under OL DPR-28, which expires on March 21, 2012.

| The licensee (Entergy) has applied for an additional 20 years of operation (i.e., until March 21,

| 2032). Additional information on the NEPA process as it relates to license renewal can be found

| in Section 1.2 of the SEIS. In a separate and earlier action, Entergy applied to the NRC on

| September 10, 2003, for a power increase of approximately 20 percent for the VYNPS (from

| 1593 to 1912 megawatts-thermal). A NEPA evaluation (Environmental Assessment [EA]) was

| conducted for this action. The EA and its finding of no significant impact were published in the

| Federal Register (FR) on November 9, 2005. The notice of issuance was published in the FR on

| January 27, 2006. Thermal discharges, required by Section 316(a) of the CWA to be protective

| of indigenous shellfish, fish, and wildlife, are regulated through the permitting process of the

| NPDES program. See the response for OO-4, VVV-1, PPP-1, PPP-8, PPP-40, OOO-1, and

| RRR-3 (Section A.2.6) for further discussion on the NPDES program.

|

| Comment: Page 2-27: The section discussing the NPDES permit should clarify that the EPA,

| or a delegated state, has the ability to include restrictions on cooling water intake structures.

| The current language suggests that conditions are limited to discharge standards and

| monitoring requirements for effluents from outfalls. (PPP-6)

|

| Response: Text has been added to this section to indicate that the NPDES program (as

| outlined in CWA, Sec. 402) also regulates the location, design, construction, and capacity of

| cooling water intake structures.

|

| Comment: Page 2-28: The dSEIS states that the New England Coalition appealed the NPDES

| permit amendment that was issued on March 30, 2006. It is the Department’s understanding

| that Entergy also appealed the permit (over the denial of a thermal increase for the period May
Appendix A

August 2007 A-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

16 through June 15). Therefore, there may be a third outcome; if Entergy wins its appeal, the |

thermal limits would increase for the entire summer period. In fact, this scenario is the one |

explicitly contemplated and evaluated by NRC staff in the SEIS (page 2-32). The FSEIS should |

explain why all three possibilities were not considered in the evaluation of the environmental |

impact of the plant. (PPP-7) |

|

Response: The text of Section 2.2.3.1 has been revised to reflect the fact that Entergy |

challenged the State’s decision to restrict the 1EF thermal discharge increase to the period |

June 16 through October 14. The aquatic ecology evaluation presented in this SEIS does |

consider the 1EF increase for the time period May 16 through October 14 (see also |

Section 4.1.4). The evaluation is conservative in that it identifies potential impacts under each |

of three possible scenarios: (1) no temperature increase in discharge for the entire period |

(May 16 through October 14); (2) temperature increase in discharge for the period June 16 |

through October 14 only; and (3) temperature increase in discharge for the entire period |

(May 16 through October 14). |

|

Comment: Page 2-34, Table 2-6: The NPDES permit does not contain a condition regarding a |

maximum temperature exceedance rate for the summer period; therefore, the Department is |

unclear why the last column is included. (PPP-9) |

|

Response: The data were included in Table 2-6 because Entergy provides it in its monthly |

NPDES monitoring reports to the State (even though, as the commenter points out, it is not |

required for the summer months). However, to avoid confusion, the last column of Table 2-6 has |

been deleted. |

|

Comment: Page 2-38 [2-36]: The FSEIS should clarify that the thermistor data were not |

collected with the intent to “characterize the circulation and distribution of heated water,” but |

were used to develop and calibrate a hydrothermal model, which was then used to estimate |

how raising the thermal limits would affect water temperatures within the LVP and at Station 3. |

The hydrothermal model showed that under existing conditions, the thermal plume from VY |

extends across the river over to New Hampshire and downstream to Vernon Dam. (PPP-10) |

|

Response: The sentence states that thermistor data were collected as part of a study to |

characterize the circulation and distribution of heated water. While it’s true that the data were |

collected to calibrate a hydrothermal model, they are presented in this section to illustrate a |

snapshot of temperature variations with depth across Vernon Pool under “expected” summer |

conditions (June-July) and under low-flow conditions (August), which represent a worst-case |

scenario in terms of impacts to aquatic biota. |

|

Comment: Page 4-13, lines 17-19: The operation of downstream dams would have no effect |

on the water surface elevation of the Vernon impoundment. (PPP-21) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-88 August 2007

| Response: The sentence was modified to indicate that the surface elevation of the pool

| fluctuates as much as 8 ft due to operations at upstream dams, Vernon Dam, and runoff inflow.

|

| Comment: Page 4-51, lines 15-18: Regarding the discussion of solar radiation’s contribution

| to the difference in river temperature between monitoring stations, please refer to our comments

| under the Water Quality section above. (PPP-37)

|

| Comment: Page 2-32:The dSEIS refers to the equation developed decades ago to calculate

| the plant-induced temperature increase. While NRC staff provides a concise overview of how

| the model was developed, the Department recommends that the FSEIS explain why it is still

| appropriate to use a very old model when many conditions on the river are different than they

| were in the 1970s. From the Department’s perspective, it would be a very useful exercise to

| revisit the concept and parameters that go into the equation and to validate it under present-day

| conditions. VY’s compliance with its thermal limits is determined based on calculated

| temperature at Station 3, not by measured temperature. To date, any discrepancy between the

| two numbers has been attributed to atmospheric loading. While this may be true, Entergy has

| not provided any data to support that contention. (PPP-8)

|

| Comment: NHFGD agrees with all the statements made by the U.S. Department of Interior,

| especially those related to water quality and entrainment/impingement. Of particular concern is

| the use of an equation, as stated on page 2-32 of the dSEIS, to determine the discrepancy

| between calculated and measured temperatures at Site 3. NHFGD notes that the Department of

| Interior stated on page 5 of their letter that “it would be a very useful exercise to revisit the

| concept and parameters that go into the equation and to validate it under present-day

| conditions”. NHFGD recommends that water temperature data be collected much closer to the

| outfall, but upstream and outside of the influence of the outfall’s discharge. This will provide a

| more accurate and precise understanding of the plant’s true contribution to the thermal

| conditions in the Connecticut River. (OOO-1)

|

| Response: The NRC staff has evaluated the equation used by the applicant to calculate the

| plant-induced temperature increase in the river. The changes in river conditions over the past

| several decades have been accounted for by the applicant’s 316a demonstration and model,

| which utilized river conditions and data collected in 2002. The equation utilized by the applicant

| was verified with measured data and current river conditions within this model. Although the

| equation utilized to calculate temperature increase in the river is old, it continues to provide a

| reasonable approximation of temperature increase downstream and is continually verified by

| river temperatures collected at Station 3 on an hourly basis. As water moves downstream, it

| becomes thoroughly mixed as it passes over Vernon Dam, and thus reduces the influence of

| VYNPS at Station 3. During the summer, the river will continue to increase in temperature

| primarily due to solar insolation as it continues south. With the exception of five exceedances

| since 2000, all less than 1 hour in duration, the applicant has been in compliance with the river

| temperature limits set by its NPDES permit.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-89 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: VYNPS is currently operating under a NPDES permit dated September 28, 2004 |

(not the permit dated June 9, 2003 referenced in the Draft Supplement 30). As such, many |

references to the 2003 amendment are incorrect; among them: |

Table 2-1 p. 2-24, line 9 is incorrect. The 2004 permit allows 46,500 gpd not 14,000 gpd. |

p. 2-27; lines 27,28 |

p. 2-28; lines 17, 35, 38 |

p. 4-14; lines 17 -21 |

p. 4-17;-lines 35 -36 (CCC-9) |

|

Response: The September 28, 2004, version of the NPDES permit has been obtained from |

Entergy; all recommended text changes have been made. |

|

Comment: As correctly noted in Supplement 30 page 2-28, an amended permit was issued on |

March 30, 2006 approving an increase in the thermal discharge limitations. This amended |

permit was temporarily stayed by the Vermont Environmental Court for the year 2006. Motions |

to renew the stay indefinitely have been filed with the Court, an evidentiary hearing has |

tentatively been set for April 10 to 13, 2007 and the matter is pending a final decision by the |

Court. (CCC-10) |

|

Response: The comment provided no new and significant information; therefore, no change |

was made in the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: P. 2-28; line 32 mentions only NEC. The appeal was initiated by the Connecticut |

River Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited and the Citizens Awareness Network (referred to |

collectively here in as CRWC) on April 21, 2006. (CCC-11) |

|

Response: The sentence has been modified as follows: “In May 2006, the New England |

Coalition (NEC), along with the Connecticut River Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited, and the |

Citizens Awareness Network, appealed the NPDES permit amendment that was issued on |

March 30, 2006.” |

|

Comment: Section 2.2.3, page 2-39, line 17 -18. The reported iron concentration of .425 mg/l |

may be inaccurate. Total zinc is reported to range up to .425 mg/I. (CCC-14) |

|

Response: The 0.425 mg/L value for iron was reported in error; the value should be 117 mg/L. |

The text has been corrected. |

|

Comment: In recognition of the uncertainties of the local effects of increasing climate change, |

so-called ‘global warming’, it would be prudent to place (for the period May 16-October 14) a |

figure on ambient river temperature (measured at up-river Station 7) ABOVE which the plant |

should operate in a cooling mode which would result in NO increase in the mixed river |

temperature measured at down-river Station 3, ABOVE the number measure at Station 7. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-90 August 2007

| I believe that the State of Vermont (relative to the NPDES Permit) has proposed 85 oF. The

| exact details could be worked-out between the three state’s members on the Vermont

| Yankee”Environmental Advisory Committee” (re: NPDES Permit) and Vermont Yankee. I would

| note that there already is such a limit (65 EF) in effect for the winter period of

| October 15-May 15. 

|

| Historical data collected by Aquatec, Inc. between 1967 and 1995 have shown that ambient

| river temperatures rarely exceeded the low-mid 80 EF range. However, global warming could

| push those temperatures higher in the future. (JJJ-3)

|

| Comment: This is issue is NOT raised in the Draft GElS as far as I remember. But it IS an

| issue between the VT Agency of Natural Resources, who issues the NPDES Permit, and VY.

| The VT Agency wants a limit (85 EF) and VY opposes it. I agree with the Agency. I may be in

| error raising the issue with the NRC. (JJJ-1)

|

| Response: The commenter is referred to Table 2-4, which lists the discharge temperature

| requirements under the NPDES permit as amended March 30, 2006. In that amended permit,

| the VDEC included an 85EF upper limit at downstream Station 3 during the period June 16

| through October 14. While global warming may make it difficult for the applicant to meet State

| river temperature limits in the future, the applicant would still have to comply with the limits set in

| NPDES permits, and this may entail additional periods of hybrid- or closed-cycle operations of

| the station cooling system.

|

| Comment: Page 2-40, lines 6-16. It is unknown whether the UST referenced in this paragraph

| is the source of the PCE (chlorinated solvent) contamination. (CCC-8)

|

| Response: The paragraph was modifed to include the following statement: 

| “Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), a metal degreasing agent, was also detected in this area; its

| source is unknown.”

|

| Comment: In Section 2.2.2.2, p. 2-26, NRC claims that groundwater is 30 feet below surface at

| the south end of the site. This is deceptive and incomplete information, since that is certainly not

| true of the entire site, and is directly contradicted by the Battelle (1991) study cited above. The

| SEIS seems to repeat a pattern of bait and switch--substituting less damning information for

| information that would be more relevant ecologically. (RRR-9)

|

| Response: The text in Section 2.2.2.2 describes the variation in depth to groundwater across

| the site. The text has been modified to describe the occurrence of perched groundwater at

| different areas on the site, which ranges in depth from 8 to 16 ft at the southern portion of the

| site.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-91 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: The surface hydrology at the Vernon reactor shows nine of ten storm drains with no |

monitors for radioactive or chemical run-off into the CT. River watershed. (KKK-4; LLL-2) |

|

Comment: You claim ENVY releases nearly no liquid effluents. In Sec. 2.2.31 of the SEIS you |

reveal that ENVY has 11 outflow pipes (and is requesting a permit for a 12th one) that release |

directly into the CT River, one for cooling water, and the others apparently from storm drains. |

But then your table shows that with the exception of the outfall pipe that releases cooling water, |

there are no radiation limits, and no monitoring required for effluents from most of the |

outfalls--all but two are unmonitored (SEIS section 2.2.31). (RRR-5; OO-5) |

|

Response: This is correct; according to the NPDES permit in effect, only the discharge at |

Outfall S/N 002 (Station Low Level Radioactive Liquid Waste System) is required to be |

monitored for radioactivity (along with pH). The permit also sets maximum annual quantities of |

radionuclides released and dose limits of effluents, and requires reporting of any abnormal |

releases. See also response to comment RRR-6. |

|

A.2.7 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology, Terrestrial Ecology, and Threatened and |

Endangered Species Issues |

|

Aquatic Ecology |

|

Comment: This is a permitting system driven by the Federal Clean Water Act and the EPA. I |

spearheaded the renewal of the discharge permit every five years, I also guided two combined |

316A, 316B demonstrations which resulted in modification of thermal discharge temperature |

criteria being permitted under very specific conditions of overflow and temperature to |

adequately protect river biota. During my 24-year tenure, all the data collected from the river, |

with associated analysis and interpretation, was conducted for Vermont Yankee by the |

environmental consulting firm Aquatech Incorporation out of South Burlington. |

|

Vermont Yankee and Aquatech actually began the studies pre-operationally in 1967 before I |

was on the scene. From day one, the early environmental program was crafted with consultant, |

with consultation and input from the state environmental agencies from Vermont, New |

Hampshire and Massachusetts. In the very early days, up to about 1972 or `73, the Atomic |

Energy Commission, now the NRC, you guys, was also on board in proffering the studies. The |

programs always remained flexible with an eye to modifications, as might be required in the |

future. |

|

Incidentally, it was also in 1967 that the New England states, which host the Connecticut River, |

launched a long term project to attempt to restore the Atlantic Salmon to the river, along with the |

collaboration of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The area of the river included in the Vermont |

Yankee study zone extends from up river in Brattleboro where the West River enters to the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-92 August 2007

| south, down river, at the old abandoned Shell Bridge at Northfield, Massachusetts. This 26-mile

| stretch of river is without question the most intensively and extensively studied section of the

| entire river.

|

| In conclusion, my 24-year tenure, `72 to `96, in charge of the Vermont Yankee river studies, it’s

| my professional judgement, opinion, that it has been adequately demonstrated that Vermont

| Yankee’s impact on the ecosystem of the river has been negligible, not zero but negligible, very

| low, or, in the parlance of the NRC, very small. (I-1)

|

| Response: The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes

| were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: (Pgs. 2-8, 2-9). According to the DSEIS, the authorized intake and discharge flow

| limit for both the open-and hybrid-cycle cooling modes is 543 mgd. The amount of water

| withdrawn when in hybrid-mode varies depending in part on the water temperature of the

| Connecticut River. The NRC concludes on page 4-17 that potential impacts from entrainment of

| fish and shellfish by Vermont Yankee would be “SMALL,” based in part by the utilization of the

| closed-or hybrid-cycle mode during much of the spawning season. Since the hybrid-mode can

| utilize up to the same flow as open-cycle mode (360,000 gallons per minute), its use does not

| necessarily assure a reduction in fish entrainment mortality. The FSEIS should include historical

| flow data for the hybrid-cycle mode during peak periods of icthyoplankton presence in order

| provide a better assessment of entrainment potential as compared to closed-cycle (10,000 gpm)

| and open-cycle modes. It should also discuss the impacts that would result if the high end of the

| intake flows that are permitted were, in fact, withdrawn from the river. Of course, to the extent

| that those higher flows are not permitted, then impacts from them do not need to be evaluated. 

| (VVV-2)

|

| Comment: Page 4-17: According to the dSEIS, the authorized discharge flow limit for both the

| open-and hybrid-cycle cooling modes is 543 mgd. The amount of water withdrawn when in

| hybrid-cycle mode varies depending in part on the water temperature of the Connecticut River.

| NRC staff concludes that potential impacts from entrainment of fish and shellfish by VY would

| be “SMALL,” based in part on the utilization of the closed-or hybrid-cycle mode during much of

| the spawning season. However, since hybrid-cycle mode can utilize up to the same flow as

| open-cycle mode (360,000 gallons per minute), its use does not necessarily assure a reduction

| in fish entrainment mortality. The FSEIS should include historical flow data for the hybrid-cycle 

| mode during peak periods of ichthyoplankton presence in order provide a better assessment of

| entrainment potential as compared to closed-cycle (10,000 gpm) and open-cycle modes. 

| (PPP-28)

|

| Comment: (Pg. 4-16). Table 4-3 presents percentages and numbers of fish eggs and larvae

| entrained at Vermont Yankee. According to the DSEIS (pg. 4-15), sampling for larvae is

| conducted weekly from early May through mid-July. While Table 4-3 includes quantities of eggs
Appendix A

August 2007 A-93 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

and larvae collected during the sampling period,. it does not provide a clear sense of the |

number of eggs and larvae that are actually entrained. The DSEIS does not describe the |

sampling procedures so it is unclear what these numbers represent. To develop representative |

estimates of entrainment, time and flow rates would have to be factored in with larval |

concentrations on a weekly basis. We recommend that the FSEIS provide total entrainment |

estimates for the species listed in Table 4-3. Comments related to the assessment of |

environmental impact from the impingement of fish and other aquatic organisms. (VVV-5) |

|

Comment: Page 4-16, Table 4-3: The Table presents percentages and numbers of fish eggs |

and larvae entrained at VY. According to the dSEIS (pg. 4-15), sampling for larvae is conducted |

weekly from early May through mid-July. While Table 4-3 includes quantities of eggs and larvae |

collected during the sampling period, it does not provide a clear sense of the number of eggs |

and larvae that are actually entrained. The dSEIS does not describe the sampling procedures, |

therefore it is unclear what these numbers represent. To develop representative estimates of |

entrainment, time and flow rates would have to be factored in with larval concentrations on a |

weekly basis. The FSEIS should provide total entrainment estimates for the species listed in |

Table 4-3. (PPP-23) |

|

Response: In its March 9, 2007, letter providing comments on the draft SEIS, the VANR |

generally agreed with NRC’s conclusion that the impacts of entrainment from VYNPS are likely |

to be SMALL. This is regardless of whether VYNPS is operating in a closed-, hybrid-, or |

closed-cycle. In part, the VANR based its conclusion on the NPDES process that includes the |

ongoing monitoring and review that allows VANR to adjust permit conditions regarding cooling |

water intake. Entergy is currently involved in a multi-year sampling program to quantify potential |

intake impacts on the fish community. This includes an assessment of total entrainment |

estimates. The results of this investigation may be submitted to the VANR and Environmental |

Advisory Committee (EAC), and could be used, in part, for the NPDES permitting process. The |

comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the |

SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: (Pg. 4-15). The DSEIS states, “When ichythoplankton are at their peak in the |

Connecticut River (e.g., late spring through early summer), VYPNS is generally operating in an |

open-cycle or hybrid mode.” However, NRC concludes on page 4-17 that potential impacts from |

entrainment of fish and shellfish by Vermont Yankee would be “SMALL,” based in part on the |

utilization of the closed-or hybrid-cycle mode during much of the spawning season. These |

statements appear to contradict each other. If the first statement erroneously states |

“open-cycle” instead of the intended “closed-cycle”, then the FSEIS should reflect that. If, |

however, the first statement is accurate, then the NRC should re-evaluate its basis for a |

conclusion of SMALL impact. (VVV-3) |

|

Comment: Page 4-15, 4-17: The dSEIS states, “When ichthyoplankton are at their peak in the |

Connecticut River (e.g., late spring through early summer), VYNPS is generally operating in an |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-94 August 2007

| open-cycle or hybrid mode.” However, NRC staff concludes on page 4-17 that potential impacts

| from entrainment of fish and shellfish by VY would be “SMALL,” based in part by the utilization

| of the closed-or hybrid-cycle mode during much of the spawning season. These statements

| contradict each other. If the first statement erroneously states “open-cycle” instead of the

| intended “closed-cycle”, then the FSEIS should reflect that. If, however, the first statement is

| accurate, the NRC should re-evaluate its basis for a conclusion of SMALL impact. (PPP-25)

|

| Response: The text in Section 4.1.2 has been changed to correct the conflicting statements

| mentioned in the comments. In its March 9, 2007, letter providing comments on the draft SEIS,

| the VANR generally agreed with NRC’s conclusion that the impacts of entrainment from VYNPS

| are likely to be SMALL. In part, the VANR based this opinion on the NPDES process that

| entails ongoing monitoring and review that allows VANR to adjust permit conditions regarding

| cooling water intake. Entergy is currently involved in a multi-year sampling program to quantify

| potential intake impacts on the fish community. The results of this investigation may be

| submitted to the VANR and EAC, and could be used, in part, for the NPDES permitting process.

|

| Comment: (Pg. 4-17). The NRC’s conclusion related to entrainment potential over the 20-year

| renewal period suggests that plant operations will continue as they have historically. According

| to the DSEIS (page 2-6) Vermont Yankee requested and received authorization from the NRC

| (authorization was granted on March 2, 2006) for a power uprate to increase the gross electrical

| output of the facility from 540MW to 650MW. It seems that such an increase in electrical output

| would result in a proportionate increase in waste heat, resulting in additional cooling water

| withdrawal. If so, this would lead to a corresponding increase in entrainment and impingement,

| and in the scope of the thermal discharge, possibly during periods when early lifestages of fish

| and other aquatic organisms are present in the water column. In addition, Vermont Yankee

| requested and received a seasonal temperature increase from VTDEC that would allow the

| plant to operate in the closed-cycle mode less frequently during periods when larval and

| juvenile fish are most vulnerable to entrainment and impingement. The FSEIS should identify

| and assess impacts from any new or planned modifications in plant operations that may

| increase impacts to aquatic organisms. (VVV-4)

|

| Comment: Page 4-15, 4-17: The NRC’s conclusion related to entrainment potential over the

| 20-year renewal period suggests that plant operations will continue as they have historically. 

| However, within the last year, two significant changes to plant operations have occurred that

| change entrainment dynamics. First, if the power uprate results in a proportionate increase in

| waste heat, additional cooling water withdrawal may be needed, which, in turn, could increase

| entrainment. In addition, VY requested and received from the VANR a seasonal temperature

| increase [the amended permit has been stayed while the appeal is resolved] that would allow

| the plant to operate less frequently in the closed-cycle mode during periods when larval and

| juvenile fish are most vulnerable to entrainment and impingement. The FSEIS should fully

| evaluate the potential entrainment impacts of these new or planned modifications in plant

| operations. (PPP-26)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-95 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: Under the power uprate, the rate of river water withdrawal is not affected. In fact, |

the cooling towers may need to be operated more often to meet thermal discharge impacts set |

forth in the NPDES permit. Therefore, entrainment and impingement rates would not be |

expected to increase. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no |

changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: (Pg. 4-17). The DSEIS provides no specific information on the cooling water intake |

structure (CWIS) by which to assess its potential to impinge fish, or assess the likelihood that |

impinged fish are returned to the river alive and unharmed. The FSEIS should include a |

detailed description of the CWIS, including the intake velocities under the various operational |

modes, the water pressure(s) of the spray wash system used to remove fish and debris from the |

traveling screens, the mesh size and operation frequency of traveling screens, and the design |

of the fish return system. (VVV-6) |

|

Response: A description of the cooling water intake has been added to Section 2.1.3 and a |

description of intake velocities has been added to Section 4.1.3 in response to the comment. |

|

Comment: (Pg. 4-19). Table 4-4 provides the annual percentages and numbers of fish |

impinged at Vermont Yankee. The same concerns we provided above about the entrainment |

data provided in Table 4-3 also apply to the impingement data. While impingement is more |

difficult to estimate than entrainment given the sporadic nature of impingement events, |

impingement at a particular location is still largely a function of flow, intake flow velocity, and the |

unique characteristics of the CWIS. We recommend that the FSEIS provide more information |

on how many of each species may be impinged in a given year. In addition, an assessment of |

the fish return system should be included that describes the system’s ability to return impinged |

fish to the river uninjured. (VVV-7) |

|

Response: VYNPS does not have a fish return system for impinged fish. Nevertheless, |

impingement losses are low. For example, impingement of Atlantic salmon and American shad |

has not exceeded yearly limits set by the VANR. In its March 9, 2007, letter providing |

comments on the draft SEIS, the VANR generally agreed with NRC’s conclusion that the |

impacts of impingement from VYNPS are likely to be SMALL. In part, the VANR based this |

opinion on the NPDES process that entails ongoing monitoring and review that allows VANR to |

adjust permit conditions regarding cooling water intake. Entergy is currently involved in a multi- |

year sampling program to quantify potential intake impacts on the fish community. This includes |

an assessment to more accurately quantify yearly impingement losses. The results of this |

investigation may be submitted to the VANR and EAC, and could be used, in part, for the |

NPDES permitting process. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: (Pg 4-20). This section of the DSEIS provides a discussion of some potential |

environmental impacts associated with the discharge of heated effluent. As we have |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-96 August 2007

| commented to the NRC in other EIS reviews, the use of the term “heat shock” implies a fairly

| limited scope of review for a pollutant (i.e., heat) that can affect aquatic organisms and their

| habitats in many ways other than “shock.” We recommend that the discussion in FSEIS on this

| subject be expanded to address heat’s less conspicuous ability to: 1) prevent the use of

| affected areas by temperature-sensitive species; 2) attract and expose organisms to areas of

| elevated temperature during spawning periods; and 3) expose eggs and larvae to water

| temperatures above levels that are optimal for the affected species and life stage or would be

| typical in the absence of the thermal discharge. (VVV-8; PPP-33)

|

| Response: With the exception of heat shock, the GEIS concluded that impacts from thermal

| discharges from power plants are SMALL and are considered Category 1 issues not requiring a

| site-specific analysis (see Section 4.1 of the SEIS). Heat shock, a Category 2 issue requiring a

| site-specific analysis, is evaluated in Section 4.1.4. The NRC staff did provide additional

| information on thermal effects to migratory fishes in Section 4.7.2 and Appendix E. The NRC

| staff concluded that there was no new and significant information beyond that considered in the

| GEIS; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: (Pg. 4-50). While the DSEIS provides some discussion of the thermal plume’s

| potential to restrict migration of Atlantic salmon and American shad, the fact that fish are

| passing upstream at the Vernon Dam does not, in itself, demonstrate that migration has not

| been impeded by elevated temperatures caused by the plant. It’s unclear how a delay in

| upstream migration may ultimately affect the spawning success of American shad or Atlantic

| salmon, but these species have not been able to re-establish themselves in the Connecticut

| River basin. There are multiple stressors contributing to their low numbers, and any additional

| stressors can only further delay the rebuilding of their stocks. We recommend that the FSEIS

| provide more discussion on the status of these important fish populations, and provide a range

| of alternatives for Vermont Yankee to further reduce impacts to these species. (VVV-9)

|

| Comment: (Pg. 4-21). The DSEIS focuses on potential thermal impacts to the Vernon Pool, in

| particular the Lower Vernon Pool, but there is very little information about thermal impacts to

| habitat below the Vernon Dam. The FSEIS should include temperature data that graphically

| depicts the spatial extent of the thermal plume below the Vernon Dam, and its behavior within

| the water column, under various seasonal and flow conditions. This information would provide a

| sense of when and how much habitat may be unsuitable to certain species less tolerant of heat. 

| (VVV-10)

|

| Response: The NRC staff provides a comprehensive evaluation of the migration of

| anadromous fish species in the Connecticut River in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.7.2 of the SEIS and

| concludes that the impacts of continued operation on these species would be SMALL. Any

| impacts would not result in detectable changes to anadromous fish stocks. The NRC staff

| acknowledges that thermal discharges from VYNPS may result in some slight incidental stress

| to certain species, but such stress would be inconsequential when compared to other stresses
Appendix A

August 2007 A-97 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

due to human activities on the Connecticut River. The EPA has delegated the responsibility for |

compliance with Section 316(a) of the CWA to the VANR. Therefore, compliance with this |

regulation is the responsibility of the state of Vermont. The NRC’s regulatory jurisdiction is |

limited to the characterization of impacts in accordance with NEPA. The NRC does not have |

the regulatory authority to require VYNPS compliance with the requirements of the CWA. The |

need to mitigate impacts on aquatic resources due to thermal discharges from VYNPS is |

subject to a determination by the State under Section 316(a) of the CWA, and could become a |

condition of future NPDES permitting. The comments provide no new and significant |

information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: Page 4-20, lines 5-15: NRC staff asserts that VY operates in closed-or hybrid-cycle |

modes during much of the year. The Department recommends that the FSEIS provide |

supporting information showing, on an annual basis, the percentage of time that VY operates in |

each mode. The NRC’s conclusion related to impingement potential over the 20-year renewal |

period suggests that plant operations will continue as they have historically. However, the two |

significant changes to plant operations referred to above (i.e., the uprate and thermal increase) |

could change impingement dynamics. The FSEIS should fully evaluate the potential fish |

impingement impacts of these new or planned modifications in plant operations. (PPP-32) |

|

Comment: Page 4-50, lines 26-30: NRC staff concludes that because impingement of shad |

and salmon has always been below annual limits stipulated in the NPDES permit, these species |

do not frequent the LVP [Lower Vernon Pool]; therefore, VY’s thermal plume does not delay |

shad or salmon movements or function as an attraction to these species. First, as noted above, |

in 2005, the number of shad impinged greatly exceeded the number collected by seining and |

electroshocking. A conservative conclusion that could be drawn from this information is that |

shad production in the LVP is low to begin with, and many of those juveniles end up impinged |

on the traveling screens. Second, salmon and shad must frequent the LVP in order to migrate |

downstream. Third, no information provided in the dSEIS supports the contention that VY does |

not delay shad or salmon movements; those data simply do not exist for shad under the present |

thermal limits. Moreover, salmon smolt studies show a longer maximum residency time at |

Vernon than at Wilder or Bellows Falls Dams [Table 5-23 of the Section 316(a) Demonstration |

in Support of a Request for Increased Discharge Temperature Limits at Vermont Yankee |

Nuclear Power Station during May through October, Normandeau Associates, April 2004], |

which could lead one to conclude that VY is a contributing factor to migration delay. In order to |

sort out whether, and to what extent, Vernon and VY each contribute to migration delay, a |

rigorous scientific study designed specifically to address the issue is needed. |

|

While we know that shad are able to ascend the Vernon fish ladder, we do not know if they are |

delayed at the entrance due to any temperature differential, or in the LVP as they migrate |

upstream to spawn. We also do not know whether temperatures in the LVP affect spawning |

success. The trend analysis referred to above [Table 5-23 of the Section 316(a) Demonstration |

in Support of a Request for Increased Discharge Temperature Limits at Vermont Yankee |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-98 August 2007

| Nuclear Power Station during May through October, Normandeau Associates, April 2004],

| showed declining juvenile shad abundance, which could be attributed to one or more factors,

| possibly including the thermal regime of the LVP. Directed studies like those done during

| Project SHARE have not been undertaken since the most recent thermal limits went into effect. 

| (PPP-35)

|

| Response: The results of fish investigations that have been done over the years at VYNPS

| (including 36 annual reports and three Section 316 Demonstrations) have been reviewed by the

| VANR. The VANR is responsible for the NPDES permit, and the EAC reviews and evaluates

| the environmental monitoring and studies program at VYNPS. These reviewed reports and

| demonstrations have shown the fish community in the vicinity of VYNPS (including migratory

| species) to be healthy and relatively stable. In its March 9, 2007, letter providing comments on

| the draft SEIS, the VANR generally agreed with NRC’s conclusion that the impacts of the

| thermal discharge, impingement, and entrainment from VYNPS are likely to be SMALL. In part,

| the VANR based this opinion on the NPDES process that entails ongoing monitoring and review

| that allows VANR to adjust permit conditions regarding intake and thermal discharges. Entergy

| is currently involved in a multi-year sampling program to quantify potential intake impacts on the

| fish community, including American shad and Atlantic salmon. The results of this investigation

| may be submitted to the VANR and EAC, and could be used, in part, for the NPDES permitting

| process. Under the power uprate, the rate of river water withdrawal is not affected. Therefore,

| entrainment and impingement rates would not be expected to increase. The comments provide

| no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to

| these comments.

|

| Comment: Another issue the Department recommends the FSEIS investigate is the

| geographic extent of VY’s influence on water temperature. Presently, the thermal effluent is

| considered “fully mixed” at Station 3, for the purposes of the NPDES permit. However, at that

| point the water temperature is still up to 2°F higher than ambient. In order to fully understand

| the impact VY’s thermal effluent has on the aquatic community of the Connecticut River,

| resource agencies need to know how far downstream the raised river temperature extends. 

| This is especially pertinent to Atlantic salmon smolts, that could be adversely impacted by

| extended periods at elevated temperatures. (PPP-11)

|

| Comment: Another example of misleading information is your conclusion regarding “Heat

| Shock” of native fish populations, when COLD SHOCK is the more relevant concern for juvenile

| shad prevented from downstream passage by the heat plume which covers the downstream

| passage entrance, and which may stay in the Vernon pool later in the season because their

| normal thermal signals are disrupted by ENVY’s waste heat. Then when they do head south to

| the ocean, they will be met with unaccustomed colder water due to the late migration. This is

| when many will die from cold shock. It appears the NRC did not evaluate any data that might

| elucidate this potential problem, it was merely mentioned and dismissed. The impact on

| federally endangered shortnosed sturgeon in the areas below the Turners Falls Dam where they
Appendix A

August 2007 A-99 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

are known to habituate, where a thermal influence from ENVY may still be detectable (no data |

to the contrary was presented in the SEIS), was likewise not evaluated by USFWS or NRC, it |

was simply dismissed with a pro forma letter. This is not an environmental impact assessment, |

it is an exercise in guesswork and passing the buck. What is the effect of the thermal plume on |

benthic biota? No mention in the SEIS. (RRR-10) |

|

Response: The comments refer to the Category 1 issue related to thermal plume barriers to |

migratory fish species, premature emergence of aquatic insects, and the distribution of aquatic |

organisms in the receiving waters. The NRC staff evaluated the information provided to |

determine if it represents new and significant information related to these three issues. |

|

Section 4.7.2 discusses the potential effects of the thermal discharge from VYNPS on out- |

migrating anadromous fish species. The NRC staff concluded that it is unlikely that a thermal |

discharge plume that partially extends across the river would result in an impact to juveniles |

moving downstream. |

|

Although the thermal plume due to VYNPS operations extends some distance downstream of |

Vernon Dam, it is quickly masked by heat loading to the river from solar insolation and from |

inflows from river tributaries. Fish are mobile and seek out optimal conditions and avoid harmful |

temperatures. Shortnose sturgeon are likewise unlikely to be affected by any small river |

temperature increase in Holyoke Pool (the upstream portion of Holyoke Pool is located more |

than 20 river mi downstream of the Vernon Dam). |

|

The surface plume discharge from VYNPS would have no effect on benthic organisms |

inhabiting Vernon Pool. The heated water is buoyant and typically remains near the surface. |

The slight increase in temperature experienced by benthic organisms below Vernon Dam is well |

within the temperature tolerance of organisms inhabiting the river. The monitoring of benthic |

organisms over many years has shown no detectable population changes. |

|

The NRC staff concludes that the comments provide no new and significant information related |

to impacts of Category 1 issues of thermal plume barriers on migratory fish, premature |

emergence of aquatic insects, or the distribution of aquatic organisms beyond those discussed |

in the GEIS. Therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: Page 2-47, lines 3-4: The dSEIS states that fish are routinely sampled as part ofthe |

NPDES monitoring requirements, and that samples are collected by electroshocking in May, |

June, September and October. The FSEIS should note that in addition to the resident fish |

collections, American shad are sampled downstream of Vernon Dam by electroshocking and |

upstream of Vernon Dam by beach seine hauls, from July through October. (PPP-12) |

|

Response: The text in Section 2.2.5.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |
Appendix A

| (a) See letter from the Department of the Interior (Accession No. ML070730154) for Figures 1 and 2.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-100 August 2007

|

| Comment: Page 2-47, lines 6-35: This section summarizes the species assemblage at VY for

| the pre-operational period and for the period 1991-2004. Based on this information, NRC staff

| concludes that “The fish community near the VYNPS has remained relatively stable...,” yet the

| two communities compared are quite disparate:

|

|

| Period 

|

Pre-Operational(a) | 1991-2004(b) |

|

| smallmouth bass yellow perch 

| white sucker bluegill 

| yellow perch pumpkinseed 

| rock bass spottail shiner 

| walleye largemouth bass 

| white perch white sucker 

| (a) assumed decreasing abundance

| (b) identified in decreasing abundance

|

| As part of the 316(a) process, the FWS recommended that VY analyze the entire long-term

| fisheries data set; however, VY declined to use data prior to 1991 for its statistical analyses. 

| While some indication of change to the fish communities upstream and downstream of Vernon

| Dam can be ascertained by comparing the percent composition of selected species over time

(Figures 1and 2, below),(a) | the full extent of VY’s thermal effluent impact cannot be determined

| until a thorough evaluation of the entire data set is conducted, including pre-operational data

| and data collected under different permit limits. (PPP-13)

|

| Comment: Page 4-51, lines 10-12: The dSEIS concludes that none of the observed changes

| in fish community composition or distribution in over 30 years of study in the LVP and upper

| Turners Falls Pool can be reasonably attributed to operations of VY. Based on the available

| information, the Department does not agree that the conclusion can be made that the changes

| to the fish community structure upstream and downstream of Vernon Dam since VY began

| operating [Table 5-14 of the Section 316(a) Demonstration in Support of a Request for

| Increased Discharge Temperature Limits at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station during May 

| through October, Normandeau Associates, April 2004] or the recent declining trends in several

| fish species [Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont, Report 35, January-

| December 2005, DRAFT, May 2006, Normandeau Associates] are not, at least in part, due to

| impacts caused by VY’s impingement, entrainment, and/or thermal effluent. The FSEIS should

| provide documentation to support NRC staff’s conclusion. (PPP-36)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-101 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: Changes in the fish community observed in over 30 years of extensive surveys at |

VYNPS are due to a number of factors. Early studies involved a number of netting and trapping |

techniques, whereas current collections primarily involve electroshocking at reduced frequency |

of sampling. The use of different sampling gear on the same body of water will result in |

differences in the occurrence and abundance of fish taken. Changes in fish communities have |

also occurred due to the addition to fish passage facilities at the dams and due to introductions |

(accidental or intentional) of various fish species to the river. These changes can cause |

variations in fish community composition that are independent of any impacts of VYNPS |

operations. Section 2.2.5 has been changed to reflect these influences. The results of fish |

investigations that have been done over the years at VYNPS (including 36 annual reports and |

three Section 316 Demonstrations) have been reviewed by the VANR, which is responsible for |

the NPDES permit, and the EAC, which reviews and evaluates the environmental monitoring |

and studies program at VYNPS. These reviewed reports and demonstrations have shown the |

fish community in the vicinity of VYNPS to be healthy and relatively stable. Nevertheless, |

Entergy has initiated a multi-year sampling program to quantify potential intake impacts on the |

fish community. The results of this investigation may be submitted to the VANR and EAC, and |

could be used, in part, for the NPDES permitting process. The comments provide no new and |

significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these |

comments. |

|

Comment: Page 2-50, lines 22-23: The citation used for optimal temperature range of salmon |

smolts appears to be based on somewhat dated references, with the most recent being |

Shepherd 1991. The FSEIS should consider more recent research that shows a relationship |

between temperature and smolt physiology (McCormick et al. 1999) and temperature and smolt |

behavior (Barbin Zydlewski el al. 2005). These studies relate directly to potential impacts of |

VY’s thermal effluent on smolt physiology. Higher water temperature increases the degree days |

experienced by smolts, which narrows the smolt window (the opportunity for smolts to |

successfully migrate to the estuary while they still retain their salinity tolerance). In addition, as |

the dSEIS points out, dams can delay migrating smolts. Given the extent of VY’s thermal plume |

and its proximity to Vernon Dam and the downstream bypass facility, it is highly likely that the |

two projects, in combination, act to adversely affect smolt behavior and physiology (although the |

extent to which this impacts smolt survival has not been documented, to date). (PPP-14) |

|

Response: The citation for optimal temperature range for Atlantic salmon smolts has been |

updated in Section 2.2.5. Appendix E provides a discussion of potential thermal effects on |

smolt physiology. It should be mentioned that even if smolts originating from upstream portions |

of the Connecticut River lose their salinity tolerance (undergo desmoltification) due to delays in |

downstream passage (due principally to delays in multiple dam passage and distance of |

migration) and, therefore, remain in the river, they can successfully undergo smoltification the |

following year. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no |

changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-102 August 2007

| Comment: Page 2-50, lines 33-35: Although adult Atlantic salmon returns had declined to less

| than 100 prior to 2005, the returns for 2005 and 2006 were 186 and 211, respectively 

| [http://www.fws.gov/v5crc/fish/daily.html]. (PPP-15)

|

| Response: Section 2.2.5.1 has been changed to reflect 2005 and 2006 Atlantic salmon

| returns.

|

| Comment: Page 2-51, lines 7-14: Given that downstream bypass facilities at hydroelectric

| projects on the river have only improved over time, presumably reducing turbine mortality, it

| does not appear that citing turbine mortality as a factor for declining American shad returns is

| accurate. Likewise, while the increase in the Connecticut River striped bass stock is a valid

| concern, no real habitat modifications to the impoundments have occurred in the past two

| decades. The FSEIS should either delete the reference to predation pressure in the

| impoundments or provide documentation to support the contention. (PPP-16)

|

| Response: The American shad has been in decline throughout the East Coast coincident with

| the significant increase in the striped bass population. Research is ongoing to determine if

| there is a relationship between the abundance of the two fish stocks. Although most information

| available at the present time is anecdotal, experts generally accept that there is a predator-prey

| relationship between the two species; however, that relationship needs to be quantified. The

| text of Section 2.2.5 has been changed to more thoroughly discuss factors that may be

| contributing to American shad decreases throughout its range and within the Connecticut River.

|

| Comment: Page 2-51, lines 20-25: In addition to the passage problems noted for the Cabot

| (Turners Falls) fish ladder, the FSEIS should identify that a second passage problem exists at

| the Gatehouse fishway (located at the upstream end of the hydropower canal). Efforts are

| underway to correct both issues. With respect to passage efficiency between hydro projects,

| from 2004-2006, 17 percent of the shad that passed Turners Falls Dam also passed Vernon

| Dam [2006 data are still preliminary]. (PPP-17)

|

| Response: The text in Section 2.2.5.1 has been revised in response to the information

| provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-51, lines 25-29: The Department does not dispute the changes noted to the

| population structure of American shad on the Connecticut River. However, ascribing these

| changes solely to the implementation of fish passage facilities is not appropriate. The

| Department is aware of studies on other rivers without large dams or fish passage facilities that

| have shown similar changes in the structure of river herring stocks [Justin Davis, presentation at

| the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission Research Forum, February 16, 2007]. 

| (PPP-18)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-103 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: The discussion of the American shad in Section 2.2.5.1 has been revised to more |

clearly indicate that various factors have adversely affected the American shad throughout its |

range. Nevertheless, dams within the Connecticut River do have a major influence on the |

distribution and abundance of the American shad within the river. |

|

Comment: Page 2-55, lines 9-11: This statement requires clarification. While American eel |

are common in many rivers and streams in Massachusetts and Connecticut, there are some |

notable exceptions; no eels have been collected recently upstream of the third dam (Shepaug) |

on the Housatonic River in Connecticut, and no eels have been collected recently in the |

Massachusetts portion of the Blackstone watershed. (PPP-19) |

|

Response: The text in Section 2.2.5.1 of this SEIS has been changed based on the |

information provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Pages 4-14, 4-15: NRC staff provides a clear, concise summary of the 316(b) |

statutory requirements. However, since the dSEIS was issued, new developments have |

occurred (detailed below) that the FSEIS should address. |

|

On January 26, 2007, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a lawsuit Waterkeeper |

Alliance and other parties filed against the EPA over the Phase II 316(b) regulations issued in |

2004. In its decision, the court remanded to EPA the provision establishing Best Technology |

Available and the site-specific cost-cost variance. The court remanded based on impermissible |

constructions of the statute, including those provisions that (1) set performance standards as |

ranges without requiring facilities to achieve the greatest reduction of adverse impacts they can; |

(2) allow compliance through restoration measures; and, (3) authorize a site-specific |

cost-benefit variance [Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. vs. U.S. EPA, United States Court of Appeal for |

the Second Circuit, January 26, 2007]. |

|

VY has cooling towers but is only required to use them in order to meet the thermal limits |

specified in the NPDES permit. As part of the long-term biological monitoring that has been |

required at the plant, impingement and ichthyoplankton samples are collected annually during |

the summer period to document the extent of impingement and entrainment at the intake. |

Under the existing NPDES permit, there are no limits on impingement and entrainment rates of |

resident fish, but there are limits set for Atlantic salmon and American shad. |

|

Given that VY has always had cooling towers, which is commonly accepted as the Best |

Technology Available (BTA), the Department recommends that the FSEIS give thorough |

consideration to an alternative that requires Entergy to operate VY in closed-cycle mode |

year-round. The Department’s position is that this alternative would meet the statutory standard |

of “minimizing adverse environmental impact” pursuant to 316(b). (PPP-22) |

|
Appendix A

| (a) See letter from the Department of the Interior (Accession No. ML070730154) for Figures 1 and 2.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-104 August 2007

| Response: There have been further developments related to EPA’s Phase II regulations since

| the submission of the above comment. As a result of the 2nd Circuit Court ruling, EPA has

| suspended the Phase II rule, effective July 09, 2007 (72 FR 37107). The summary of 316(b)

| Phase II requirements has been modified in Section 4.1.2. The responsibility for compliance

| with Section 316(b) of the CWA has been delegated to the VANR. Therefore, compliance with

| this regulation is the responsibility of the state of Vermont. The NRC’s regulatory jurisdiction is

| limited to the characterization of impacts in accordance with NEPA. The NRC does not have

| the regulatory authority to require VYNPS compliance with the requirements of the CWA. The

| need to operate under a closed system to mitigate impacts on aquatic resources is subject to a

| determination by the State under Section 316(b) of the CWA and could become a condition of

| future NPDES permitting. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore,

| no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 4-17, lines 11-13: Although Entergy believes no observable adverse impacts

| to any fish species or to the overall fish community of Vernon Pool due to entrainment by VY

has been demonstrated, the fact remains that Figures 1 and 2(a) | above show a decline in the

| percent composition of white sucker and white perch in the LVP, and both of these species do

| show up in entrainment collections. Whether this relationship is causal or coincident is

| unknown. (PPP-24)

|

| Response: Changes in the fish community observed in over 30 years of extensive surveys at

| VYNPS are due to a number of factors. Early studies near VYNPS involved a number of netting

| and trapping techniques whereas current collections primarily involve electroshocking at

| reduced levels of collection. Collection techniques introduce bias in sampling that affects

| assessment of both species composition and abundance. Changes in fish communities over

| time have also occurred due to the addition to fish passage facilities at the dams and due to

| introductions (accidental or intentional) of various fish species to the river. These changes can

| cause variations if fish community composition that are independent of any impacts of VYNPS

| operations. Section 2.2.5 has been changed to reflect these influences. The results of fish

| investigations that have been done over the years at VYNPS (including 36 annual reports and

| three Section 316 Demonstrations) have been reviewed by the VANR, which is responsible for

| the NPDES permit, and the EAC, which reviews and evaluates the environmental monitoring

| and studies program at VYNPS. These reviewed reports and demonstrations have shown the

| fish community in the vicinity of VYNPS to be healthy and relatively stable. 

|

| In its March 9, 2007, letter providing comments on the draft SEIS, the VANR generally agreed

| with NRC’s conclusion that the impacts of entrainment from VYNPS are likely to be SMALL. In

| part, the VANR based this opinion on the NPDES process that entails ongoing monitoring and

| review that allows VANR to adjust permit conditions regarding cooling water intake. Entergy is 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-105 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

currently involved in a multi-year sampling program to quantify potential intake impacts on the |

fish community. The results of this investigation may be submitted to the VANR and EAC, and |

could be used, in part, for the NPDES permitting process. |

|

Comment: Page 4-17: The dSEIS provides no specific information on the cooling water intake |

structure (CWIS) to use in assessing its potential to impinge fish, or in assessing the likelihood |

that impinged fish are returned to the river alive and unharmed. The FSEIS should include a |

detailed description of the CWIS, including the intake velocities under the various operational |

modes, the water pressure(s) of the spray wash system used to remove fish and debris from the |

traveling screens, the mesh size and operation frequency of traveling screens, and the design |

of the fish return system. (PPP-27) |

|

Response: A description of the cooling water intake has been added to Section 2.1.3 and a |

description of intake velocities has been added to Section 4.1.3 in response to the comment. |

VYNPS does not have a fish return system; therefore, impingement mortality is assumed to be |

100 percent. |

|

Comment: Page 4-18, lines 25-42: NRC staff provides impingement data from the 1970s and |

1980s in numbers of fish impinged per day. For later data, the number reported is apparently |

total number collected. This method of reporting is confusing and makes it difficult to compare |

data sets. The FSEIS should standardize units and note any differences in sampling |

methodology between time periods. (PPP-29) |

|

Comment: Page 4-20, lines 5-15: The NPDES permit calls for weekly and 24-hour sampling. |

On the first day, the traveling screens are backwashed and the debris is examined for salmon |

and shad only. This provides the quantity of shad and salmon impinged during the previous six |

days. [The inherent assumption is that all impinged fish stay on the traveling screens and are |

not passively or actively (e.g., predation) removed prior to sampling.] Then, 24 hours later, the |

process is repeated, except the debris is examined for all impinged fish [Ecological Studies of |

the Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont, Report 35, January-December 2005, DRAFT. May |

2006, Normandeau Associates]. In the most recent draft biological monitoring report, |

[Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont, Report 35, January-December |

2005, DRAFT, May 2006, Normandeau Associates] during the summer period over 2,000 fish |

were impinged, with a total weight of over 65 kg. This number represents approximately 21 |

days of sampling (or less than 6 percent of a year). In comparison, only 376 fish were sampled |

via electrofishing during that same period (335 upstream of Vernon Dam). American shad had |

the highest impingement rate (577), yet no shad were collected in the general electrofishing |

sample upstream of Vernon Dam, and only 120 were caught in the beach seining conducted |

specifically for American shad [Vermont Yankee/Connecticut River System, Analytical |

Bulletin 83: Abundance of Juvenile American Shad in the Vernon Pool during 2005, May 2006, |

Normandeau Associates]. The report contains a scatter plot of juvenile American shad |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-106 August 2007

| abundance for the period 1991 through 2005, showing a statistically significant negative trend

| (i.e., decreasing shad stock). Impingement of shad could be a contributing factor in the stock

| decline. (PPP-31)

|

| Response: The impingement samples collected during the 1970s and most of the 1980s were

| primarily 24-hour collections made to assess impingement losses due to open-cycle and hybrid-

| cycle operations. Therefore, data were available for discrete single-day samples. Starting

| about 1988, impingement sampling requirements set forth in the NPDES permit required

| impingement samples to be collected weekly from April 1 through June 15 and from August 1

| through October 31. Prior to the start of a weekly sample, the intake screens are backwashed

| and the debris checked for American shad and Atlantic salmon. On the following day, the

| screens are backwashed and all fish are identified, counted, measured, and weighed. Thus, for

| total fish analyses, there are about 23 impingement samples collected per year; whereas, a total

| census is obtained for American shad and Atlantic salmon. From Table 4-4 in the SEIS, it can

| be seen that the number of outmigrating American shad is very low and has never exceeded

| limits established in the NPDES permit.

|

| The results of fish investigations that have been done over the years at VYNPS (including 36

| annual reports and three Section 316 Demonstrations) have been reviewed by the VANR, which

| is responsible for the NPDES permit, and the EAC, which reviews and evaluates the

| environmental monitoring and studies program at VYNPS. These reviewed reports and

| demonstrations have shown the fish community in the vicinity of VYNPS (including migratory

| species) to be healthy and relatively stable. In its March 9, 2007, letter providing comments on

| the draft SEIS, the VANR generally agreed with NRC’s conclusion that the impacts of

| impingement from VYNPS are likely to be SMALL. In part, the VANR based this opinion on the

| NPDES process that entails ongoing monitoring and review that allows VANR to adjust permit

| conditions regarding intake and thermal discharges. Entergy is currently involved in a

| multi-year sampling program to quantify potential intake impacts on the fish community,

| including American shad. This will include estimates of equivalent losses of adult American

| shad due to impingement losses of outmigrating juveniles. The results of this investigation may

| be submitted to the VANR and EAC, and could be used, in part, for the NPDES permitting

| process. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes

| were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: Page 4-19, Table 4-4: This Table provides the percentages and numbers of fish

| impinged at VY during the summer period. It is unclear why data are combined for years 1988

| and 1990-1997. It would be more helpful to include the information for each individual year. 

| Under the current NPDES permit, no impingement monitoring is required during the winter

| period, which makes it impossible to determine annual impingement rates. Unlike

| ichthyoplankton entrainment, which is fairly discreet in its periodicity, impingement could occur

| year-round. In fact, impingement during the winter period may be higher than during the

| summer, if the heated effluent acts to attract resident species such as yellow perch. (PPP-30)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-107 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: Data are combined for years 1988 and 1990–1997 in Table 4-4 of the SEIS for |

simplification of the table and because of the way in which the data were summarized by the |

applicant. Detailed analysis of the data is unnecessary because of the consistently low daily |

impingement rates. The 685 impingement samples collected for the initial 316 Demonstration |

were made between early September to early June, with many collected during the winter |

months. The daily impingement totals were only 23 fish/day (0.55 lb/day). Therefore, even if |

the thermal discharge was attracting resident fish during winter, it was not apparently resulting |

in high impingement losses. The text of Section 4.1.3 has been revised to indicate the months |

during which the initial 316 Demonstration impingement samples were collected. The NRC staff |

recognizes that VANR could, through requirements in the NPDES permitting process, require |

year-round impingement sampling. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 4-50, lines 12-21: The dSEIS identifies an upper feeding limit for salmon of |

72.5°F, an upper limit for survival of 82°F, and a smolt residency time of 12 hours. First, neither |

of the temperatures referenced relates to salmon smolts. The upper feeding limit mentioned is |

for parr, and the survival limit is for adults. Little, if any, information exists on temperature |

thresholds of smolts. However, as mentioned previously, recent research has shown a |

relationship between temperature and smolt physiology and temperature and smolt behavior. |

Second, the radiotelemetry studies done by Aquatec were conducted prior to the most recent |

thermal limits going into effect. The conclusions reached may or may not be valid under |

present-day conditions. Third, the 12-hour residency time is an average, and some smolts had |

residency times of up to 3 1/2 days [Table 5-23 of the Section 316(a) Demonstration in Support |

of a Request for Increased Discharge Temperature Limits at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power |

Station during May through October, Normandeau Associates, April 2004]. |

|

The radiotelemetry studies conducted in the 1990s were intended to assess the efficiency of the |

downstream bypass facility at Vernon Dam, not to evaluate the thermal impact of VY on smolt |

behavior or physiology. Smolts are surface-oriented, and while they may indeed sound down to |

avoid the warmest water in the LVP, no data exist to support that presumption. Unfortunately, |

the configuration of the two projects (Vernon and VY) presents a worst-case scenario for smolts |

(and shad) because the fishways are located on the same side of the river as VY’s discharge |

and the plume extends across the river. Whether migrants travel through the plume (the most |

direct route, but warmest water), or negotiate a path around the plume (cooler water, but longer |

residency time), ultimately they are exposed to elevated temperatures that could influence their |

survival. (PPP-34) |

|

Comment: Page 4-51, lines 23-28: The dSEIS focuses on potential thermal impacts to the |

Vernon Pool, in particular the LVP, but there is very little information about thermal impacts to |

habitat below the Vernon Dam. The FSEIS should include temperature data that graphically |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-108 August 2007

| depict the spatial extent of the thermal plume below the Vernon Dam under various seasonal

| and flow conditions. This information would provide a sense of when and how much habitat

| may be unsuitable to certain species less tolerant of heat. 

|

| The dSEIS states that no observable adverse impacts to any fish species or to the overall fish

| community of Vernon Pool due to thermal discharges from VY have been demonstrated. Again,

| the most recent biological monitoring report, the first to include a long-term trend analysis,

| shows statistically-significant declining catch-per-unit-effort for three species, including

| American shad in the LVP, walleye in the Vernon tailrace, and white sucker both upstream and

| downstream of Vernon Dam. The Department is concerned by these results, and does not

| concur with the reasons put forth by Entergy that attribute the declines to factors other than VY. 

| [Entergy’s consultant argues that catch per unit effort (CPUE) of shad and white sucker

| upstream of VY’s thermal influence also declined; therefore, the trend cannot be attributed to

| VY. However, this rationale assumes that fish do not move between the two areas, which is not

| a reasonable assumption, given these species’ mobility.] At a minimum, these data highlight the

| need for a more detailed investigation of possible causes for the declines. (PPP-38)

|

| Comment: Page 4-54, lines 16-19: The dSEIS states that VY impacts are localized and have

| a minimal contribution to the cumulative impact on aquatic resources in the Connecticut River. 

| The Department respectfully disagrees, especially with regard to Atlantic salmon. Roughly 70

| percent of all salmon-rearing habitat in the watershed is located upstream of VY, and that

| habitat produces nearly 60 percent of the system’s smolts [Jay McMenemy, personal

| communication; smolt production based on a five-year average (range 55.6-67.4)], which must

| pass through VY. Research has shown that higher water temperature increases the degree

| days experienced by smolts, which narrows the smolt window (the opportunity for smolts to

| successfully migrate to the estuary while they still retain their salinity tolerance). VY’s thermal

| effluent and the location of the discharge within the Vernon impoundment could contribute

| significantly to the cumulative impact on Atlantic salmon smolts migrating from upstream

| tributaries. If exposure to elevated temperatures at VY contributes to a reduction in at-sea

| survival of post-smolts, fewer adults may return to the river. 

|

| The dSEIS notes that “if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual

| impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline.” NRC

| staff goes on to conclude that the cumulative impact of continued operation of VY would be

| SMALL and no additional mitigation is warranted. The Department does not agree that the

| cumulative impact would be SMALL. However, even if the impact was SMALL, the fact that the

| resource (e.g., American shad, blueback herring) is declining argues strongly for mitigation

| measures. In this instance, the obvious mitigation would be to require VY to operate in

| closed-cycle mode year-round, which would greatly reduce impacts associated with

| impingement, entrainment and thermal effluent. (PPP-39)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-109 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Massachusetts Commonwealth efforts to reestablish Salmon spawning in the |

watershed are likely to be damaged by operations at the Vernon reactor. (KKK-5; LLL-3) |

|

Response: The results of fish investigations conducted over the years at VYNPS (including |

36 annual reports and three Section 316 Demonstrations) have been reviewed by the VANR, |

which is responsible for the NPDES permit, and the EAC, which reviews and evaluates the |

environmental monitoring and studies program at VYNPS. These reviewed reports and |

demonstrations have shown the fish community in the vicinity of VYNPS (including migratory |

species) to be healthy and relatively stable. In its March 9, 2007, letter providing comments on |

the draft SEIS, the VANR generally agreed with NRC’s conclusion that the impacts of thermal |

discharges from VYNPS are likely to be SMALL. In part, the VANR based this opinion on the |

NPDES process that entails ongoing monitoring and review that allows VANR to adjust permit |

conditions regarding intake and thermal discharges. Entergy is currently involved in a multi- |

year sampling program to quantify potential impacts on the fish community, including Atlantic |

salmon and other migratory species. A preliminary review by the NRC staff of the data collected |

for this multi-year study supports previous conclusions that the impact of the operation of |

VYNPS on fish species in the Connecticut River is SMALL. The results of this investigation may |

be submitted to the VANR and EAC, and could be used, in part, for the NPDES permitting |

process. |

|

Appendix E provides a discussion of potential thermal effects on smolt physiology. It should be |

mentioned that even if smolts originating from upstream portions of the Connecticut River lose |

their salinity tolerance (i.e., undergo desmoltification) due to delays in downstream passage, |

they can successfully undergo smoltification the following year. The comments provide no new |

and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these |

comments. |

|

Comment: Another error on p. 2-85., regarding consultation with appropriate federal and state |

agencies, required under NEPA: You neglected to consult with the US Geological Survey, |

which provides ongoing scientific study of the river’s chemistry, physical parameters and biota |

and cooperates in research at the Conte Anadromous fish Research Station in Tuimers Falls, |

MA. This is a serious oversight, as Shad and Short-nosed Sturgeon research are ongoing by |

USGS scientists and years of data on temperature ranges and their normal range of variation |

are available there. Please remedy this oversight in the final SEIS. (RRR-11) |

|

Response: Consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is not required under NEPA. |

Nevertheless, the NRC staff did visit the USGS S.O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center |

to discuss the anadromous fish restoration efforts underway in the river and to obtain the |

opinions of its staff on the potential influences of VYNPS operations (e.g., thermal discharges) |

relative to other influences (e.g., fish passage impacts at the dams) in the river. In response to |

the comment, the USGS has been added to the list of organizations contacted in Appendix D. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-110 August 2007

| Comment: The VANR generally agrees with the NRC conclusions regarding the Environmental

| Impacts of Operation set forth in Section 4 of the Draft Supplement 30. For example, the NRC

| appropriately examined the potential impacts to threatened and endangered species in

| proximity to the project site. VANR believes that assessing the potential impacts associated

| with the cooling water operations over the life of the license is difficult, given the number of

| variables and the dynamic nature of the affected ecosystems. However, because the Clean

| Water Act (CWA) requires that the discharge and the cooling water operations and structures

| comply with stringent standards which assure the protection and propagation of a balanced

| indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife; VANR concurs with the NRC conclusion that

| the impacts of the thermal discharge and fish impingement and entrainment is likely to be small. 

| This is true, in large part, because the process associated with the NPDES permit is iterative in

| that it entails ongoing monitoring and review, and allows VANR to adjust the permit conditions

| regarding the cooling system operations and thermal regime. As noted by the NRC, VANR

| “may impose further restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system,” as well as to the

| thermal regime to reduce or eliminate any impacts, in accordance with the CWA. The

| applicable state and federal standards under the CWA are protective of water quality and the

| environment, and the permit must be renewed every five years. (CCC-7)

|

| Response: The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes

| were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-54. Also, it is worth noting that the sea lamprey has been extirpated from

| Vermont and from the Connecticut River. (CCC-13)

|

| Response: As discussed in Section 2.2.5.1, the sea lamprey was extirpated from Vermont two

| centuries ago. However, once fish passages were added to the mainstream dams on the

| Connecticut River, the sea lamprey became re-established in the river and now occurs as far

| upstream as Wilder Dam. In 2006, nearly 2900 sea lamprey passed Vernon Dam (see

| Table 2-8). The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes

| were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-54, line 24: Shad are not likely to have been found spawning in a vernal

| pool as printed. This is should probably refer to the “Vernon” pool. (CCC-17)

|

| Response: The text in Section 2.2.5.1 of this SEIS has been changed based on the

| information provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: I have reviewed the “Aquatic Resources” sections of the Report and agree with the

| conclusions that the environmental impact of VY operation on aquatic biota and the overall

| aquatic ecosystem of the Connecticut River would be, in the language of the Report, ‘small’. 

| (The term that I use is ‘negligible’.) I believe that the requirements of US EPA Sections 316a

| and 316b have been met. (JJJ-2)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-111 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes |

were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page iii & iv, Line 36-38 & 1 |

“The Phase II Rule requires a permittee to submit substantial information regarding the |

operation of its intake structure and the interaction of the intake structure and the aquatic |

ecosystem. The permittee then develops a plan for compliance with the Rule’s national |

performance standards, which may include operational modifications or the installation of |

additional technology for organism protection. Therefore, would recommend revising the |

sentence; “However, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations, |

the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation may impose further restrictions or |

require modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impacts on aquatic resources from |

entrainment and impingement”. Revise to read as follows; “However, under the provisions of |

the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations, one or a combination of compliance measures |

specified in the regulations may be implemented at VYNPS, if needed, in coordination with the |

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation to meet the numerical performance |

standards outlined in the Phase II regulations, thereby ultimately reducing entrainment and |

impinqement from plant operations even further.” (UUU-1) |

|

Comment: Page xix, Line 12-15 |

“The Phase II Rule requires a permittee to submit substantial information regarding the |

operation of its intake structure and the interaction of the intake structure and the aquatic |

ecosystem. The permittee then develops a plan for compliance with the Rule’s national |

performance standards, which may include operational modifications or the installation of |

additional technology for organism protection. Therefore, would recommend revising the |

sentence; “However, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations, |

the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation may impose further restrictions or |

require modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impacts on aquatic resources from |

entrainment and impingement”. Revise to read as follows; “However, under the provisions of |

the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations, one or a combination of compliance measures |

specified in the regulations may be implemented at VYNPS, if needed, in coordination with the |

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation to meet the numerical performance |

standards outlined in the Phase II regulations, thereby ultimately reducing entrainment and |

impingement from plant operations even further.” (UUU-2) |

|

Comment: Page 4-14, Line 38-41 |

“The Phase II Rule requires a permittee to submit substantial 4-15 1-3 information regarding the |

operation of its intake structure and the interaction of the intake structure and the aquatic |

ecosystem. The permittee then develops a plan for compliance with the Rule’s national |

performance standards, which may include operational modifications or the installation of |

additional technology for organism protection. Therefore, would recommend revising the |

sentences, starting with “As part of the NPDES renewal.....” on Page 4-14 and going through |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-112 August 2007

| “during the license renewal period” on Page 415 to read as follows: “As part of the NPDES

| renewal, licensees may implement one or a combination of compliance alternatives, in

| coordination with the permitting agency, to meet the performance standards outlined in the

| 316(b) regulations. The new performance standards are designed to reduce entrainment losses

| due to water withdrawals associated with cooling water intake structures used for power

| production. Any additional site-specific measures implemented as a result of the 316(b) Phase

| II reviews at VYNPS would result in a reduction of entrainment during the license renewal

| period.” (UUU-37)

|

| Comment: Page 4-17, Line 19-21 

| “The Phase II Rule requires a permittee to submit substantial information regarding the

| operation of its intake structure and the interaction of the intake structure and the aquatic

| ecosystem. The permittee then develops a plan for compliance with the Rule’s national

| performance standards, which may include operational modifications or the installation of

| additional technology for organism protection. Therefore, would recommend revising the

| sentence; “However, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations,

| the VDEC may impose further restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system to

| reduce the impacts of entrainment’. Revise to read as follows; “However, under the provisions

| of the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations, VYNPS may implement additional

| measures, if needed, in coordination with the VDEC to meet the numerical performance

| standards outlined in the regulations, thereby ultimately reducing entrainment from plant

| operations even further.” (UUU-39)

|

| Comment: Page 4-18, Line 1-4

| Revise sentence to read as follows: ‘The new performance standards are designed to reduce

| impingement losses resulting from plant operation. Any site-specific measures implemented, if

| needed, would result in a reduction of impingement as a result of continued plant operation.” 

| (UUU-40)

|

| Comment: Page 4-20, Line 14-16 

| Revise sentence to read as follows; “However, under the provisions of the CWA 316(b) Phase II

| regulations, VYNPS may implement additional measures, if needed, in coordination with the

| VDEC to meet the impingement numerical performance standards outlined in the regulations,

| thereby ultimately reducing impingement from plant operations even further.” (UUU-41)

|

| Comment: Page 4-54, Line 19-21 

| Revise sentence to read as follows:”However, under the provisions of the CWA 316(b) Phase II

| regulations, VYNPS may implement additional measures, if needed, in coordination with the

| VDEC to meet the numerical performance standards outlined in the regulations, thereby

| ultimately reducing entrainment and impingement from plant operations even further.” 

| (UUU-48) 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-113 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Page 9-5, Line 26-29 |

Recommend revising the sentence; “However, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act |

316(b) Phase II regulations, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation may |

impose further restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impacts |

on aquatic resources from entrainment and impingement”. Revise to read as follows: |

“However, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations, VYNPS |

may implement additional measures, if needed, in coordination with the VDEC to meet the |

numerical performance standards outlined in the regulations, thereby ultimately reducing |

entrainment and impingement from plant operations.” (UUU-94) |

|

Comment: Page 9-6, Line 7-11 |

Recommend revising the sentence; “However, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act |

316(b) Phase II regulations, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation may |

impose further restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impacts |

on aquatic resources from entrainment and impingement’. Revise to read as follows; “However, |

under the provisions of the Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations, VYNPS may |

implement additional measures, if needed, in coordination with the VDEC to meet the numerical |

performance standards outlined in the regulations, thereby ultimately reducing entrainment and |

impingement from plant operations.” (UUU-95) |

|

Response: The Phase II regulations related to Section 316 of the CWA were recently |

remanded by the 2nd Circuit Court, and the EPA plans to suspend the Phase II regulations. |

The appropriate sections of the document have been changed to reflect this information. In |

response to the comments, the text has also been changed to reflect that any site-specific |

mitigation (regarding entrainment or impingement) required under the NPDES permitting |

process would result in less impact. The NRC staff concludes that impacts due to entrainment |

and impingement are SMALL. Any lessening of impacts due to further mitigation (e.g., lowered |

impingement) would not be expected to have a significant effect at the population level. |

|

Comment: Page 1-4, Line 39-40 |

The sentence; “The NRC staff has identified a new issue that was not previously addressed in |

the GElS related to essential fish habitat (EFH)” should be deleted since the EFH consultation |

and associated EFH assessment has already been identified by the NRC as being necessary in |

previous industry SEIS’s. Therefore, it is not “new information.” (UUU-4) |

|

Response: The need to perform an EFH assessment was not addressed in the GEIS that was |

published in May of 1996, as the Magnuson-Stevens Act was not passed until October of 1996 |

and the EFH Final Rule was published by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in June |

of 2002. Thus, although an EFH assessment has been included in several previous SEISs, it is |

still a “new issue” relative to the GEIS. As the comment provides no new and significant |

information, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-114 August 2007

| Comment: Page E-53, Line 34 

| As a suggestion, change “could install a fish return system or operate the station in the

| closed-cycle cooling mode” to “could implement technology or operational measures.” 

| (UUU-119)

|

| Response: The EFH assessment includes the NRC’s analysis of the impact of continued

| operation of VYNPS on Atlantic salmon essential habitat. The EFH assessment has not been

| revised within the final SEIS as suggested because the EFH was already transmitted to the

| National Marine Fisheries Service by letter dated December 12, 2006. 

|

| Comment: On page 4-7, the draft EIS reports that NRC has generically found “Cold shock

| [of fish] has been satisfactorily mitigated at nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems... 

| [later] Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of cold shock during the renewal

| term beyond those discussed in the GElS.” The staff should define cold-shock, and explain,

| “once-through.” The Monticello nuclear plant in Michigan had to shutdown recently when a valve

| bank broke loose and fell onto a main steamline. News accounts reported a large fish kill due to

| cold-shock. NRC Staff should consider amending its report in light of this information. (QQQ-

| 12)

|

| Response: Cold shock to aquatic organisms occurs when the thermal discharge from a power

| plant abruptly stops, subjecting organisms acclimated to the higher water temperatures in the

| thermal plume to a rapid drop in temperature. If this occurs during winter, fish that inhabit the

| thermal plume can be adversely affected by the instantaneous drop in temperature. However,

| at VYNPS, any normal (i.e., planned) plant shutdowns are gradual in nature and allow fish to

| acclimate to slowly decreasing temperatures. Off-normal shutdowns resulting in rapid

| temperature changes are infrequent but could occur at VYNPS. However, the lack of a

| discharge canal and the low density of fish in Vernon Pool would likely result in minimal

| cold-shock losses. No incidents of cold shock have been observed at VYNPS since it began

| operations. Once-through cooling (open-cycle cooling) is discussed in Section 2.1.3. It

| essentially involves the continuous intake of river water by the plant, flow of the cooling water

| through the plant, and the discharge of water back to the river. In contrast, when cooling towers

| are used (closed-cycle or hybrid-cycle cooling), some to most of the water is recycled through

| the plant. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes

| were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: NRC Staff provides extensive discussion of Entergy’s filed, granted, and appealed

| once-through water discharge permits, but is NRC Staff unaware of the recent US (2nd District)

| Court of Appeals decision that requires regulators to consider best available technology for

| power plant cooling? Further there is no discussion of cooling alternatives. Why is the draft EIS

| silent, for example, on dry cooling technologies? (QQQ-14)

|
Appendix A

(a) Attachments to the comment are not included in the SEIS. They are available for download from |

NRC’s ADAMS website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html under accession |

nos. ML061640032, ML061870497, ML070330217, and ML070450033. |

August 2007 A-115 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: The 316(b) Phase II regulations requiring best technology available were recently |

remanded by the 2nd Circuit Court, and suspended by the EPA on July 09, 2007 (72 FR |

32107). Section 4.1.2 has been revised to reflect the current status of the Phase II regulations. |

|

The comment questions why the NRC staff did not consider alternative cooling technologies. |

The NRC staff assessed the potential impacts related to the current cooling system based on |

the likely future operating restrictions placed upon VYNPS by the NPDES permit issued by |

VANR. The permit allows station operation using once-through, hybrid-cycle, and closed-cycle |

cooling during various times of the year. The NRC staff determined that the impacts related to |

this operating scheme would be SMALL and would likely continue during the renewal period; |

therefore, an assessment of alternatives to the cooling scheme is not necessary. |

|

The comment specifically recommended the consideration of dry cooling. The EPA conducted |

a full analysis of the dry cooling alternative for large power-producing facilities and concluded |

that dry cooling was not an economically practicable option for existing facilities on a national |

basis. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2001. Technical Development Document |

for the Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. |

Chapter 3. EPA-821-R-01-036. [November].) Therefore, the NRC staff did not consider dry |

cooling as an alternative. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, |

no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: These comments were filed as a proposed contention in New England Coalition’s |

Motion to Intervene, May 26, 2006, and accepted for litigation as NEC Contention One by the |

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) on December 13, 2006. However, the Commission |

has now seen fit to overrule the ASLB and exclude litigation of Contention One by CLI 07 16, |

issued April 11, 2007. |

|

Therefore, in as much as New England Coalition is now on notice that the very serious |

environmental issues in Contention One will NOT be considered by the ASLB, New England |

Coalition now submits Contention One as Comment on the NRC environmental review of |

Entergy Vermont Yankee’s License Renewal Application and the Draft EIS(a). (XXX-1) |

|

Response: By letter dated May 14, 2007, NEC requested that the NRC staff consider NEC’s |

filings related to their contention on cumulative impacts of thermal discharges from VYNPS’s |

once-through cooling system during the license renewal period as comments on the draft SEIS. |

The NRC staff has reviewed the technical information in the filings related to thermal effects on |

migratory fish species inhabiting the Connecticut River and concluded that no new and |

significant information was provided. The NRC staff concludes that there would be no impacts |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-116 August 2007

| related to thermal plume barriers on migratory fish during the renewal term beyond those

| discussed in the GEIS. The NRC staff has provided supplemental information on this issue in

| Section 4.7.2 of the SEIS.

|

| Terrestrial Ecology

|

| Comment: Chapter 2. Page 2-59. Red backed salamanders do not breed in vernal pools. 

| (CCC-12)

|

| Response: The text has been changed in response to this comment.

|

| Threatened and Endangered Species

|

| Comment: Page 2-57, lines 18-19: Although the shortnose sturgeon population downstream

| of Turners Falls Dam is 20 miles away from VY, the impact of the thermal effluent may still

| persist at that location. (PPP-20)

|

| Response: The maximum temperature permitted at the VYNPS downstream monitoring station

| (Station 3) is 85EF. Between 1998 and 2002, the maximum measured temperature at Station 3

| was 84EF for only 2 hours during these five years. Predicted maximum temperatures under the

| requested thermal increase would reach the 85EF permitted limit for only 6 hours per year. The

| maximum temperature measured at the upstream monitoring station (Station 7) between 1988

| and 2002 was 79EF. Solar warming of the river between Station 7 and 3 accounted for about an

| equal component of river warming as the thermal effluent from VYNPS. The stringent upper

| thermal limit placed upon VYNPS by the VANR, coupled with the heat addition to the river due

| to solar insolation and the influence of additions to the river from downstream tributaries, make

| any impact due to thermal discharge from VYNPS to any species in Holyoke Pool very unlikely. 

| It is, therefore, unlikely that warm water from VYNPS would have a thermal effect 20 mi

| downstream or that an effect that would not be within the natural and dam influenced variation in

| river temperatures. Within the lower Connecticut River, shortnose sturgeon have been

| frequently collected at river depths less than 3 ft and at temperatures as high as 86EF. Thus, no

| adverse thermal impacts to shortnose sturgeons would be expected. The comment provides no

| new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to

| this comment.

|

| Comment: Page, 2-60, Line 3-4 Change “on the VYNPS site” to “near the VYNPS site” since

| eagles have not been seen roosting on site property and there are no large trees on the VYNPS

| property. (UUU-16)

|

| Response: There are a number of large trees in the riparian habitat along the VYNPS

| boundary on the Connecticut River. These trees are suitable roosting sites for bald eagles. At
Appendix A

August 2007 A-117 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

least one eagle was seen roosting in this area during the NRC staff’s site audit in May 2006. No |

change was made to the text of the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 4-47, Line 19 |

Change “(Table 2-11)” to “(Tables 2-11 and 2-12)” to capture all State-listed threatened or |

endangered species. Table 2-11 shows only a partial listing. (UUU-43) |

|

Response: The text has been changed in response to this comment. |

|

A.2.8 Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues |

|

Comment: Staff has concluded that cooling tower drift (spray) is confined to the area |

immediately around the cooling towers. Is staff unaware that according to discovery materials |

provided by Entergy in a proceeding before the Vermont Public Service Board (Docket 6812), in |

the normal course of operation, Vermont Yankee NPP cooling towers discharge “drift” or spray |

at the rate of 183 gallons per minute. According to Entergy ground deposition of this drift has |

been measured at 1/10 of inch per year at a distance of 1000 meters. and the amount of drift |

will increase as thermal power is increased at the plant. Within the droplets of spray (drift) |

emanating from the towers are several, or all of the following substances in unknown formulas |

(mixes and chemical combinations), unmeasured point of discharge concentrations, and |

unmeasured point of deposition concentrations: |

|

1. Bulab 8006: penetrant/biodispersant to remove fouling in Service Water System |

(SWS). |

2. Bulab 7034 or Depositol BL530: corrosion inhibitor for use in SWS and circulating water |

(CW). |

3. Bulab 9027 or Inhibitor AZ8103: Copper corrosion inhibitor (CW). |

4. Dianodic DN2301; a dispersant (SWS and CW) |

5. Spectrus NX-1104: biocide, as an alternative or in addition to bromine/chlorine. |

(SWS) |

6. Cortrol 087700: oygen scavenger and pH control agent w/ hydroquinone (Boiler). |

7. Ferroquest FQ7101: to correct biological/corrosion fouling (SWS). |

8. Ferroquest FQ7102: a pH control agent (SWS) |

9. Oxidizing Biocides (Chlorine, Bromine) (SWS) |

|

These materials permitted for discharge (liquid) direct to the Connecticut River under Vermont |

Agency for Natural Resources Discharge Permit No. 3-1199. There is no permit that we could |

find regulating the discharge of chemicals from the cooling towers and there appears to be no |

regulatory standard for topical application or ingestion (as droplets) for these chemicals and |

biocides. In addition, the cooling towers are constructed of pressure treated wood. We |

presume from their appearance that this is chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood. |

Under increased thermal power conditions the cooling tower water will undergo, according to |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-118 August 2007

| Entergy, an overall temperature rise of approximately 4 of potentially, in combination with the

| additive chemicals, increasing the leach-rate of the CCA of VY cooling tower drift studies that

| were provided in the Vermont Public Service Board uprate case showing cooling tower spray

| deposition at distances of up to a mile. Arsenate control regulations have changed since the

| cooling towers were constructed and a credible environmental impact statement should take

| that into consideration. Also, the question remains why NRC staff characterized cooling tower

| droplets containing biocides and other toxins as air pollutants when they were in fact spray

| droplets applied topically and ingested by area biota. (QQQ-13)

|

| Comment: In 2002 Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee amended its discharge permits to include

| water treatment with a new list of chemical additives including proprietary formulas of biocides,

| detergents, surfactants and anti-corrosives to be applied, along with chlorine and fluorine

| compounds. These toxins and otherwise harmful materials may be incorporated in cooling

| tower drift, these are droplets which are expelled laterally from the towers as spray which have

| been found to travel and deposit up to a mile from the plant.

|

| There has been no formal evaluation of the environmental and human health impact Vermont

| Yankee’s cooling tower drift, which is site-specific with respect to the chemical mix, solution,

| periods of use, tower spray physical characteristics, characterization and susceptibility of

| effected biota, weather patterns, terrain, and characterization and location of potentially affected

| human populations. The impact of cooling tower drift over 20 additional years of operation at

| extended power uprate conditions must be quantified and verified prior to any assertions of no

| significant environmental impact for license renewal. (JJ-3)

|

| Response: Text has been added in Section 4.7.1 to acknowledge the drift study that was

| performed during the uprate and to summarize its conclusions. Potential for offsite adverse

| impact from the chemicals contained in drift is very small.

|

| A.2.9 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues

|

| Comment: Since there is a petition for rule making questioning the scientific basis of the

| radiation standards and calculations in the GEIS, which is still in the comment period until

| February 5th, you can find information about this petition on the Federal Register web site, the

| environmental review cannot be considered complete until those issues are resolved and a

| decision is made whether the generic environmental impact statement accurately reflects risks

| or needs to be revised.

|

| Therefore, I hereby petition you to halt the license renewal process of Vermont Yankee while

| the petition for rule making on the adequacy of radiation standards and risk factors in the GEIS

| is pending and until a full review and reconciliation of the radiation standards consistent with

| BEIR 7 and other current scientific studies of health effects of low-level ionizing radiation,

| external and internal, is undertaken. Then you can apply these more realistic standards to your
Appendix A

August 2007 A-119 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

estimates of early fatalities, latent mortality and radiation caused injuries that would be expected |

from continued operation of Entergy-Vermont Yankee under normal operating and accident |

scenarios. |

|

These data are of intimate concern to those of us living in Windham, Cheshire and Franklin |

Counties, the Vermont Yankee sacrifice zone. I would also like to present to you for your |

consideration this new and significant information. From 1999 to 2002, the Windham County |

cancer death rate was 12.7 percent above other Vermont counties based on 451 deaths during |

this four-year period. However, the death rate for all other causes in Windham County was only |

1.7 percent greater. The source of this information is the National Center for Health Statistics at |

the Centers for Disease Control. Some factors causing Windham County residents to die in |

excessive numbers from cancer and not from other causes, reasons for the high death rates |

need to be understood. |

|

Number two. Since 1979, the Windham County death rate exceeded the rest of the state by 19 |

percent for infants, 38 percent for children and adolescents and 30 percent for young adults. |

High death rates for these 243 persons include cancer, birth defects and other causes. This |

information came from the same source, the CDC. Why should Windham County have high |

death rates? There is no obvious reason. The county is nearly identical to the state in percent |

of minorities and foreign born residents and educational, poverty and income levels. |

Reasons accounting for the high death rates need to be understood. Emissions from Vermont |

Yankee must be considered as one possible factor. For years, scientists have agreed that |

radiation is much more toxic to the very young. Our local children and young adults have lived |

all their lives with Vermont Yankee releasing radioactivity and have never breathed air or drunk |

water without this radioactivity. How do the infant mortality rates compare to the rest of the |

state? How do the premature births and, what do you call them, miscarriages rates compare to |

the rest of the state? This information needs to be systematically investigated. (A-3) |

|

Comment: These data are of intimate concern to those of us living in Windham, Cheshire, and |

Franklin counties, the VY sacrifice zone. I would also like to present to you for your |

consideration this new and significant information: |

|

1. From 1999 to 2002, the Windham County cancer death rate was 12.7% above other |

Vermont Counties, based on 451 deaths during the four year period. However, the death rate |

for all other causes was only 1.7% greater (Source: National Center for Health Statistics, |

http://wonder.cdc.gov). Some factor is causing Windham County residents to die in excessive |

numbers from cancer, and not from other causes. Reasons for the high death rates need to be |

understood. |

|

2. Since 1979 the Windham county death rate exceeded the rest of the state by 19% for |

infants, 38% for children and adolescents, and 30% for young adults. High death rates for |

these 243 persons include cancer, birth defects, and other causes. (Source: same as above) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-120 August 2007

| Why should Windham County have high death rates? There’s no obvious reason. The county is

| nearly identical to the state in percent of minorities and foreign born residents, and educational,

| poverty and income levels. Reasons accounting for the high death rates, need to be

| understood. Emissions from Vermont Yankee must be considered as one factor. For years,

| scientists have agreed that radiation is much more toxic to the very young. Our local children

| and young adults have lived all their lives with Vermont Yankee releasing radioactivity, and have

| never breathed air or drank water without this radioactivity. 

|

| 3. Preliminary results show that radioactive Strontium-90 in baby teeth in Windham County is

| 62% greater than levels elsewhere in the state. Results for only 26 teeth reported thus far, but

| the pattern is consistent with those near other U.S. reactors. (Source: RPHP) (RRR-2)

|

| Comment: In estimating health impacts, the NRC appears not to have undertaken any locally

| focused epidemiological studies, disease registries or other health statistical resources. If your

| staff had, they would have found the unusual patterns of cancer deaths and mortality of young

| adults in Windham County Vermont I addressed in the second paragraph on page one of my

| comments, above. Have studies of disease incidence of Vernon Elementary School children

| 1972 -present been done? If not available from reputable sources, it is incumbent upon NRC to

| make sure the studies are done before expounding on the health risks or lack thereof. Given

| historically high gamma radiation levels inside the Vernon Elementary School, coincident in

| direction and time with high readings on ENVY’s fenceline TLD’s in 2004 (most recently

| documented in Vermont Public Service Board hearings in the dry cask case), and since these

| readings are clearly NOT due to Radon (daughters) as originally surmised (William Irwin,

| Vermont Department of Health, Radiological Division Chief, pers. comm.), it is clear more

| investigation is urgently needed. If no one has submitted these anomalous interior radiation

| readings in an elementary school just 300 yards from the reactor as new and significant

| information, I do so now. 

|

| It is imperative that NRC not only determine the source of these extremely high radiation levels,

| but honestly and impartially determine whether there are or have been unusual trends in

| disease incidence in children who live in Vernon and/or have attended the Vernon School over

| the past 30+ years. (RRR-15)

|

| Comment: In my community, living in the shadow of the Yankee Rowe and Vermont Yankee

| reactor, there is an empty chair at too many dinner tables, there are too many lost lives. This

| human cost is not insignificant to the husbands, wives, children, friends left behind to carry on,

| there is no relief here, there is no satisfaction available. (O-4)

|

| Comment: My comments are directly pertaining to the environmental impact statement, as

| that’s what I thought this hearing was supposed to be about, and I talked earlier about new and

| significant information regarding epidemiological statistics from the National Center for Health 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-121 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Statistics at the CDC that indicate that death rates in Windham County are higher than they are |

in the other counties in the state during the period that Vermont Yankee has been operating. |

(OO-1) |

|

Comment: The incidence of breast cancer has increased in the last decades to one in every |

eight women. It is not surprising that this statistic resonates with the more recent statistic that |

women are 52 percent more likely to contract cancer than men. (ZZ-3; AAA-11) |

|

Comment: The claims of ongoing health effects from our operation are completely |

unsubstantiated. (SS-3) |

|

Comment: What is essentially important for future life on earth is what poison we produce in |

making electricity. Obviously Vermont Yankee produces the worst type of poison that man can |

fathom, carbon in the atmosphere is nothing compared to radioactivity. All this talk of millions of |

dollars for the green fund is total manure compared to any small radioactive mishap or your |

grandchild’s cancer. (EE-2) |

|

Comment: The off-gassing of nuclear power plants, including the Vermont Yankee, contain |

these and other radioactive isotopes that fall on the grass, get into milk and plants that humans |

and other mammals consume. Humans in turn consume the meat from some of those |

mammals who consumed contaminated plants. We are at the top of the food chain in most |

incidences. Though low level radiation from isotopes is the worst form of cancer-causing |

agents, other types of radiation also weaken the mammal’s immune system, more specifically |

the militias of T Cells that can help combat the effects of this ionizing radiation. Human |

mammals sit in front of computers, televisions, fly in planes, and handle and ingest immune |

system depleting chemicals. All, over time, affect immune systems. Humans thus become |

much more likely not to have the T cells needed to combat the effect of ingested-and-lodged, |

ionizing, radioactive isotopes from the off-gassing of nuclear power plants such as the Vermont |

Yankee. (ZZ-2; AAA-10) |

|

Comment: Those who are economically challenged cannot afford organic food and |

supplemental vitamins and minerals that can boost immune system T cells and control nascent |

formation of cancerous cells. This fact should be considered in the environmental justice |

evaluations that are done in NRC Environmental Impact Statements. I would strongly |

recommend that all economically challenged people especially women and children -living in the |

shadow of nuclear facilities should receive free immune booster supplements and extra |

allowances for certified organic food and milk, free from chemicals and radioactive isotopes. |

This should be kept up until 12.5 years have past after the decommissioning that region’s |

reactor. (ZZ-4; AAA-12) |

|

Comment: When reactors shut down the amount of leukemia in young children goes down. |

(BBB-6) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-122 August 2007

|

| Response: The amount of radioactive material released from nuclear power facilities is well

| measured, well monitored, and known to be very small. The doses of radiation that are

| received by members of the public as a result of exposure to nuclear power facilities are so low

| that resulting cancers have not been observed and would not be expected. Although a number

| of studies of cancer incidence in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities have been conducted,

| there are no studies to date that are accepted by the scientific community that show a

| correlation between radiation dose from nuclear power facilities and cancer incidence in the

| general public. A number of studies that have been conducted and accepted by the scientific

| community are described below.

|

| In 1990, at the request of Congress, the National Cancer Institute conducted a study of cancer

| mortality rates around 52 nuclear power plants and 10 other nuclear facilities. The study

| covered the period from 1950 to 1984 and evaluated the change in mortality rates before and

| during facility operations. The study concluded that there was no evidence that nuclear facilities

| may be linked causally with excess deaths from leukemia or from other cancers in populations

| living nearby.

|

| In January 2001, the Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering issued a report on a

| study around the Haddam Neck nuclear power plant in Connecticut and concluded that

| radiation emissions were so low as to be negligible.

|

| The American Cancer Society in 2001 concluded that although reports about cancer clusters in

| some communities have raised public concern, studies show that clusters do not occur more

| often near nuclear plants than they do by chance elsewhere in the population. Likewise, there

| is no evidence that links strontium-90 with increases in breast cancer, prostate cancer, or

| childhood cancer rates. Radiation emissions from nuclear power plants are closely controlled

| and involve negligible levels of exposure for nearby communities.

|

| Also in 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology reviewed claims that there are

| striking increases in cancer rates in southeastern Florida counties caused by increased

| radiation exposures from nuclear power plants. However, using the same data to reconstruct

| the calculations on which the claims were based, Florida officials were not able to identify

| unusually high rates of cancers in these counties compared with the rest of the State of Florida

| and the nation.

|

| In 2000, the Illinois Public Health Department compared childhood cancer statistics for counties

| with nuclear power plants to similar counties without nuclear plants and found no statistically

| significant difference.

|

| With respect to VYNPS, The Vermont Department of Health released a report in 2006 called

| Cancer in Vermont (http://healthvermont.gov/pubs/cancerpubs/cancer_in_Vermont2005.pdf,
Appendix A

August 2007 A-123 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

NRC ADAMS Accession No. ML061740117), in which the Department provided a statistical |

analysis of cancer rates in all Vermont counties including the Windham county in which VYNPS |

is located. This study showed that the age-adjusted cancer rates in Windham county for most |

cancer types were not statistically different than the U.S. rate for the same type of cancer for |

both males and females. For lung cancer in females and prostate cancer in males, the study |

found that the rates were actually lower in Windham county than the U.S. average. |

|

The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: I respectfully submit that your GEIS, and the assumptions behind your SEIS are |

based on erroneous and incomplete information, and therefore your environmental review is |

neither thorough nor conservative. It has not been properly done. Since there is a petition for |

rulemaking questioning the scientific basis of the radiation standards and calculations in the |

GEIS, which is still in the comment period until Feb. 5, your environmental review cannot be |

considered complete until those issues are resolved, and a decision is made whether the GEIS |

accurately reflects risks or needs to be revised. Therefore, I hereby petition you (ok, it’s a 2.802 |

petition) to halt the license renewal process of Vermont Yankee while the petition for rulemaking |

on the adequacy of radiation standards and risk factors in the GEIS is pending, and until a full |

review and reconciliation of your radiation standards, consistent with BEIR VII and other current |

scientific studies of the health effects of low level ionizing radiation, external AND INTERNAL, is |

undertaken. Then you can apply those more realistic standards to your estimates of the early |

fatalities, latent mortality, and radiation-caused injuries that would be expected from continued |

operation of Entergy Vermont Yankee, under normal operating and accident conditions. |

(RRR-1) |

|

Comment: I am more and more convinced, the more time I spend googling, that all the |

reactors in the world must find ways to prevent tritium from escaping. Since the escapes were |

uncovered in Illinois last summer, it is evident that this is a weak point that an agency (the NRC) |

with mission to assure the safety and security of nuclear power plants, must pursue vigorously. |

If there is no adequate solution, these plants must not be relicensed and they should all |

decommission as soon as the grid they support has found through efficiency and alternative |

energies, ways to assure adequate supply to the customers. |

|

Tritium is hard to remove from emissions. There must be invented a cost effective way to |

remove it and isolate it from the environment for the 12.3 half life and double that. In fact it |

should be isolated from the environment for 250 years, or 20 half-lifes. |

|

Women, embryos, fetuses, babies, toddlers and young children have more water per mass unit |

in their bodies than the 30 year old Caucasian male. Up until recently, since Tritium is a type of |

water, it was assumed that it would spread out equally in the body and thus the targeted |

ionization of cells in any specific organ of the body would be low. But it turns out that Tritium |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-124 August 2007

| goes to areas where the percent of water that fills any given space is the highest. All human life

| evolved from the sea. The ova and embryo are filled with water, the fetus floats in water. The

| Tritium passes the placenta and enters these structures at one time or another of their

| development. Tritium isotopes have an affinity for the nucleii of cells and they lodge right near

| them, irradiating the DNA inside the nucleii. The DNA is damaged. Later, up to five to ten years

| later, the child can develop leukemia. (BBB-2; AAA-1)

|

| Comment: But I would like to speak today not only to the NRC folks but also to all the

| employees at all the remaining reactors around our vast country. I challenge all of you to read

| up on the changing science behind the nuclear industry, the National Academy of Sciences and

| the Union of Concerned Scientists have recent information that you need to know. Whatever

| information that your bosses are feeding you is incomplete and one-sided, the effects of ionizing

| radiation are greater than previously thought. It’s all but proven that scheduled and accidental

| release are poisoning our surroundings. (H-2)

|

| Comment: Human health standards continue to reflect the adult-male bias of the regulators. 

| The acutely increased vulnerabilities of the young child, the adolescent, the elder and even

| greater vulnerabilities of the sperm and egg of all living creatures require a reevaluation. 

| (KKK-6; LLL-4)

|

| Comment: My specific concern for this comment period is as follows: The National Research

| Council of the National Academies report has highly pertinent information about the effect of low

| level ionizing radiation on women, embryos, fetuses, and children. This information is also

| found in the BEIR VII report (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, 7th report, issued October

| 18th, 2006. This information was not given its due by those who wrote the SEIS draft report for

| the VY relicensing process. 

|

| The NRC mission, as Mr. Neil Sheehan and Mr. Emch said, is nuclear plant safety and

| security. Sheehan stipulated that the NRC has been given the last word by the Federal

| Government to decide what is safe and what is not safe In the area of nuclear safety. If so, the

| NRC should explain in the report why it can ignore the science that proves that: 

|

| 1. Low level ionizing radiation -radiating over a long period of time in the area it lodges in body

| tissue -causes cancer and can alter DNA in eggs and embryos.

|

| 2. Women, embryos, fetuses, toddlers and children are more susceptible to radiation exposure

| in general. Among the culprits is the low level ionizing radiation from unstable radioactive

| isotopes such as Strontium 90 and Tritium that are ingested and lodge in the body, in teeth,

| near bone marrow that builds immunity, and finally near the nucleii of female eggs and embryos. 

| (ZZ-1; AAA-9)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-125 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Before it is relicensed, the Vermont Yankee should change its regulation criteria |

from “Reference Man’ to “Reference Woman-Embryo-Fetus-Toddler-Child. |

|

In paragraphs 5 and 6, Makhijani shows that the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company |

was able to conserve the Reference Man, the young White male, as the a basic underlying |

document governing the regulations” (Please see #11 (FRG1 1). The NRC permitted the CY |

Atomic Power Company to argue that a white male, 20-30 should be the basis for calculation, |

and that their”regulations prohibit considering doses to children” despite the fact ‘the plain |

language of the regulation itself does not restrict the terms ‘critical group,’ ‘individual’,or ‘human |

being’ to mean any specific age, race, or gender. |

|

I take this to mean that the overall language of the fully written regulation uses nonspecific |

words in talking about one person, people and groups of people but, when it comes to setting |

the regulation for the standard for acceptable levels of ionizing radiation, its template is |

age-race-gender specific. (ZZ-6; AAA-14) |

|

Comment: Our whole family is grateful for Paul’s gainful employment in this area, which would |

not have been possible without the devotion and indefatigable efforts by nuclear engineers to |

exploit this type of energy, as responsibly as they could. But now we would like them to be put |

to bed as soon as possible. Maybe in century or so there will be new way of handling ionizing |

radiation. Adult males do tolerate well a certain background level, but we are finding for |

--women, ova, embryos, fetuses, babies, toddlers and children --that going beyond that in |

targeted area of the body, i.e. receiving low level beta radiation over a period of time is |

extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. Women now have a 58% greater |

chance of coming down with cancer.. One of 8 women contract breast cancer.. both of these |

are very substantial increases and they happened in a time span of a few decades, I believe. I |

think it is only over the past 4 decades that this kind of epidemiology has been done so |

assiduously. |

|

I realize there are other factors, mainly hazardous substances, some are even natural, that |

depress the immune system and make a body more sensitive to cancer. I realize that people |

are getting radiation if they fly a lot. But all those areas have to be addressed too. |

(BBB-10; AAA-8) |

|

Comment: Recognize “allowable” levels are not safe: Tell the NRC that their “allowable” levels |

of radionuclides are NOT conservative or protective enough. They are based only on the |

obsolete “standard man”, a healthy, white male in the prime of life, and ignore the more |

vulnerable fetus, growing infant and child, the aged, those in poor health, and women who are, |

according to the BEIR VII report, 37- 50% more vulnerable than standard man to the harmful |

effects of ionizing radiation. (AAA-16) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-126 August 2007

| Comment: Now the National Academy of Science, in its BEIR 7 report, determined that there is

| no safe exposure to radiation, there is none. Is the BEIR 7 incorporated into the NRC’s review

| of the environmental effects on our communities? I didn’t see it. (O-2)

|

| Comment: In addition, the regulatory limits are called into question by the biological effects of

| ionizing radiation BEIR 7 report and a number of other recent scientific studies, they are called 

| into question because they are based on standard man and not the more vulnerable child,

| woman or fetus who are 30 to 50 percent more sensitive to the cancers and other biological

| effects of ionizing radiation.

|

| These regs are called into question because the risk factor for these carcinogens, both toxic

| and radioactive, which are emitted by nuclear power stations is far more lenient than for all other

| chemical carcinogens. Perhaps your review of radiation standards will finally change all that but

| I think, until the review is done, the environmental impact statement is incomplete and it is not

| investigating health impacts based on the numbers that it should be. (OO-9)

|

| Comment: Protect the most vulnerable: Tell the NRC to exercise precaution by accounting for

| more vulnerable populations in their standards. Since no level of radiation dose is safe (see

| BEIR VII quote below), the best precaution would be no exposure. However recognizing and

| regulating for vulnerable populations is a start.

|

| “In BEIR VII, the cancer mortality risks for females are 37.5 percent higher. The risks for all

| solid tumors, like lung, breast, and kidney, liver, and other solid tumors added together are

| almost 50 percent greater for women than men, though there are a few specific cancers,

| including leukemia, for which the risk estimates for men are higher.”

| (Summary estimates are in Table ES-1 on page 28 of the BEIR VII report prepublication copy,

| on the Web at http://books.nap. edu/books/030909156X/html/28.html.)

|

| The BEIR VII report estimates that the differential risk for children is even greater. For instance,

| the same radiation in the first year of life for boys produces three to four times the cancer risk as

| exposure between the ages of 20 and 50. Female infants have almost double the risk as male

| infants. (Table 12 D-1 and D-2, on pages 550-551 of the prepublication copy of the report, on

| the Web starting at http://books.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html/550.html).” (excerpted from

| http://www.ieer.org/comments/beiribeir7pressrel.html) (AAA-15)

|

| Comment: The National Academy of Sciences–BIER VII Report states that no amount of

| radiation is safe. The radiation routinely produced by VY let alone the plutonium, cesium,

| tritium, and “D.U.,” are therefore not safe. Why are otherwise intelligent people supporting an

| industry that condemns 10,000 future generations to illness and death? That is “untimely illness

| and death! (NNN-1)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-127 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: NRC’s regulatory limits themselves are called into question by the National |

Academy of Science’s BEIR VII report and a number of other recent scientific studies. |

[Makhijani, Arjun. August 2005. Bad to the Bone: Analysis of the Federal Maximum |

Contaminant Levels for Plutonium-239 and Other Alpha-EmittingTransuranicRadionuclides in |

Drinking Water. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Russ, Abel; Casey Burns, |

Seth Tuler, and Octavia Taylor. March 2006. Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: An Overview |

of Epidemiological Studies Community-Based Hazard Management, The George Perkins Marsh |

Institute, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610. Makhijani, Arjun, Brice Smith and Michael C. |

Thorne. Feb., 2007. “Healthy from the Start: Building a better Basis for Environmental Health |

Standards -Starting with Radiation,” in Science for Democratic Action, Volume 14, Number 4. |

(I hereby adopt and incorporate by reference as a supplement to my comments the |

aforementioned issue in its entirety.)] They are called into question because they are based on |

“standard man” and not the more vulnerable baby, child, woman, or fetus. They are called into |

question because the risk factors for radioactive carcinogens, many of them toxic as well as |

radioactive, are far more lenient than for all other chemical carcinogens. Perhaps your review of |

radiation standards will finally improve this deplorable standard. Until you do, the SEIS must be |

considered incomplete and lacking crucial health and risk data. (RRR-14) |

|

Comment: Recognize there is no safe dose: Further, regarding low dose radiation, the BEIR |

VII panel has concluded, “it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers... |

Further, there are extensive data on radiation-induced transmissible mutations in mice and |

other organisms. There is therefore no reason to believe that humans would be immune to this |

sort of harm.” (AAA-18) |

|

Response: Based on their reading of studies such as the BEIR VII report, commenters |

questioned whether the NRC staff’s assessment of the impact of radiation dose from the |

operation of VYNPS during the license renewal period accounts for differences in dose impact |

on the young, the elderly, and women. |

|

In 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies published Health Risks from |

Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR VII Phase 2. The major conclusion of the |

report is that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, |

no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the |

development of cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with the system of radiological |

protection that the NRC uses to develop its regulations. Therefore, the NRC’s regulations |

continue to be adequately protective of public health and safety and the environment. None of |

the findings in the BEIR VII report warrant immediate changes to the NRC regulations. |

|

Moreover, the BEIR VII report does not say that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation; it |

does not address “safe versus not safe.” It does continue to support the conclusion that there is |

some amount of cancer risk associated with any amount of radiation exposure and that the risk |

increases with exposure and exposure rate. It does conclude that the risk of cancer induction at |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-128 August 2007

| the dose levels in the NRC’s and EPA’s radiation standards is very small. Similar conclusions

| have been made in all of the associated BEIR reports since 1972 (BEIR I, III, and V); the BEIR

| VII report does not constitute new and significant information.

|

| As discussed in Section 4.3, the GEIS concluded that radiation exposure to the public is a

| Category 1 issue with a SMALL impact. Based on the GEIS, the NRC staff concludes the

| impact is SMALL because doses to members of the public from VYNPS effluents are well within

| the NRC and EPA radiation dose standards. The doses are also smaller than the dose that

| members of the public receive from other sources of radiation, such as natural background

| radiation and medical procedures.

|

| The dose standards were set conservatively by NRC and EPA based on the conclusions and

| recommendations of numerous national and international expert panels. These dose standards

| are based on the linear, no-threshold dose-response model described in the BEIR VII.

|

| The dose standards were set conservatively by NRC and EPA in part to account for the

| potential uncertainties noted by the commenters. The information and studies put forth by the

| commenters did not change the NRC staff’s bases or conclusions; therefore, no changes were

| made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: On page 2-14, line 14-15 of the SEIS states “except for the impact of EPU, no

| increases in radioactive gaseous releases are expected during the license renewal period.” This

| is a HUGE caveat, since the impact of the 20%(e) uprate may be an increase of 40% in

| radiation leaving the site (US NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Meeting

| Transcript, 12/11/2006). It is an outrageous abdication of regulatory responsibility to condition a

| license renewal on the reactor’s original license, and not AS IT IS CURRENTLY BEING

| OPERATED. Does the NRC include the impact of the doubling of the MSL leak rate, a

| pre-Uprate license amendment? Does it include the impacts of any number of behind the

| scenes license amendments to the designed-for operation of the reactor and turbines? I hereby

| petition the NRC with a 2.802 Petition for Rulemaking, requesting that the policy on license

| renewals be revised such that all reactors applying for license renewal be evaluated based on

| current configuration and projected future performance and operating parameters, where those

| differ from their design bases and historical operation. 

|

| Especially where radiological releases may be doubled by Uprate, a conscientious

| Environmental Impact Statement must consider the impacts of 20 to 40 more years of those

| increased radioactive pollution levels, as well as 20-40 more years accumulation of high-level

| nuclear waste. Refusing to look at this is probably a violation of NEPA. (RRR-12)

|

| Response: The SEIS evaluates the environmental impacts of the current VYNPS design

| including the 20 percent power uprate that was implemented in 2006, the alternative source

| term amendment, and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation that is being
Appendix A

August 2007 A-129 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

constructed. In Section 2.1.4.2, the power uprate is addressed by indicating that the estimate of |

gaseous effluents based on the annual average from 2001 through 2005 could be increased by |

as much as 20 percent due to the extended power uprate. The resulting effluents would still |

meet NRC limits and result in a SMALL impact. |

|

As indicated in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS, the NRC staff estimated that the offsite dose rate |

attributable to nitrogen-16 would increase by up to 26 percent due to the 20 percent extended |

power uprate. In addition, the NRC staff discussed actual measurements of the increased dose |

rates after the extended power uprate was implemented and the new shield plate was installed |

over the high-pressure turbine. The dose rates continue to meet NRC and EPA dose |

standards. |

|

The alternative source term amendment (NRC ADAMS Accession No. ML041280490) |

increased allowable leakage through the main steam isolation valves in design-basis-accident |

dose assessment for VYNPS. The Safety Evaluation supporting the amendment concluded that |

VYNPS continues to meet the design-basis-accident dose criteria in 10 CFR 50.67. The GEIS |

concluded that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for |

all plants; therefore, design-basis accidents are a Category 1 issue. This conclusion is |

discussed in Section 5.1 of the SEIS and did not change based on this comment. |

|

This comment was also referred to the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to |

determine if it constitutes a petition for rulemaking under the requirements of 10 CFR 2.802. |

|

The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: It seems right perhaps to have them run a bit longer, but only if you can be |

100 percent sure that the emissions of Tritium, Strontium 90, radioactive Cesium and Iodine, |

etc. are prevented from being exhaled from the emission stacks. (BBB-5; AAA-4) |

|

Comment: Consider radiation damage from inhaling or ingesting radionuclides: NRC does not |

consider the effects of internal radiation from ingested or inhaled alpha and beta emitters. The |

amount of polonium-210 that recently killed a former Russian intelligence officer was considered |

by IAEA and NRC to be of the lowest possible risk because they failed to |

account for internal radiation damage. (AAA-17) |

|

Comment: The Vermont Yankee does not have state-of-the-art filters in its 300 foot high |

smoke stack. Even if it did have them, it would still not be able to filter out tritium, a short-lived |

(half life -12.5 years) isotope that lodges near the nucleus of cells and radiates the DNA inside. |

This has been shown to cause aberrations in the DNA that result in miscarriage, deformities and |

it may be responsible for breast cancer developing during the life of that embryo/fetus. Ido not |

have the most recent lEER SDA issue that explains this. Please see Mr. Emch’s copy |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-130 August 2007

| If tritium can be somehow precipitated out of the gasses before emission and disposed of

| appropriately, this must be done. I do not have the lEER SDA issue that talks about this. 

| Please see Mr. Emch’s copy. I have tried to Google this but without much success. Before it is

| relicensed, the Vermont Yankee should replace its filters with the most modem technology

| possible and also find a way to take out the tritium and have it isolated from the environment for

| its half life of 12. 5 years and then some. This is because of the recent discovery of its affinity

| for the nucleus of the cell where it is able to modify the DNA. (ZZ-5; AAA-13)

|

| Comment: At page 2-14, the draft EIS shows that 8.55 curies of tritium per year are release

| from the stack. NRC Staff should answer in the SEIS the following: What is tritium? If it is in the

| form of hydrogen gas, why is it not recombined to form water before the scavenged reactor

| gases (page 2-13) go to the dryer? If it is in the form of tritiated water, how does it get past the

| dryer and where is it deposited after it leaves the release stack? Are the releases continuous

| and uniform or episodic? How much tritium does an individual have to ingest or inhale before

| there are risk implications? (QQQ-11)

|

| Comment: See especially: Health Risks of Tritium, pg 1, 10, 11 and 12 by Arjun Makhijani,

| Brice Smith, and Michael C. Thorne.

|

Pg. 12, 2nd | Paragraph

| “In addition, following revelations of tritium leaks from a nuclear power plant in Illinois, it has

| come to light that deliberate discharges and accidental leaks may be a more widespread

| concern at commercial nuclear power plants than previously suspected. Significantly, even in

| the midst of the scandal in the summer of 2006, the NRC did not yet fully understand all of the

| sources of the tritium entering the environment or the full extent of the leaks.”

|

| Then go back to pg 10: and read paragraphs under Deficiencies in the Regulations how

| tritiated water and organically bound tritium can cross the placental barrier. Gamma vs. alpha

| vs. beta emitting radionuclides. I enclose the Health Risks of Tritium: the Case for

| Strengthened Standards article. (ZZ-7)

|

| Comment: I found out that the highly respected Harvard Professor, Stephen J. Gould wrote

| along with Golding in the 1990s a book called Deadly Deceit . This proved beyond a shadow of

| doubt that radioactive, beta emitting isotopes that lodge in the body over a long time are, by far,

| the most powerful source of cancer causing radiation coming out of a reactor. That a short but

| high release, is less dangerous than a long term release such as we have with the huge

| quantities of tritiated water that have been released from the Illinois reactor and which was

| brought to the attention of the Atty. General of Illinois last summer (2006). It was said in papers

| I read that these releases of Tritiated water can well be frequent for many reactors and that it is

| a real problem that has to be addressed somehow. Does the Vermont Yankee have released of

| tritiated water? (BBB-1)

|
Appendix A

(a) See letter from Walston Chubb (ADAMS Accession No. ML070730161) for referenced plot. |

August 2007 A-131 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release |

radioisotopes to both the air and water during normal operation. Tritium is one of the |

radionuclides routinely released to the atmosphere from nuclear power plants, including |

VYNPS. Releases of radionuclides from nuclear power plants must meet radiation dose-based |

limits specified in 40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR Part 20, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The |

regulations specify that the dose to individual members of the public from all exposure |

pathways, including both internal and external exposure, due to nuclear fuel cycle facilities be |

less than 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other organ |

(40 CFR Part 190 and 10 CFR Part 20). In 10 CFR Part 50, dose design objectives are |

specified for both air and liquid effluents consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 190 |

and 10 CFR Part 20. |

|

Licensees are required to report liquid, gaseous, and solid effluent releases annually to the |

NRC. As part of the preparation of the draft SEIS, the NRC staff visited the site and reviewed |

the effluent releases reported in the VYNPS Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for |

the years 2001 through 2005. Average gaseous emissions from VYNPS are discussed in |

Section 2.1.4.2 of the SEIS. The releases and radiation doses to members of the public from all |

airborne radioactive emissions from VYNPS are within the regulatory limits specified above. |

VYNPS has not released any radionuclides in liquid effluents over the last 5 years and does not |

plan to release any in the future. |

|

NRC found no records of any leakage of tritium in water from VYNPS to the environment similar |

to those reported for the Braidwood plant in Illinois. Additional information about the health |

effects of tritium and the technical bases for the regulatory standards can be found in the NRC |

fact sheet, “Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards” |

(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheet/tritium-radiation-fs.pdf). This fact |

sheet also provides background information about tritium and its formation in and release from |

nuclear power plants. |

|

The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: The enclosed plot(a) of data from Chernobyl shows that it takes-about 500 Rem of |

nuclear radiation to kill a person. It takes about 200 Rem to put a person in the hospital. There, |

in accord with the law of life, he will recover at a rate of about 100 Rem per week. This recovery |

rate can be deduced from the rate at which patients were discharged; and by the fact that |

persons receiving less than about 200 Rem didn’t feel sick enough to require hospitalization. |

Those persons were being damaged and recovering at the same time at a rate of 100 Rem per |

week. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-132 August 2007

| 100 Rem per week is 1043 times 5 Rem per year. 5 Rem per year is the Nuclear Regulatory

| Commission’s limit of exposure for nuclear workers. It is their estimate of the hazard of nuclear

| radiations, an estimate of a reasonably safe dose. But, that estimate is based upon the feudal,

| Shinto, religious belief in seeds of death. That fact makes it and all regulations based upon it

| unConstitutional under the first amendment. It also makes the estimate illogical. The estimate

| would have us believe that a person who receives 5 Rem per year continuously would become

| 1% dead in one year, 50% dead in 50 years, and 90% dead in 90 years. 

|

| If human beings can absorb 100 Rem per week without feeling excessively fatigued, then

| nuclear reactors and spent fuel need much less shielding. Spent fuel can be stored above

| ground. After all, the penetrating gamma, nuclear radiations from spent fuel will be 99.9%

| decayed away in 300 years. The remaining alpha and beta radiations can’t penetrate the fuel

| cladding. (UU-1)

|

| Response: The comment discusses radiation health effects. The comment provides no new

| and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this

| comment.

|

| Comment: High radiation readings inside the Vernon elementary school have correlated by

| vector and occurrence with high radiation readings on certain fence line instruments. New

| England Coalition expressed our belief that these high radiation readings in the school because

| of high correlation by vector and occurrence with high TLD readings on the site fence line

| warrant investigation in order to determine if licensee off-site radiation dose estimates are

| correct and then to quantify the actual off-site radiation dosages as they would be effected by

| 20 years of additional operation at extended power uprate levels. (JJ-2)

|

| Comment: And I really would like to see some additional radiation monitoring. There was an

| incorrect, some discussion between the state, and Entergy and the NRC about whose numbers

| were accurate, and they haven’t gone into, followed that in depth. I would like to see radiation

| monitors in a grid pattern throughout a ten mile radius of Vermont Yankee. (MM-4)

|

| Comment: In talking to Larry Krist and Carla White at the Vermont Department of Health, that

| Cobalt-60 and other radioisotopes have been found in Connecticut River sediments. How do

| we know, if no monitoring is occurring, whether these effluents are from Vermont Yankee? On

| the section that talks about radiological impacts, section 2.2.7, the NRC says that the

| radiological monitoring plan, which they abbreviate as RUMP, REMP, for the last five years,

| indicates that radiation and radioactivity in the environmental medium monitored around the

| plant have been “well within regulatory limits” and the citation is an Entergy report.

|

| This is all that’s really said here about this environmental monitoring and I just want to submit

| that Entergy is not independent and should be backed up by more credible independent

| sources. (OO-8)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-133 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Demand that the NRC protect all members of the public from all types of excess |

radiation exposure from nuclear power and its fuel cycle, gamma, alpha, beta, neutron, |

particulate, fission products, noble gases, etc. and that measurement and monitoring should |

include all forms and pathways, not just gamma at the fence line. Argue that their radiation |

limits should include accidental releases as well as planned emissions. (AAA-19) |

|

Comment: Larry Crist or Carla White at VT DOH admitted that Cobalt 60 has been found in CT |

River sediments (pers. comm; confirmed by Battelle 1991). How do you know, if you don’t |

monitor, whether this and/or any other radioactive environmental contaminants come from |

ENVY? Where are the shallow groundwater wells on the ENVY site and what is found in them? |

Are they of the appropriate depth to measure percolation of surface contaminants with |

precipitation? Wells tapping a deep aquifer, such as those supplying drinking water, are not |

suitable monitoring wells in that they are not in contact with the surface water or subsurface |

ground water which drains the site and carries any contaminants to the nearest seep, open |

stream or river. Where is the monitoring of groundwater wells reported? (RRR-8) |

|

Response: As discussed in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS, the radiation is being monitored in the |

vicinity of VYNPS by both Entergy and the Vermont Department Health (VDH), Office of |

Radiological Health. Section 2.2.7 summarizes the monitoring programs conducted by Entergy |

and VDH. Details about the monitoring locations and the measurements over the last 5 years |

can be found in the references cited in Section 2.2.7. Both the Entergy and VDH monitor direct |

radiation, air pathway, as well as the water pathways (including river water and groundwater |

wells), vegetation, river bed sediments, and soils. All environmental radiological measurements |

by Entergy and VDH for the time period 2001–2005 were within the expected range. Samples |

of some media such as sediment often show detectable levels of cesium-137 from atmospheric |

nuclear testing. Measurements of other radionuclides such as cobalt-60 in river sediments are |

either below or slightly above the lower limit of detectability. All of these measurements were |

within NRC guidelines and limits. The radiation exposure measurements outside of the Vernon |

Elementary School have been found to be smaller than the measurements inside the school; |

therefore, NRC concludes that the higher measurements inside the school are due to natural |

radiation originating in the construction materials (e.g., the bricks) used for the school rather |

than due to VYNPS. The NRC concludes that the current monitoring programs are adequate. |

The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: As for the Strontium 90, that too is rising around reactors as statistics show. It |

lodges in teeth and near bones. The marrow of bones produces the cells (T cells, etc) that form |

the Immune system. The immune system is the body’s defense against colds, the flu, asthma, |

cancer, etc. I fit is weakened, these diseases may be expressed, or in the case of colds and the |

flu.. there is less defense and once contracted less T cells to fight the infection. If the T Cell’s |

DNA is affected, it is possible that these cells would attack functioning tissues as if they were |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-134 August 2007

| the enemy, and this would manifest itself as one of the many horrible, chronic auto-immune

| diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis. I have not read the latter anywhere but it stands to reason. 

| (BBB-3; AAA-2)

|

| Comment: Here is the part that could well pertain to the Vermont Yankee and Strontium 90. 

| even though it is based on other reactors. (Joseph Mangano and associates have had 21 peer

| reviewed articles accepted in scientific journals including Lancet.)

|

| I took the following from: International Journal of Health Services March, 2006

|

| A SHORT LATENCY BETWEEN RADIATION EXPOSURE FROM NUCLEAR PLANTS AND

| CANCER IN YOUNG CHILDREN Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA 

|

| I tried but could not cut and paste the graphs that went along with it. The second part of this

| report examines the effects of radioactive emissions, as detected in the bodies of children. The

| average Strontium-90 concentration in baby teeth was measured for over 4,000American

| children, most residing near nuclear power plants. The ratio of Sr-90 per gram of calcium at

| birth in each baby tooth was measured in a radio chemistry laboratory, using a scintillation

| counting technique.

|

| Average Sr-9O concentrations were analyzed by the birth year of the tooth donor, since much of

| the Sr-90 uptake in deciduous teeth occurs during pregnancy and early infancy. Temporal

| trends in Sr-90averages were compared with trends in cancer incidence for children under age

| ten in counties near nuclear plants with the largest numbers of teeth. These plants include

| Suffolk County NY (near the Brookhaven National Laboratories); Monmouth and Ocean

| Counties NJ (near the Oyster Creek plant); and Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester NY

| Counties (near the Indian Point plant). The correlation between these two trends will be

| assessed using a Poisson regression analysis testing the hypothesis that they are related. 

| Linear and quadratic correlations will be tested, using the actual value, square root, and fourth

| root of Sr-90 averages.

|

| The specific methodology to calculate Sr-90 concentrations for each tooth has been described

| previously (66) (67). Teeth from Suffolk County were analyzed using a Wallac WDY 1220X

| Quantulus low-level scintillation spectrometer, while a Perkin-Elmer 1220-003 Quantulus Ultra

| Low-Level Liquid Scintillation Spectrometer was used for other teeth. In addition, the method

| used to clean teeth before testing differed between Suffolk and other teeth; a more 

| sophisticated preparation for non-Suffolk teeth, plus use of a different counter, allowed more

| Sr-9O to be detected. However, results for each area are internally consistent, allowing Sr-90

| patterns and trends to be analyzed.

|

| Sr-90 results are compared with cancer incidence diagnosed in children age 0-9 who resided in

| counties near nuclear plants at the time of diagnosis. Cancer registries from the states of New
Appendix A

August 2007 A-135 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Jersey and New York provided counts of incident cases, while the U.S. Census Bureau counts |

and inter-censal estimates for resident population were used. Three-year moving averages, |

rather than individual years, are used for both Sr-9O and cancer rates, to increase statistical |

power of the comparison. |

|

RESULTS |

|

1. Three Mile Island |

|

In the 34 downwind (north and northeast) counties closest to of Three Mile Island, the SMR for |

cancer in children age 0-9 rose 23.8% (0.87 to 1.08) from 1979-1983 to 1984-1988, the periods |

1-5 years and 6-10 years after the accident. The crude cancer mortality rate age 0-9 in the 34 |

counties increased 3.6%, compared to a national decline of 16.4%. Because the number of |

local deaths in each five-year period (127 and 135) was relatively small, the rise in SMVR is of |

borderline significance at p<.09. (Table 4)While the SMVR for leukemia fell from 0.95 to 0.88, |

the ratio for all other cancers combined rose from 0.83 to 1..17, statistically significant at p<.03. |

|

Table 4 |

|

Change in Standard Mortality Ratio (SMR), Children Age 0-9 |

After the 1979 Accident, 1979-1983 vs. 1984-1988 |

34 Counties North/Northeast and Closest to Three Mile Island |

|

SMR (Deaths) |

Type of Cancer 1979-1983 1984-1988 |

|

All Cancers Combined 0.87 (127) 1.08 (135) +23.8 p<.09 |

Leukemia 0.95 (48) 0.88 (35) - -6.8 p<.90 |

All Other Cancers 0.83(79) 1.17 (100) +41.0 p<.03 |

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying |

cause of death. Uses ICD-9 codes 140.0-239.9. |

|

2. Chernobyl |

|

From 1986-1990 to 1991-1995 (1-5 years and 6-10 years after the accident, the SMVR for |

cancers age 0-9 in the 18 states with the most fallout from the Chernobyl accident rose from |

0.97 to 1.06, a significant increase (p<.02). The crude cancer death rate age 0-9 declined 6.6% |

in the 18 states, compared to a reduction of 14.0% elsewhere in the U.S. The SMVR rise for |

leukemia (0.90 to 1.01) exceeded that for all other cancers (1.00 to 1.07). Neither increase |

achieved statistical significance (p<. 10 and p<.13). (Table 5) |

|

Table 5 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-136 August 2007

| Change in Standard Mortality Ratio, Children Age 0-9 

| After the Chernobyl Accident (May/June 1986), 1986-1990 vs. 1991-1995 

| 18 States With Sites With Highest Average 1-131 Measurements 

|

| SMR (Deaths) 

| Type of Cancer 1986-1990 1991-1995 %Change SMR 

| All Cancers Combined 0.97 (1501) 1.06(1466) + 8.7 p<.02 

| Leukemia 0.90(434) 1.01 (422) +11.5 p<.10 

| All Other Cancers 1.00 (1067) 1.07 (1040) + 7.0 p<. 13 

| Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying

| cause of death. Uses ICD-9 codes 140.0-239.9. 

|

| 3. Counties Near Nuclear Plants (startup before 1982) 

|

| The SMR for all cancers in children dying before their 10Oth birthday in the most populated 20

| areas near nuclear power plants cited in the 1990 National Cancer Institute report increased, for

| 17 of the 20 areas, from 1-5 to 6-10 years after plant startup. Table 6 shows the total Standard

| Mortality Ratio rose from 0.99 to 1.18. 

|

| Because of the large number of deaths in each period (587 and 590), the change was

| statistically significant at p<.003. Only one of the 20 changes near individual plants

| (Shippingport) was statistically significant. The increase in SMR for leukemia (1.00 to 1.22)

| exceeded that for all other cancers (0.98 to 1.15). Both increases achieved statistical

| significance (p<.03 and p<.05, respectively). (BBB-7; AAA-5)

|

| Response: The NRC has reviewed a number of studies by the Radiation Public Health Project

| (RPHP) that assert that levels of radioactive strontium-90 are rising in the environment and that

| these increased levels are responsible for increases in cancers, particularly cancers in children,

| and infant mortality. The group claims that radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants are

| directly responsible for the increases in strontium-90. In one study, researchers reported that

| strontium-90 concentrations in baby teeth are higher in areas around nuclear power plants than

| in other areas. This has sometimes been referred to as “The Tooth Fairy Project.”

|

| However, as discussed in a background paper prepared by the NRC,

| (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.pdf), numerous

| peer-reviewed, scientific studies do not substantiate the RPHP claims, and the NRC finds that

| there is little or no credibility in the RPHP’s studies. Approximately 99 percent of strontium-90 in

| the environment came from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. The second largest

| source of strontium-90 in the environment was the Chernobyl accident. The amount of

| strontium-90 from all commercial nuclear power plants is a tiny fraction of the amount from

| Chernobyl. The estimated radiation dose from all sources of strontium-90 in the environment is

| approximately 0.3 percent of the dose that the average person in the United States receives
Appendix A

August 2007 A-137 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

from natural background radiation. These dose levels are well below the levels that are known |

to cause any health effects. The NRC requires nuclear power plant licensees to monitor the |

releases of radioactivity from their facilities to the environment and to annually report these |

releases to the NRC. Additionally, these licensees are required to monitor the environment |

around their facilities and report results annually to the NRC. The NRC routinely inspects these |

aspects of nuclear power plant licensee performance. |

|

The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: At page 2-14 the draft EIS shows that 31.7 curies per year of fission and activation |

gases are released from the release stack. These fission and activation gases are released |

because they can’t be trapped in filters nor can they be economically removed through |

cryogenic distillation. NRC Staff should explain to the public the following: How much is a |

curie? How many curies of fission and activation gases would be released in a major accident if |

the reactor were opened to the atmosphere? Since the reactor is opened every 18 months for |

refueling, please explain why there is a difference, if there is one, in the amount released? |

(QQQ-10) |

|

Response: In 1 curie of radioactive material, 3.7 × 1010 atoms decay or disintegrate per |

second. Section 2.1.4.2 of the SEIS indicated that 31.7 curies of fission and activation gases |

are released from routine operation of VYNPS on an annual average basis. Releases during |

refueling every 18 months are included in this average. The reactor is at low temperature and |

pressure when it is opened during refueling. Potential impacts associated with releases of |

radioactive material from an accident are discussed in Section 5 and Appendix G of the SEIS. |

|

Comment: NRC reports radioactive off-gas releases to the environment from ENVY’s 300-foot |

tall stack. However, neither NRC nor the state of Vermont has any way to verify these releases, |

because neither maintains their own detection equipment to verify Entergy’s reported |

measurements. Given the history of false or incomplete data provided to the NRC and the State |

of Vermont (of which there are many examples in inspection reports; also the preparations for |

constructing a new building in anticipation of the Uprate which violated State codes.) This is an |

unacceptable abdication of oversight. (RRR-16) |

|

Comment: NRC has not independently confirmed through its own measurements and analysis |

the Entergy reported radiation levels and types of radioactive materials in this contaminated soil. |

Without independently confirmed data, NRC cannot credible state that there will be no |

significant environmental impact from this activity. (QQQ-8) |

|

Comment: NRC incorrectly assumes current NRC regulations are being met by the licensee |

and that the regulations themselves reflect current scientific realities and are protective of public |

health and safety. For example, the SEIS claims that the REMP (radiological environmental |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-138 August 2007

| monitoring report) for the last 5 years were reviewed, and the radiation and radioactivity in the

| environmental media monitored around the reactor have been well within regulatory limits. 

| Then an Entergy report is cited. Entergy is not an independent or impartial source of

| information. How do you know their reports are credible? Not only is this called into question by

| the lack of verifiable data, (Entergy has to resort to indirect calculations to claim that it stays

| within fenceline radiation limits, despite multiple averaged readings on distributed TLDs at the

| fenceline. By calculating only MSL gamma from inside the reactor building, they are ignoring

| other radiation sources (fission products, gases, hot particles, etc.) generated by the reactor,

| escaping the building, that may be deposited on site. Might these escaped radionuclides be the

| source of the 150 cubic meters/year of contaminated soil that is swept up ENVY’s sidewalks

| and roads and deposited on site rather than being sent to a licensed low level radiation dump as

| it should be? Entergy has failed to meet Vermont’s fenceline standards a number of times prior

| to uprate, and are anticipated, despite promises to the contrary, to be in excess (as measured

| by the state’s fenceline TLD’s) for much of the period dating from the Uprate. This is

| unacceptable. Can NRC permit a plant that is inviolation of state pollution laws? How can NRC

| accept the substitution of equations over actual instrument readings--equations which ignore

| radionuclides which do not emanate from the steam lines or turbine but nonetheless escape into

| the environment and contaminate the site (hence the 150 cu. meters of contaminated soil PER

| YEAR) and may be transported offsite by water or wind? (RRR-13)

|

| Response: As required by NRC regulations, the amounts of radioactive isotopes released from

| VYNPS in liquid and gaseous effluents are continuously monitored and recorded by Entergy. 

| Health physics experts from NRC’s Region I office routinely inspect these monitoring programs

| to ensure that they are being properly implemented. In addition, Entergy conducts an

| environmental radiological monitoring program in the area around VYNPS and measures the

| level of contamination in soil and silt that is disposed of onsite. These programs have also been

| reviewed and approved by the NRC and are inspected by the health physics experts from

| NRC’s Region I office. The environmental radiological monitoring program samples and

| measures the amount of radioactive isotopes in the air, water, soil, agricultural products, river

| sediments, and aquatic biota and measures direct radiation from the plant using

| thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). In addition to the TLDs, Entergy uses information from

| the main steam line radiation monitors to assess dose rates at the fenceline using a correlation

| method approved by NRC. At the request of VDH, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU)

| evaluated this correlation method and concluded that it is viable in a report entitled An

| Evaluation of Direct Gamma Dose at the Site boundary of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

| Station (http://healthvermont.gov/news/2007/031207yankee.aspx). These programs confirm

| that the levels of radiation and radioactive isotopes in the environment are consistent with the

| results of the effluent monitoring results. In addition, VDH conducts an environmental

| radiological monitoring program around VYNPS. These comments provide no new and

| significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these

| comments. 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-139 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

A.2.10 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues |

|

Comment: The steady stream of electricity Vermont Yankee has supplied has been crucial for |

consumers and, at a time when Vermont must contend with an aging work force and an exodus |

of young people, the plant employs over 600 highly skilled men and women full time. Vermont |

Yankee provides more than $200 million of economic benefit annually to Windham County and |

the State of Vermont through state and local taxes, its payroll and the purchase of local goods |

and services, but the economics of the plant and its contributions are simply one piece of this |

discussion. (F-4) |

|

Comment: Economic contributions from Vermont Yankee are felt throughout the state and |

have impact on just about every citizen within the state, relicensing of VY will have clear |

economic benefits to the state and the region. When VY was sold, a long-term purchase power |

agreement was a critical part of that sale, that agreement established the price of power from |

the plant to Vermont utilities. Due to that power purchase agreement, from 2002 to the present, |

they have already saved consumers in the State of Vermont $157 million, and that’s in real |

dollars as compared to the purchase power, the cost of purchase power on the open market. |

And the Vermont Department of Public Service has estimated that savings to Vermont |

customers through 2012 will total about $250 million. |

|

In addition to the savings associated with the purchase power agreement, VY spends between |

$55 and $60 million on direct expenses within Windham County and the state annually, those |

expenditures are for taxes, payroll, contracted services, and supplies and equipment. These |

local expenditures will continue throughout any life extension period. By 2012, Vermont Yankee |

will have invested about $25 million to the, or paid about $25 million to the state’s green energy |

fund, that’s at a rate of about $4.5 million a year. The green energy fund supports energy |

efficiency efforts and the development of renewable energy sources in Vermont. (Q-1) |

|

Response: The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes |

were made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: Nuclear power plants are major sources of light pollution. I understand that a |

certain number of lumens per square foot are necessary for security inside the fence. |

Unfortunately, the way this is achieved now is inefficient. It causes the site to be highly visible |

from the air at night from a long distance off. This is bad aircraft security and bad for the |

environment. There is an alternative. It would require more light fixtures, each having full cutoff |

light shields to block ambient light. Over a twenty year life the energy savings from such a |

system would pay for it. The site would still have the required number of lumens per square foot |

and the vast majority of the ambient light leaving the site would be stopped. (SS-1) |

|

Response: Suggestions about reducing the nighttime visibility of VYNPS, while maintaining a |

high degree of security on the ground, and both conserving energy and reducing light pollution |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-140 August 2007

| to the benefit of the environment will be forwarded to the owners of VYNPS. The comment

| provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in

| response to this comment. 

|

| A.2.11 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents

|

| Comment: The ENVY SEIS states that NRC staff has concluded that the environmental

| impacts of design-basis or severe accidents are of small significance, as they have concluded

| for all plants in the GEIS. However they do not define how many potential fatalities are included

| in the definition of “small significance”. At an anticipated population dose of 15 REM (averaged

| over 50 miles), and no elucidation of how the dose would vary over distance, it is likely that

| people near the reactor at the time of a severe accident would receive a lethal dose of radiation. 

| I submit that ENVY may be the only operating reactor with an elementary school within 300

| yards of its turbine building. I submit that this poses an inordinate risk to the health and safety

| of the children of Vernon, citizens most vulnerable to the harmful effects of radiation exposure,

| in the event of a DBA or severe radiological accident. At 300 yards away, there is no likelihood

| that all the children and staff and parents at this school would escape exposure to radiological

| releases. Just one fatal exposure would be one too many. I request that the NRC revisit their

| generic conclusion in light of the unfortunate proximity to a school where young children are

| present 180+ days out of the year, and apply the precautionary principle, not just cold-blooded

| PRA. I request that Entergy be required to fund a new site and building for the Vernon

| Elementary school as far from the reactor as possible. This is a reasonable mitigation (SAMA)

| for the awful possibility of severe harm to the youngest citizens of Vernon in the event of a

| severe or design basis accident. (RRR-17)

|

| Response: The comment proposes that the Vernon Elementary School be moved away from

| VYNPS as a severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA). Section 5.2 and Appendix G of the

| SEIS address the SAMA analysis. Movement of the school was not considered as a SAMA 

| because SAMAs only address actions within the licensee’s control. The comment provides no

| new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to

| this comment. 

|

| Comment: While license extension of itself may not add to accident source term

| considerations, license extension in combination with extended power uprate adds to both

| likelihood and consequences of a major release. NRC Staff is well aware that studies

| performed for the Swiss Liebstadt reactor indicated that for a 14.7 percent uprate, available

| fission products increased by more than 30 percent. NRC Staff, in a classic example of cherry

| picking, quotes Liebstadt in the case of exemption from large transient testing, but does not

| refer to it in the case of greatly increased source term. The Liebstadt experience is new

| information with site specific implications for Vermont Yankee and should have been considered

| in the SEIS. (QQQ-24)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-141 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: The source terms used by Entergy to estimate the doses to the population from |

severe accidents at VYNPS in the SAMA analyses were adjusted to account for the impact of |

the extended power uprate. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: VYNPS is located on the Connecticut River, on a post-glacial alluvial terrace |

consisting primarily of fine, non-cohesive alluvial sediments (silt and sand). The facility is |

approximately one-half mile upstream of the Vernon Dam, a hydroelectric facility. The left |

(easterly) abutment of Vernon Dam is founded on a peninsula of land known as Vernon Neck |

which narrows to as little as 60 feet across from top of bank to top of bank. The banks on each |

side of the peninsula slope downward to the Connecticut River. |

|

Since the 1970s, there have been advances in scientific data, understanding and prediction of |

flood events. In addition, the advent and pace of global climate change may call into question |

the accuracy of flood frequency and volume projections., The potential for off-the-scale events |

that occur beyond accepted hydrologic and meteorological modeling projections may be |

increasing. |

|

The Design Basis for External Events (DB) represents the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) to |

consist of a discharge of 480,100 cfs. The PMF discharge was not determined in accordance |

with current NRC standards or methodology and falls significantly below the discharge volume |

determined through the current NRC standard of analysis. In addition, it is unclear how the |

PMF was calculated. What assumptions were made to calculate the PMF for this plant? What |

NRC standards and/or methodologies were used to arrive at this PMF? Does the DB analysis |

for External Events consider the impacts of inundation related to changes in the river channel |

including sedimentation, debris deposition and catastrophic erosion potential? If not, why not? |

Referrals to the FSAR and other NRC documents have not provided answers to these |

questions. |

|

The DB analysis for External Events consists of a hydrologic and hydraulics (H&H) analysis |

which considers that, other than the failure of the Vernon dam powerhouse, the river channel |

cross section and profile remains static throughout the event. In consideration of the magnitude |

and catastrophic upstream consequences of a PMF discharge, it appears that the existing |

analysis of resultant flood elevations are suspect. The tremendous influx of sediment and |

debris into the Vernon pool is apparently not considered in the H&H analysis and as such the |

results are questionable. |

|

In the context of license renewal, this facility should be evaluated in accordance with current |

regulations and; current scientific knowledge, technology and/or standards related to the floods |

and Design Basis for External Events assessments. Finally, the license renewal should |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-142 August 2007

| consider whether the age and physical condition of the plant is relevant to the potential impacts

| of an External Event. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) should be considered

| depending on the results of the analysis. (CCC-6)

|

| Comment: Please review the issue of the flood plain. Since the original license was issues

| there has been new and significant information regarding the flood plain. In 2004 FEMA issued

| new flood plain maps for the entire Connecticut River. Please reconsider this in your

| environmental review impact. (YY-1)

|

| Comment: Since 1972 when VYNPS was licensed, the science of earthquake prediction has

| advanced. Probabilistic earthquake analysis that looks at all possible events at once of a

| certain size in a region are analyzed to predict accelerations at a given locality i.e. Vermont

| Yankee. A reanalysis of the earthquake catalogue used to make predictions in the northeast

| has occurred since 1972. Strong motion instruments have been placed in the eastern United

| States to record response spectra for eastern events (Example -the 6.2 magnitude event of Nov

| 25, 1988 in Sagueney, Quebec). The following are listing of various earthquake risk analysis

| approaches that are relevant to predictions in southeastern Vermont. 

|

| 1972 VYNPS is built using the response spectra from a 1952 Taft, California event. 

|

| 1980s USGS developed the first probabilistic seismic hazard maps. 

|

| 1995 “A Report on the Seismic Vulnerability of the State of Vermont”, John Ebel etal.,

| Weston Observatory of Boston College -contains Horizontal Peak Ground

| Acceleration maps 

|

| 1996 USGS Probabilistic National Seismic Hazard Maps -Guidance maps of record 

| (minor updates through 2002) 

|

| The USGS interpolated probabilistic 2002 ground motions for a latitude-longitude in the town

| center of Vernon are as follows: 

|

| LOCATION 42 46 35 Lat. -72 31 08 Long. 

|

| The interpolated probabilistic ground motion values, in %g: 

|

| I0%PE in 50 yr 2%PE in 50 yr 

|

| PGA 3.60 11.12 

|

| (PGA) -Peak Ground Acceleration, (PE) -Probability of Exceedance, (SA) 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-143 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Since 1999, a Vermont seismic consideration in geotechnical design uses the BOCA National |

Building Code (1996) in structural designs. The seismic provisions in BOCA include Peak |

Ground Accelerations (PGA) comparable to that by the USGS for a 500-year return period |

earthquake event (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years). Though not adopted in Vermont |

yet, the International Building Code (IBC) is the governing code in 26 states, the District of |

Columbia and for the Department of Defense. The IBC recommends peak ground accelerations |

comparable to those by the USGS for a return period of 2500 years (2% probability of |

exceedance in 50 years). |

|

A letter of November 22, 1966 from John A. Blume and Associates, Engineers (Blume) to the |

General Electric Company, Atomic Power Equipment Department, concerning Vermont Yankee |

raises a concern about ground accelerations at the Vermont Yankee site. It states: “[A] |

moderate shock located about 10-20 miles away is a possibility that should be considered. |

Based on this assumption we recommend that the earthquake spectrum corresponding to the |

N69W component of the 1952 Taft Earthquake, normalized to the 0.07 gravity, be used for |

design.” (Blume had reviewed a Weston Geophysical Research report and stated -“Using the |

seismic history data, the report establishes that maximum ground acceleration at the proposed |

site to be 0.03 to 0.04 gravity”.) |

|

Regulatory Guide 1.60, December 1973, defines a regulatory position for determining the |

Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). In the Blume |

letter, it is not clear how 0.07 gravity was used or should be “used for design” in the analysis of |

OBE and SSE. Calculations for establishing OBE and SSE are tied to site conditions and the |

Blume letter raises the question as to whether the starting place in calculations should be “0.03 |

to 0.04" gravity or “0.07 gravity”. |

|

The additional concerns represented in International Building Codes and the uncertainty as to |

whether “0.07 gravity” was used in calculations for OBE and SSE suggests that Entergy analyze |

for a severe accident scenario that could exceed OBE and SSE. Severe nuclear accidents are |

those that have the potential to be more severe than the Design Basis Accidents. Severe |

Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) should be considered depending on the results ofthe |

analysis. (CCC-5) |

|

Response: The VANR and others provided comments suggesting that the seismic and flood |

design bases of VYNPS should be updated as part of license renewal. As the NRC staff |

indicated in the Vermont Yankee Scoping Summary Report, “it is assumed the safety design |

basis of the plant will be maintained and the plant will continue to meet all NRC regulations. |

Therefore, NRC’s license renewal review does not re-examine the design basis of the plant. |

The license renewal safety review focuses on programs to manage aging. However, the NRC |

routinely searches for and examines new information that could affect the safety design-basis of |

nuclear power plants including information about seismic and flooding events to determine if |

changes in the design-basis are needed generically or for an individual plant.” |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-144 August 2007

| The NRC staff responsible for such examination has been in communication with the VANR

| staff to fully understand VANR’s operating reactor design-basis concerns. If any revisions to the

| design basis for VYNPS are determined to be necessary, those revisions would be part of the

| VYNPS design basis during the license renewal period.

|

| Entergy’s SAMA analysis did consider potential improvements to reduce the risk of internal

| events such as seismic and flood events in addition to the internal events.

|

| No changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: And the National Academy of Sciences has already said that the spent fuel pool,

| which isn’t included, I didn’t see it on the slide, but maybe the gentleman hadn’t prepared the

| slide and so the spent fuel pool isn’t included in the slides, about it being 70 feet up in the air,

| outside of containment, in a tin swimming pool, basically.

|

| And if that swimming pool were breached, the water would start leaking out, and it doesn’t all

| have to disappear, just some of that water needs to go and those fuel rods would start igniting

| on their own because even though they are spent fuel rods, they are actually highly radioactive,

| more radioactive than the fuel rods that go into the reactor. And those fuel rods would start

| igniting and there would not be an explosion but there would be a fire, a very, very long lasting

| fire that would basically release radioactivity into the air and potentially contaminate 25,000

| square miles. That’s about 90 miles radius and, depending on how wind blows that day, who

| would get affected, but it would be a majority of New England, and that’s all of us sitting in this

| room and I think that needs to be included in the environmental impact statement. (E-2)

|

| Comment: Admittedly, it is a low probability that terrorists will attack the fuel pool, probably

| because Vermont is a little bit boring, but the consequences would be extremely severe. As

| Claire said, 25,000 miles would be contaminated by such an event.

|

| If some of the water drains out of the fuel pool, the chimney effect of the effect of cool air

| passing through the cladding would be stopped and therefore the zirconium would self-ignite,

| that’s the cladding of the fuel would self-ignite and spew radioactive contamination over three

| states. Of course, assuming we got out, which is, which is quite an assumption of course

| because the evacuation plans are really laughable, assuming we got out, we could of course

| never come back, and neither could our children, grandchildren, etcetera, these areas would be

| basically permanently contaminated. (L-1)

|

| Comment: The fuel pool could also be damaged in the case of an earthquake and this area is

| subject to earthquakes. (L-2)

|

| Comment: In 1987, at the re-racking process, the second, the New England Coalition’s expert

| witness Dr. Gordon Thompson’s testimony was not allowed because, at that point, Dr.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-145 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Thompson’s contention that the possibility of a self-sustaining zirconium fire in a spent fuel pool |

in the event of a loss of coolant accident was not credible. Years passed and Dr. Thompson |

took this proposition to several reracking proceedings and, finally, in about 2000 to 2001, the |

NRC decided, oh, he is right, it could happen. |

|

The thing that bothers me about your EIS or one of them is that NUREG-1738 I believe was |

promulgated in 1996. You speak of new and significant information which might change your |

view, 1996 was before the NRC realized that Dr. Thompson could be correct. NUREG-1783 |

bases its calculation on lower density storage, which is not relevant now at Vermont Yankee, |

and also on instantaneous loss of coolant, rather than slow partial loss which will yield a much |

more severe accident. Consequently, your EIS for this relicense proposal does not have a |

factual basis. |

|

As I understand changes can be made, I would certainly encourage you to do a recalculation on |

the basis of what is in the pool, what will probably remain in the pool if Vermont Yankee |

continues to operate. (N-2) |

|

Comment: We live in a society that is so sensitized to danger that report of a knife on a |

schoolground or a screwdriver in an airport will shut down the entire system, yet the shockingly |

vulnerable spent fuel pool at Vermont Yankee, with enough potential radiation released to make |

uninhabitable this entire three-state region, sits within sight of two school systems, sits on the |

very banks of our only river system which carries an entire multistate watershed south to our |

neighbors, sits on the unstable tectonic fault line that once divided two separate continental land |

masses, and finally, sits at the very gateway to the economy of all points north, and as always, |

the NRC and the power industry finds this all acceptable. (Z-2; DDD-1) |

|

Comment: The NRC fails to consider the potential environmental effects of the spent fuel pool |

accident or major spent fuel pool radiological release as a result of an act of terror. |

NUREG-1738 characterizes potential impacts as up to 25,000 fatalities at a distance of up to |

500 miles and this presumes 95 percent early evacuation. The model plant chosen for this |

study referenced in NUREG-1738 was Millstone One, a plant very similar to VY, albeit in an |

area of high population density. NUREG-1738 also references seismic fragility of the Vermont |

Yankee spent fuel pool specifically. It also admits that BWR Mark 1 containments would |

present no substantial obstacle to aircraft penetration. (JJ-5) |

|

Comment: Spent fuel pool accident and/or sabotage risk. NUREG-1 738 was generated in |

2000. Many of its conclusions were not available when Vermont Yankee was originally licensed |

and have not been included in Vermont Yankee’s Updated Final Safety Analysis Report or other |

Licensing documents. In particular, the report includes up to date spent fuel pool accident |

consequences modeled on Millstone I, a sister plant and quite similar to Vermont Yankee. |

Consideration of the radiological impact of mid-term releases shows that even with a presumed |

95% evacuation, up to 20,000 fatalities might be expected out to distances of 500 miles. The |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-146 August 2007

| report also shows that Mark I containments, such as Vermont Yankee, present no substantial

| barrier to aircraft penetration and, further, that the bottom of Vermont Yankee’s spent fuel pool

| could “drop out” in the event of an extreme seismic event (QQQ-25)

|

| Comment: The ignored risk of a spent fuel pool fire due to malicious or accidental water loss

| also poses an unacceptable risk to the citizens of Vernon and children at the school, both at

| current spent fuel stocking levels and the unimaginable potential doubling of this quantity by the

| time of eventual decommissioning. (RRR-18)

|

| Response: Onsite spent storage is considered a Category 1 issue, which was evaluated in the

| GEIS, NUREG-1437; therefore, accidents would be encompassed by the analysis of the

| Category 1 issue of onsite spent fuel storage. The safety and environmental effects of spent

| fuel storage onsite have been evaluated by the NRC and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence

| Rule (10 CF 51.23), the NRC generically determined that such storage could be accomplished

| without significant environmental impacts. In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission

| determined that spent fuel can be safely stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the plant’s

| life, including license renewal. The GEIS, NUREG-1437, is based upon the assumption that

| storage of the spent fuel onsite is not permanent.

|

| The issue of security and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power plants is considered out of

| the scope of the environmental review and was addressed in the October 30, 2006, Vermont

| Yankee Nuclear Power Station Scoping Summary Report (ADAMS Accession

| No. ML063030576). These matters will continue to be addressed through the ongoing

| regulatory oversight process as current and generic regulatory issues that affect all nuclear

| facilities. Appropriate safeguards and security measures have been incorporated into the site

| security and emergency preparedness plans. Any required changes to emergency and

| safeguards contingency plans related to terrorist events will be incorporated and reviewed

| under the operating license.

|

| It should be noted that the Massachusetts Attorney General is currently petitioning the NRC for

| rulemaking regarding the evaluation of environmental impacts of severe spent fuel pool

| accidents. Information regarding the Massachusetts Attorney General’s rulemaking petition,

| can be found at the following NRC website: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake?source=

| prm51108st=petition-a.

|

| The comments do not provide new and significant information; therefore, no changes were

| made to the SEIS based on these comments. 

|

| Comment: The Draft Supplemental GEIS is inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the

| National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) or NRC regulations for the implementation NEPA, 
Appendix A

(a) The scoping comments referred to in the comments are not included in the SEIS. They are available |

for download from NRC’s ADAMS website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html |

under Accession No. ML061780088. |

August 2007 A-147 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

because it fails to address new and significant information regarding the potentially severe |

adverse environmental impacts of continued high-density pool storage of spent fuel at the |

Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. |

|

We hereby renew the Attorney General’s June 15, 2006, comments on the scope of the Draft |

Supplemental GEIS, including our previous request that you consider the technical information |

contained in the Hearing Request which was attached to our Scoping comments(a). [Letter from |

Diane Curran and Matthew Brock to Chief, NRC Rules and Directives Branch (June 15, 2006) |

(“Scoping Comments”), enclosing Massachusetts Attorney General’s Request for a Hearing and |

Petition to Intervene With Respect to Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.’s Application for Renewal |

of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant Operating License, etc. (May 26, 2006) (“Hearing |

Request”). The Attorney General is not re-submitting the Scoping Comments or the Hearing |

Request, because the NRC already has copies.] Our Scoping Comments were ignored in the |

NRC Staff’s October 30, 2006, scoping decision. [Letter from Richard L. Emch, Jr., Senior |

Project Manager, Environmental Branch B, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear |

Reactor Regulation, to Michael R. Kansler, President of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. |

(“Entergy”)] They were also ignored in the relevant portion of the Draft Supplemental GEIS. |

[Draft Supplemental GEIS, Section 4.7 (“Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant |

Information on Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term”)] |

|

As stated in our Scoping Comments, the Supplemental GEIS for the Vermont Yankee nuclear |

power plant should address the environmental impacts of a severe accident in the Vermont |

Yankee fuel pool, including accidents caused by equipment failures, natural disasters, and |

intentional malicious acts. The Supplemental GEIS should also consider a reasonable array of |

alternatives for avoiding or mitigating the impacts of a severe pool fire, including combined |

low-density pool storage and dry storage of spent fuel. [In addition, we wish to inform you that |

on January 16, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for review of a decision by the |

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that was cited in our Scoping Comments, San Luis |

Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007). |

The decision is reported at 2007 U.S. LEXIS 1028.] |

|

In addition, the Draft Supplemental GEIS should incorporate the Commission’s decision to |

consider the issues raised by the Attorney General’s Scoping Comments and Hearing Request |

in a generic rulemaking proceeding [Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. and Entergy |

Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) and Entergy Nuclear |

Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), |

CLI-07-03, NRC ,slip op. at 8 (January 22, 2007)]. The Commission initiated the rulemaking |

proceeding in November of 2006 by publishing the Attorney General’s August 29, 2006 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-148 August 2007

| rulemaking petition in the Federal Register for public comment [see Notice of Petition for

| Rulemaking, Docket No. PRM-51-10, 71 Fed. Reg. 64,169 (November 1, 2006)]. It is therefore

| premature for the Draft Supplement GEIS to reach any conclusions regarding the environmental

| impacts of high-density pool storage of spent fuel at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. 

|

| Finally, the Staff should confirm that under NEPA, the Staff is precluded from issuing a permit

| for renewed operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant unless and until the results of

| the rulemaking proceeding have been taken into account in the Vermont Yankee license

| renewal case. (XX-1)

|

| Comment: Because Vermont Yankee is so near his state, I support the Massachusetts

| Attorney General’s request that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) include in its

| decision-making documents the consideration of the impacts of intensely radioactive spent fuel

| rods. (WWW-1)

|

| Response: The Massachusetts Attorney General commented in its intervention petition and

| during the scoping period that the EIS should include an evaluation of the environmental impact

| of a spent fuel pool accident. Onsite spent fuel storage is considered a Category 1 issue, which

| was evaluated in the GEIS, NUREG-1437; therefore, the analysis of accidents would be

| encompassed by the analysis of the Category 1 issue of onsite spent fuel storage. The safety

| and environmental effects of spent fuel storage onsite have been evaluated by the NRC and, as

| set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule (10 CFR 51.23), the NRC generically determined that

| such storage could be accomplished without significant environmental impacts. In the Waste

| Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite for at least

| 30 years beyond the plant life, including license renewal. The GEIS, NUREG-1437, is based

| upon the assumption that storage of the spent fuel onsite is not permanent. In addition, the

| NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information that would call the Category 1

| issue, raised by the Massachusetts Attorney General, into question. Therefore, the Attorney

| General’s comments were not evaluated as part of the draft SEIS.

|

| The Massachusetts Attorney General is currently petitioning the NRC for rulemaking regarding

| the evaluation of environmental impacts of severe spent fuel pool accidents. Information

| regarding the Massachusetts Attorney General’s rulemaking petition, can be found at the

| following NRC website: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake?source=prm5110&st=

| petitions-a.

|

| These comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes have been

| made to the SEIS.

|

| Comment: Severe accident mitigation alternatives also need to be seriously addressed as,

| again, we don’t think that they have been. (N-8)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-149 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: The NRC staff performed a detailed evaluation of potential SAMAs for VYNPS. |

This evaluation, documented in Appendix G of the SEIS, is based on the analysis of SAMAs |

contained in Entergy’s ER and information provided in several responses to requests for |

additional information (RAIs). Of the 302 candidate SAMAs evaluated in the ER, Entergy found |

two SAMAs to be potentially cost-beneficial. Based on a further evaluation, four additional |

potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs were identified. The NRC staff reviewed the Entergy analysis |

and concludes that the methods used and the implementation of those methods were sound. |

The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs support the general conclusion that the SAMA |

evaluations performed by Entergy are reasonable and sufficient for the license renewal |

submittal. The comment does not provide new or significant information; therefore, no changes |

were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Of the 302 SAMAs, please break down the 236 by reason they were screened out, |

i.e. how many for design differences (not applicable at VY), because they have already been |

mitigated by VY, how many addressed by a similar SAMA. (YY-2) |

|

Response: An initial set of 302 candidate SAMAs was identified by Entergy. In Phase I of the |

evaluation, Entergy performed a qualitative screening in which 236 SAMAs were eliminated |

from further consideration. Of the 236 SAMAs eliminated, 57 were eliminated because the |

SAMA is not applicable at VYNPS due to design differences, 175 were eliminated because the |

SAMA has already been implemented at VYNPS, and 4 were eliminated because the SAMA is |

similar in nature and could be combined with another SAMA candidate. The comment does not |

provide new or significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Licensee renewal applicants are to consider alternatives to mitigate severe |

accidents. The purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e. hardware, |

procedures, and training) with the potential for improving severe accident safety performance |

are identified and evaluated. The EIS notes that the cost beneficial SAMAS identified by |

VYNPS need not be implemented as part of license renewal. NRC does not indicate whether or |

not VYNPS would be required to implement cost beneficial SAMAS outside ofthe scope of the |

license renewal process. Will VYNPS be required to implement these SAMAS and, if not why |

not? |

|

New scientific knowledge and technology should be applied to the examination of external |

events, such as, earthquake and flood to determine whether these new standards can inform |

the evaluation of potential impacts, if any. If potential impacts are identified the NRC should |

determine whether there are appropriate mitigation strategies to address potential impacts. In |

addition, the age and current physical condition of the facility may be relevant to the analysis of |

the potential impacts of an external event, including design basis external events, such as, flood |

and earthquake. (CCC-4) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-150 August 2007

| Response: The potentially cost-beneficial improvements identified through the SAMA

| evaluation do not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of

| extended operation, and, therefore, are not required to be implemented as part of license

| renewal. The licensee has indicated that it will further evaluate these improvements for possible

| implementation. As a result, it may decide to voluntarily implement certain improvements. The

| NRC retains the option under 10 CFR 50.109 (i.e., the backfit rule) to require licensees to

| implement plant improvements if it is determined that there would be a substantial increase in

| the overall protection of the public health and safety, and that the costs of implementation are

| justified in view of this increased protection. Any decision to pursue a plant-specific backfit

| would not be made until the licensee has completed its further evaluation and dispositioning of

| the cost-beneficial SAMAs. However, such a decision would not generally be expected given

| that plants meet the Commission’s safety goals and that the level of risk reduction afforded by

| typical cost-beneficial SAMAs is relatively modest.

|

| The results of the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for VYNPS were

| explicitly considered in the SAMA evaluation to identify any additional mitigation alternatives for

| external events. The IPEEE included consideration of all relevant external events, including

| seismic, fire, high winds, and floods. The accepted methodologies for performing these

| assessments, described in NUREG-1407, “Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the IPEEE 

| for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” are considered sufficient for identifying plant-specific

| vulnerabilities to severe accidents from external events and cost-effective safety improvements

| to reduce or eliminate important vulnerabilities.

|

| The comment does not provide new or significant information; therefore, no changes were made

| to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Sections 5 and G, Line N/A 

| The draft VYNPS SEIS notes (Page G-33, Lines 16-18) that SAMA 63 is cost-beneficial

| because, “when the impact of uncertainties is included, the benefit of SAMA 63 becomes

| approximately $250,000.” However, the first paragraph on page G-27 of the draft VYNPS SEIS

| states that the revised assumptions for this SAMA are reasonable and acceptable. The revised

| assumptions for SAMA 63 (presented on page 22 of Entergy 2006d) resulted in a baseline

| benefit estimate of $116,000. Multiplying this value by the uncertainty factor of 2.15 (draft

| VYNPS SEIS Page G-32, line 26) results in a benefit with uncertainty of $249,400, which rounds

| to $249k. The estimated cost is $250k. Thus, SAMA 63 is very close to being cost beneficial

| when uncertainty is included. However, the reason uncertainty is applied is to include SAMAs

| that are close to being cost-beneficial. There is no basis for including SAMAs that are close

| after applying uncertainty. Therefore, SAMA 63 is not potentially cost-beneficial. (UUU-54)

|

| Comment: Page 5-5, Line 29 

| Change four to three. (UUU-58)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-151 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Page 5-9, Line 26 |

Change four to three. (UUU-59) |

|

Comment: Page 5-9, Line 29 |

Delete bullet for SAMA 63 (UUU-60) |

|

Comment: Page G-25, Line 7-10 |

Change from bold to normal font. (UUU-140) |

|

Comment: Page G-31, Line 32 |

Change four to three. (UUU-144) |

|

Comment: Page G-33, Line 6 delete |

“Of particular note is the revised evaluation of Phase II SAMA 63.” (UUU-145) |

|

Comment: Page G-33, Line 16 -18 |

Replace “The NRC staff notes that when the impact of uncertainties is included, the benefit of |

SAMA 63 becomes approximately $250,000. Therefore, SAMA 63 is potentially |

cost-beneficial.,” with “Since the cost of implementing this SAMA is larger than the associated |

benefit, SAMA 63 is not cost-beneficial for VYNPS.” (UUU-146) |

|

Comment: Page G-34, Line 31-32 |

Delete “(1) control containment venting within a narrow pressure band (SAMA 63),” and change |

subsequent bullet numbers. (UUU-147) |

|

Comment: Page G-34, Line 41 |

Change “four” to “three” (UUU-148) |

|

Comment: Page G-34, Line 42 -43 |

Delete “(1) control containment venting within a narrow pressure band (SAMA 63),” and change |

subsequent bullet numbers (UUU-149) |

|

Comment: Page G-35, Line 30 |

Change “four” to “three”. (UUU-151) |

|

Response: Based on the risk reduction values provided in the ER and subsequent RAI |

responses, the NRC staff estimated the baseline benefits for this SAMA to be slightly more than |

$116,000 and the benefits with uncertainty to be slightly more than $250,000. Thus, the NRC |

staff concluded that this SAMA is potentially cost-beneficial. Even if the benefit values were |

slightly less (e.g., $249,400), the costs and benefits should be viewed as equivalent given the |

precision of the analysis. The comments do not provide new or significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-152 August 2007

|

| Comment: Page G-18, Line 4 

| Change “1" to “<1" to be consistent with Lines 42 and 43 of Page G-22 (UUU-134)

|

| Comment: Page G-24, Line 10 

| change “1" to “<1" in CDF column [to be consistent with other SAMAs} (UUU-135)

|

| Comment: Page G-24, Line 14 

| Change “1" to “<1" in Population Dose column (to be consistent with other SAMAs} (UUU-136)

|

| Comment: Page G-24, Line 20 

| The clarification of the response to RAI 5.j (page 7 of Entergy 2006d) states that re-evaluation

| of the benefit of SAMA 59 results in a revised baseline benefit with uncertainty of $1,424. In the 

| draft VYNPS SEIS, this value has inadvertently been used for the benefit using 7%discount rate

| without uncertainty. The value for the 7% discount rate benefit is $663 and the 3% discount

| rate value is $745. (UUU-137)

|

| Comment: Page G-24, Line 20 

| Change 1,400 to 600 (UUU-138)

|

| Comment: Page G-24, Line 20 

| Change 1,900 to 700 (UUU-139)

|

| Comment: Page G-25, Line 9 

| Change “remover” to “remove” in assumptions column (UUU-141)

|

| Response: The text in Table G-4 has been modified in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: Page G-6, Line 2 

| Insert “(Entergy 2006b)” after “improvements” (UUU-126)

|

| Comment: Page G-6, Line 30 

| Insert “(Entergy 2006c)” after “Table G-3" (UUU-127)

|

| Comment: Page G-7, Line 10 

| Change “4.2 x 10-“”to “4.3 x 10"”(Page 13 of Entergy 2006c states the CDF for VY02RO is

| 4.28E-06} (UUU-128)

|

| Comment: Page G-8, Line 46 

| Change “0.25" to ‘0.25g” to be consistent with Line 46 of Page G-15 (UUU-129)

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-153 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Page G-9, Line 1 |

Change “0.29"to ‘0.29g” (UUU-130) |

|

Response: The text in Section G.2.2 has been modified in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: Page G-15, Line 22 |

Change “contributes” to “contribute” (UUU-131) |

|

Comment: Page G-16, Line 24 & 25 |

Change “282 through 284" to “214 through 224 and 282 through 284" [See pages 20 and 21 of |

Entergy 2006b} (UUU-133) |

|

Response: The text in Section G.3.2 has been modified in response to these comments. |

Comment: Page G-16, Line 11 |

Change “205 through 224" to “205 through 211 and 212" {See pages 18 and 19 of Entergy |

2006b} (UUU-132) |

|

Response: The text in Section G.3.2 has been modified in response to this comment, but the |

value was changed to “205 through 210 and 212.” |

|

Comment: Page G-28, Line 30 & 31 |

Separate paragraphs by one line. (UUU-142) |

|

Comment: Page G-30, Line 29 |

Change “megawatt electrics” to “megawatts electric” (UUU-143) |

|

Response: The text in Section G.6.1 has been modified in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: Page G-35, Line 10 |

Delete colon after “of”. (UUU-150) |

|

Response: The text in Section G.7 has been modified in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page G-36, Line N/A |

Add “10 CFR Part 54. Code of FederalRegulations,Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for |

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants” to the Section G.8 references in |

Appendix G of the Draft SEIS since it is in the section write-up and is consistent with other |

regulations listed in this section. (UUU-152) |

|

Comment: Page G-37, Line 6 |

Change “U.S. Department of Agriculture to “U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)” to |

accurately reflect listing in section write-up. (UUU-153) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-154 August 2007

| Comment: Page G-37, Line 40 -42 

| “NRC 2003" is not referenced in the Appendix G write-up (Pages G-1 through G-36) of the Draft

| SEIS. (UUU-154)

|

| Comment: Page G-38, Line N/A “VYNPC 2000" is not referenced in the Appendix G write-up

| (Pages G-1 through G-36) of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-155)

|

| Response: The text in Section G.8 has been modified in response to these comments.

|

| A.2.12 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

|

| Comment: The environ, this industry has a cycle to it, we like to talk about it for electrical

| generation, the uranium is pulled out of the ground, there is a whole mining process.

|

| It doesn’t take but a few minutes of looking at a web, at the worldwide web, to find the

| environmental problems wherever the uranium is mined. There are connections between the

| fuel cycle and military uses. You look at the countries that have nuclear power, many of them

| have nuclear weapons, that’s the history of it, depleted uranium, all kinds of things. It just feels

| like what you all do with your environmental impact statement is you narrow it down to just this

| tiny little thing and then say it’s all fine, but environmental deals with the fuel cycle, the final

| resting place of the waste and those questions. I have not heard them addressed by the

| Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a public meeting. (R-2)

|

| Comment: Vermont has one if not the highest, one of if not the highest rates per capita of

| radioactive waste in the nation, maybe in the world. This radioactive poison is, as we all know,

| stored in an overfull, unprotected precarious place in our state. Obviously the NRC is wanting

| to relicense a dangerous old plant to add to an unsolvable problem. We have seen this same

| NRC fox guarding our hen house of health before. To those of you at the NRC wanting to add

| to an unsolvable problem, to relicense Vermont Yankee, it is past time your consciences,

| obviously based on tilted education and money, begin to kick in since, no matter how much

| electricity we produce, it will never be enough. (EE-1)

|

| Comment: Please assess levels of cancer, heart disease, genetic damage to off-spring among

| workers and family members engaged in mining, refinement, and transportation of uranium. 

| (KKK-7)

|

| Comment: Please assess quality of life indicators for persons living downwind of the uranium

| mines. (KKK-8)

|

| Response: The comment is related to the uranium fuel cycle and waste management issues. 

| Uranium fuel cycle and waste management issues were evaluated in the GEIS and were

| determined to be Category 1 issues. The Commission is confident that all nuclear waste
Appendix A

August 2007 A-155 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

generated will be handled, stored, and disposed of in a manner that ensures public health and |

safety. The NRC has specific regulations for releases of radioactive materials from the uranium |

fuel cycle to the environment. The comments provide no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: I have a concern that the NRC accepted Entergy’s recommendation that the spent |

fuel canisters be stored outside along the Connecticut River. A concern there has to do with I |

have a concern with the NRC’s awareness that the proposed location is in a flood plain. I’m not |

sure how long the flood plain is, there is some variation there. I have concern regarding that |

such a location means that at least one every few hundred, five hundred, thousand more years, |

a flood is going to occur high enough to wash those 90 ton casks directly into the Connecticut |

River. Mathematically speaking, I have a concern whether or not the NRC has evaluated the |

fact that if those canisters stay there in the flood plain for 20 years, 50 years, there is a higher |

increased chance of that flood occurring and/or washing those casks into the Connecticut River. |

I’m certain the NRC is aware that that flood plain designation is based on historical |

meteorological data. |

|

I have a great concern that world renowned and credentialed meteorologists and environmental |

experts are now stating that global warming will undoubtedly change historical weather data, |

bigger storms occurring far more frequently than charted or anticipated. I certainly hope the |

NRC has done its due diligence and research to make sure that 1, 5, 10 casks, 90 tons a piece, |

50 feet away from the banks of the river, who knows when that next flood is coming? So the |

historical weather data is likely no longer accurate. |

|

I have a concern regarding the steps the NRC has taken to reevaluate the critical environmental |

data and its impact on the storage of the spent fuel at Vermont Yankee. I also question what |

environmental modeling data the NRC has used and is available for these utilities to use to |

evaluate these upcoming environmental changes. I would love to know what regulations the |

NRC has put in place to ensure that all utilities are considering the new environmental issues of |

significant climate change in their evaluations and permits for long-term waste storage. |

|

What steps will the NRC take to assure that the new environmental modeling will be used to |

assure Vermont’s citizens of protection from exposure to this new risk to this long-term storage |

which, since the beginning of the reactor has been temporary of course, the pool, the dry casks |

or “interim spent fuel storage installation”? What steps has the NRC taken to review these new |

hazardous waste measures with the States of Mass. and Connecticut, each of which would be |

severely impacted by the release of radioactive spent fuel into the Connecticut River? (NN-1) |

|

Comment: I have concerns for the lack of thermal syphoning ability when a 90 ton cask slides |

or turns over into muddy, silty water. (NN-3) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-156 August 2007

| Comment: The waste must never be moved, must be secured in the best way we can devise

| and monitored. (HHH-3)

|

| Comment: What is the problem with making more nuclear waste? It takes up to 250,000 years

| to decompose to safe levels and it causes cancer and genetic defects it it leaks in to our air and

| water. (GGG-1)

|

| Comment: I must conclude that not enough is known for you to adequately relicense this aging

| plant. For one, the waste storage facility at the Vermont Yankee plant is at capacity! The plant,

| when first constructed, was due to close this year because of the issue of waste. Until there is a

| definitive plan, I must agree with all of those who voiced opposition to this plant and all nuclear

| power plants continuing to generate more waste. You must as the regulatory agency look at

| alternatives seriously and face the problem of spent fuel waste by stopping the increased

| production of waste. (WW-1)

|

| Comment: The highly toxic waste, with the national repository not going to open, is already at

| its final resting place, and that place happens to be in my backyard close to where both my

| father and my grandfather are buried, a place worth fighting for. (H-4)

|

| Comment: The fuel must remain in the fuel pools for five years to cool down, so even if the

| plant operates until 2012, the fuel would be there for another five years. Now, if the plant is

| relicensed, this situation will continue for 20 more years beyond that, of course. The fuel is,

| once it’s taken out of the fuel pool, it is then placed in dry casks, so I think that now we have

| permission to have six dry casks on the banks of the river, then this would add another 20 more

| years of fuel that would be stored on the banks of the Connecticut River.

|

| This is of course high level waste, meaning that it is extremely long lasting, as well as highly

| radioactive. One of the lovely misnomers of the lingo is that low-level waste, we think that

| sounds not too dangerous, of course it’s extremely radioactive, just as radioactive as the high

| level waste, it just won’t last quite as many generations. I think that we can expect that this

| waste will be permanently on the banks of the river and this, the banks of the river, in 1991,

| were studied for a low-level radioactive storage facility, as it’s called, and were deemed

| inappropriate because of the, because it’s a wetland, basically.

|

| So now we would have a high level dump, with greatly more waste, if the plant is allowed to

| relicense, on the banks of the river permanently because Yucca Mountain of course is in

| nowheresville, that’s probably never going to happen. Another issue of course is the fence line

| dose. Because of the uprate, the fence line dose is being exceeded and of course this is

| another situation that would then continue for 20 more years. (L-3)

|

| Comment: I believe there is no solution to the high level waste that is being created that will be

| deadly for thousands of years. (M-3)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-157 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: So, while there is a great deal more to say, 36 years later, with Vermont Yankee’s |

spent fuel pool stuffed dangerously full, at elevation, with no foreseeable repository anywhere in |

the world, the people of Vermont, and New Hampshire and Massachusetts are left with what |

was not part of the original bargain, it is now a true Faustian bargain and no consideration of |

nuclear waste in an EIS is complete on this issue, it is dismissed as a small effect. (N-5) |

|

Comment: And what about all of that high level waste sitting on the banks of the Connecticut |

River, potentially for 100 years or more, with no solution, with the bankrupt waste confidence |

rule that is still just dragged out to justify allowing the nuclear corporations to do what they |

want? The only protection available here tonight is for a foreign corporation and its |

shareholders. (O-3) |

|

Comment: This [spent fuel] is the number one environmental concern of people in this area, |

besides, you know, fence-line radiation and some other things, but the long-term health of this |

community. Our governor still believes, I asked him on the radio, he still thinks the federal |

government is coming to get this. Harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, the most powerful man |

in the United States Senate has on his web site, unequivocally, that Yucca Mountain will not |

open. Where is it being taken that our governor still believes it’s being removed? |

|

This is an environmental review, environmental as in ecological, one of the rules of ecological |

science is that there is no away in throw away, away does not exist. They don’t want it in |

Nevada and Harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, says the reason they don’t want it is the |

health and safety of the people of Nevada. Well if they don’t want it in Nevada, why do we want |

it here? (R-1) |

|

Comment: I read recently where Commissioner McGaffigan, who I understand is the longest |

sitting Commissioner on the NRC, is that correct? Right, he is the Commissioner who is still on |

the Commission and is the longest serving, has basically publicly stated that Yucca Mountain |

was mismanaged from the get-go and that they ought to give the order to stop digging. This |

isn’t coming from me, an anti-nuclear activist, clean energy advocate, it’s coming from the |

longest sitting Commissioner at the NRC. That information I think is relevant to this process, as |

previous witnesses have pointed out, because we are still dealing with the frustrating problem of |

the waste. (S-1) |

|

Comment: What I’m really here to talk about is my main concern which is the radioactive waste |

that will outdate this reactor by tens of thousands of years. I wanted to bring down a diagram of |

the kind of waste that I produce in this community, it’s a bag of returnables. Trading recyclables |

for radioactive waste can’t really compare, no one has ever died from exposure to returnables. I |

don’t think Entergy can say the same for their waste. |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-158 August 2007

| Despite this fact, I was not permitted to bring my bag of trash into this room, while that reactor

| continues to produce some of the most dangerous materials on this planet. I don’t think there is

| any negotiation for relicensing before anyone can anything to say about what’s going to happen

| with that waste. (FF-1)

|

| Comment: In reaching your conclusion that the environmental impacts from VY are small you

| obviously have assumed that the spent fuel will be sent off site before the dry cask’s one

| hundred year life has elapsed. I certainly agree with this assumption given the legal

| arrangements with the DOE, the progress (halting as it has been) on Yucca Mountain and new

| initiatives for reprocessing. The technical solutions to spent fuel storage have been known to

| be viable for a long time. The obstacles are primarily political. (SS-5)

|

| Comment: VANR is aware that the Vermont Department of Public Service (VDPS) will be filing

| comments on this issue. VANR concurs with the VDPS position that the potential impacts of

| long term storage of spent fuel on site should be subject to rigourous site-specific EIS

| evaluation. The prospect of long term spent fuel storage on site constitutes new and significant

| information which justifies a site specific EIS evaluation of the potential impacts in the

| relicensing process. (CCC-2)

|

| Comment: As presently drafted the GEIS and the Draft EIS conclude that the non-radiological

| impacts of on-site spent fuel storage at any nuclear plant, including Vermont Yankee, will be

| small. GEIS, Section 3.2; Draft EIS at 6-8. Neither document analyzes the impact on land use

| and land values for the facility land and adjacent land in the event that spent fuel is required to

| be maintained at the reactor site for an indefinite time but assumes that either an off-site

| temporary storage facility or a permanent disposal facility, with sufficient capacity to receive all

| spent fuel from all reactors now seeking license extensions, will exist no later than 30 years

| after reactor operations conclude under those extended licenses. GEIS, Sections 6.4.6.2, 3;

| Draft EIS at 6-8. Even if temporary storage of spent fuel at a reactor site for no more than 30

| years after the reactor ceases to generate electricity would have approximately the same impact

| on land use and land values at every reactor site - an assumption that underlies the GEIS but is

| not analyzed in it - that assumption is demonstrably insupportable if the temporary spent fuel

| storage is indefinite, with no reliably predictable end. In such a case, the character of the land

| itself, the local and state laws relevant to the land and the impacts on local land use and land

| values will necessarily vary from site to site. It is in this critical, site specific aspect, that the

| Draft EIS is seriously deficient. 

|

| Undeniably, the task of predicting the future for the handling, storage and disposal of high 

| level nuclear wastes is fraught with uncertainty. Since this issue was first addressed by the

| NRC in developing the S-3 Table, no important prediction has proven accurate. The one

| common thread has been that no matter how cautiously the statement is worded, any prediction 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-159 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

of an outer bound for the date by which high level nuclear waste would be disposed of in a |

permanent high level waste facility has been wrong. Repeated failure to correctly predict the |

date should have led to one of two conclusions: |

|

1. No permanent high level nuclear waste facility and no off-site spent fuel storage facility of |

sufficient size and for a indefinite period of storage will ever exist and thus, evaluations of the |

environmental impact of storing spent nuclear fuel must at least evaluate the impact of |

indefinitely managing high level nuclear wastes at the reactor site until such time as the waste |

no longer poses any significant threat to the public health and safety; or |

|

2. Although there is confidence that at some time in the future a permanent high level nuclear |

waste facility or off-site spent fuel storage facility of sufficient size and for a indefinite period of |

storage will exist, it is not possible to reasonably determine when such a facility will be |

operational and thus it is necessary to consider that the storage of high level nuclear wastes will |

continue indefinitely at the reactor site. |

|

The State of Vermont (Vermont) through its Department of Public Service (DPS) has identified |

its concern with the uncertainty associated with the question of when, if ever, a permanent |

solution will be found to the spent fuel disposal or off-site storage problem in numerous filings |

with the NRC, the most recent of which was its June 23,2006 comments submitted regarding |

the scoping of the Draft EIS for the proposed 20 year extension of the operating license for |

Vermont Yankee. The comments contained extensive information and analysis demonstrating |

the error in the GEIS assumption that because spent fuel would not have to be stored at |

Vermont Yankee for more than 30 years after the reactor ceases to operate, there would be, at |

most, a small non-radiological impact from storage of spent fuel at the Vermont Yankee site. |

Notwithstanding this submission, no mention is made of the information submitted or the |

analysis provided in the draft EIS. Rather the draft EIS persists in quoting the now outdated and |

inaccurate assertion in the GEIS that spent fuel storage at the reactor site will be small “if a |

permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is not available.” Draft EIS at 6-8. |

|

The draft EIS does not acknowledge that the quoted statement from the GEIS is based upon an |

assumption that the longest possible time that spent fuel would have to remain at a reactor site |

is 30 years after expiration of its license. GEIS, Sections 6.4.6.2, 3. The draft EIS does not |

address the fact that events that have arisen since that conclusion was reported in the GEIS, |

which events were neither anticipated or analyzed in the GEIS, have created a substantial |

possibility that the hoped for 30 year maximum storage time for spent fuel will not be achieved. |

GEIS, Section 3.2 (referring to GEIS Chapter 6); GEIS, Section 6.4.6.2. By ignoring this new |

and significant information the Draft EIS fails to comply with Commission regulations and the |

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). |

|

The only lawful manner in which the EIS can address these problems is to provide an in depth |

evaluation of the new and significant information offered by Vermont, to gather additional |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-160 August 2007

| evidence related to these issues in the possession of Entergy, the applicant in this proceeding,

| and others and, consistent with NRC regulations, to advise the Commission of these facts and

| recommend appropriate Commission action. Although Vermont believes this new and

| significant information requires a modification to the GEIS as well as changes in the proposed

| Supplement 30 for Vermont Yankee, it recognizes that the Staff may conclude that although

| there is new and significant information it does not warrant any modifications. Whether that

| position will withstand scrutiny cannot be determined until the Staff fulfills it legal obligation to

| evaluate the relevant data and provide a reasoned analysis of the bases for its conclusions. 

|

| DISCUSSION 

|

| NEPA imposes on every federal agency certain obligations to gather and analyze information in

| order to determine the environmental impacts of any proposed major federal action. 42 U.S.C. 

| 5 4332(2)( C). In this case that environmental analysis, with respect to the non-radiological

| impacts of on-site spent fuel storage was undertaken in the GEIS. The issue for consideration

| when a specific plant is seeking a specific license extension, is whether a supplemental impact

| statement is required. The NRC has determined, by rule, that supplementation, is required

| when a specific application is being considered but has limited the scope of that review to

| certain issues that involve more than what it characterizes in the GEIS as small environmental

| impacts. The Draft EIS takes the position that the environmental impact of on-site spent fuel

| storage does not require any further environmental analysis because it is has already been

| generically determined that such impacts will be small. However, that position cannot be

| sustained because, contrary to well-established law, even though there is new and significant

| information suggesting that the basis for the GEIS conclusion is no longer viable, the Draft EIS

| does not even address, much less provide a reasoned analysis, of the new and significant

| information and its impact on the GEIS finding. In Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council,

| 490 U.S. 360, 109 S.Ct. 1851 (1989) the Court concluded: 

|

| NEPA does require that agencies take a “hard look” at the environmental effects of their

| planned action, even after a proposal has received initial approval. . . Application of the

| “rule of reason” thus turns on the value of the new information to the still pending

| decisionmaking process.

|

| Id. 490 U.S. at 374, 109 S.Ct. at 1859. That same year the Court emphasized the importance of

| a full discussion of the potential environmental impacts as a vital prerequisite to a proper

| analysis of steps that could be taken to mitigate those impacts and alternative actions: 

|

| Implicit in NEPA’s demand that an agency prepare a detailed statement on “any adverse

| environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,” 42

| U.S.C. 5 4332(C)(ii), is an understanding that the EIS will discuss the extent to which

| adverse effects can be avoided. . . . More generally, omission of a reasonably complete

| discussion of possible mitigation measures would undermine the “action-forcing” function of
Appendix A

August 2007 A-161 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

NEPA. Without such a discussion, neither the agency nor other interested groups and |

individuals can properly evaluate the severity of the adverse effects. An adverse effect that |

can be fully remedied by, for example, an inconsequential public expenditure is certainly not |

as serious as a similar effect that can only be modestly ameliorated through the commitment |

of vast public and private resources. Recognizing the importance of such a discussion in |

guaranteeing that the agency has taken a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of |

proposed federal action, CEQ regulations require that the agency discuss possible |

mitigation measures in defining the scope of the EIS, 40 CFR § 1508.25(b) (1987), in |

discussing alternatives to the proposed action, § 1502.14(f), and consequences of that |

action, 5 1502.16(h), and in explaining its ultimate decision, §1505.2© |

|

Robertson v. Methow Vallev Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 35 1-52, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1846-47 |

(1989)(citation omitted). [Footnote (1): Because the Draft EIS does not consider the potential |

adverse impacts on land use and land value, it does not explore alternatives to indefinite on-site |

storage or mitigation measures.] |

|

The Draft EIS takes no look, much less a “hard look”, at the new and significant information |

brought to its attention by Vermont in its comments on the scope of issues for the Draft EIS. |

[Footnote (2):By submitting its comments at an early stage in the process and not waiting for |

publication of the Draft EIS, Vermont was fulfilling its duty to alert the agency at an early date to |

relevant information that may impact on the decisionmaking process. This long-standing duty |

and its value in creating an iterative process was recently reconfirmed by the Supreme Court: |

Persons challenging an agency’s compliance with NEPA must “structure their |

participation so that it ... alerts the agency to the [parties’] position and contentions,” in order to |

allow the agency to give the issue meaningful consideration. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power |

Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 553, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d |

460 (1978). Department of Transp. v. Public Citizen,. 541 U.S. 752, 764, 124 S.Ct. 2204, 2213 |

(2004). By ignoring Vermont’s comments in its Draft EIS the Staff has frustrated the purpose of |

NEPA.] Because there is no discussion of the potential for indefinite storage of spent fuel on |

the land used by Vermont Yankee, there is no discussion of the environmental and economic |

impact of such indefinite use on the Vermont Yankee land or surrounding land nor of |

alternatives or mitigation measures. The Commission has made clear, in adopting the |

regulations that govern license extensions, that the Staff has a much greater responsibility when |

new and significant information is brought to its attention than what the Staff has undertaken in |

this case: |

|

The major changes adopted as a result of these discussions are as follows: |

|

1. The NRC will prepare a supplemental site-specific EIS, rather than an environmental |

assessment (as initially proposed), for each license renewal application. This SEIS will be a |

supplement to the GEIS. Additionally, the NRC will review comments on the draft SEIS and |

determine whether such comments introduce new and significant information not considered |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-162 August 2007

| in the GEIS analysis. All comments on the applicability of the analyses of impacts codified

| in the rule and the analysis contained in the draft supplemental EIS will be addressed by

| NRC in the final supplemental EIS in accordance with 40 CFR 1503.4, regardless of whether

| the comment is directed to impacts in Category 1 or 2. Such comments will be addressed in

| the following manner: 

|

| a. NRC’s response to a comment regarding the applicability of the analysis of an impact

| codified in the rule to the plant in question may be a statement and explanation of its view

| that the analysis is adequate including, if applicable, consideration of the significance of new

| information. A commenter dissatisfied with such a response may file a petition for

| rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. If the commenter is successful in persuading the

| Commission that the new information does indicate that the analysis of an impact codified in

| the rule is incorrect in significant respects (either in general or with respect to the particular

| plant), a rulemaking proceeding will be initiated. 

|

| b. If a commenter provides new information which is relevant to the plant and is also

| relevant to other plants (i.e., generic information) and that information demonstrates that the

| analysis of an impact codified in the final rule is incorrect, the NRC staff will seek

| Commission approval to either suspend the application of the rule on a generic basis with

| respect to the analysis or delay granting the renewal application (and possibly other renewal

| applications) until the analysis in the GEIS is updated and the rule amended. If the rule is

| suspended for the analysis, each supplemental EIS would reflect the corrected analysis until

| such time as the rule is amended. 

|

| c. If a commenter provides new, site-specific information which demonstrates that the

| analysis of an impact codified in the rule is incorrect with respect to the particular plant, the

| NRC staff will seek Commission approval to waive the application of the rule with respect to

| that analysis in that specific renewal proceeding. The supplemental EIS would reflect the

| corrected analysis as appropriate. 

|

| Statement of Considerations upon issuance of amendments to Part 51 addressing rules to apply

| in proceedings involving applications for license renewal (61 FR 28467,28470 (1996)). Since

| the comments regarding the indefinite storage of spent nuclear fuel at the Vermont Yankee site’

| were filed by Vermont with its comments on the proposed scope of the Draft EIS, the Staff

| should have addressed those concerns in the Draft, rather than seek to shut off a meaningful

| dialogue on the issues by either ignoring the matter completely or putting its comments into the

| Final EIS. 

|

| Federal case law underscores the duty of the NRC Staff to fully discuss, at the earliest point in

| the process, information brought to its attention regarding the potential environmental impacts of

| its proposed action. The Fifth Circuit underscored the important role that the NEPA process

| plays in allowing a meaningful exchange of information between the agency and the public: 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-163 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

|

This case arises under the network of NEPA, a statute drafted to ensure that federal |

agencies “carefully consider detailed information concerning significant environmental |

impacts,” and at the same time “guarantee[ ] that the relevant information will be made |

available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking |

process and the implementation of that decision.” Robertson v. Methow Vallev Citizens |

Council, 490 U.S. 332, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1845, 104 L.Ed.2d 35 1 (1989); accord North |

Buckhead Civic Ass’n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 1540 (11 th Cir.1990). It is a procedural |

statute that demands that the decision to go forward with a federal project which significantly |

affects the environment be an environmentally conscious one. |

|

Sabine River Authority v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 951 F.2d 669, 676 (5th Cir., 1992). By failing to |

address the concerns raised by Vermont in its comments on the scope of the proposed Draft |

EIS in the document itself, the Staff frustrates the ability of Vermont and others to “play a role in |

both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision” because Commission |

rules restrict the ability of a party to present these considerations in the licensing proceeding. |

The Staff position also deprives the Staff of the benefit of feedback from Vermont and others |

with regard to its position on these important questions regarding the environmental impact of |

indefinite spent fuel storage at the Vermont Yankee facility. |

|

Finally, the regulations promulgated by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) |

governing implementation of NEPA, which are binding on all federal agencies (40 CFR Section |

1500.3) and entitled to substantial deference (Robertson v. Methow Vallev Citizens Council, 490 |

U.S. at 355-56,109 S.Ct. at 1849), underscore the importance of an agency addressing new |

information. |

|

c) Agencies: |

|

1. Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact |

statements if: |

|

(ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental |

concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. |

|

40 CFR Section 1502.9( c); Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resouces Council, 490 U.S. at 372, 109 |

S.Ct. at 1858. In addition, where, as here, the new information bears on an issue for which a |

precise determination is not possible, the agency must meet additional obligations to disclose |

and discuss such information. When “an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable |

significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement and |

there is incomplete or unavailable information” and |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-164 August 2007

| the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be

| obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are

| not known, the agency shall include within the environmental impact statement: 

|

| (1) A statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; 

| (2) a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to

| evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human

| environment; (3) a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to

| evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human

| environment, and (4) the agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical

| approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For

| the purposes of this section, “reasonably foreseeable” includes impacts which have

| catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that

| the analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on

| pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason. 

|

| 40 CFR Section 1502.22(b). There is no question that there is a reasonably foreseeable

| adverse environmental impact if spent fuel remains at the Vermont Yankee site long after the

| reactor has ceased to operate. As noted in the several filings by Vermont and without

| contradiction from the Staff or any party, there will be substantial impact on the use of this

| valuable land (bordering the Connecticut River, one of the most important natural resources

| enjoyed by Vermont residents and others) and on the land of adjacent property owners who

| cannot realize the full potential of their own land so long as the site is used for nuclear activities. 

| Thus, once it becomes apparent that there is new and significant information that spent fuel

| storage may continue indefinitely at the site, CEQ regulations imposes on NRC a duty to fully

| discuss that information and to fully explore the nature of the uncertainty about when and

| whether spent fuel will ever be removed from the Vermont Yankee site. NRC may not, as the

| Draft EIS assumes, merely reference a now outdated conclusion that, because there has to be

| an off-site solution to the nuclear waste problem, there will be one. The events of the last

| decades demonstrate that such “necessity” has not produced a solution and those events

| strongly suggest that “necessity” may not ever produce a solution. 

|

| Contrary to all of these case, statutory and regulatory authorities, and although the Staff was

| fully aware of Vermont’s concerns about the environmental impacts ‘of indefinite spent fuel

| storage at the Vermont Yankee site and the substantial body of new information that supports

| those concerns, there is not a single reference to this new information or to the issues raisedby

| it in the Draft EIS. In derogation of the duties imposed by the Commissions own regulations, as

| fully explained in the Statement of Considerations accompanying those regulations, the Draft

| EIS totally ignores the significant new information that, at a minimum, throws considerable doubt

| on the validity of the prior assumption that spent nuclear fuel will not have to be stored at the

| Vermont Yankee site for more than 30 years after the reactor ceases operation. At a minimum 
Appendix A

(a) The documents referred to in the comment are not included in the SEIS. They are available for |

download from NRC’s ADAMS website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html |

under Accession No. ML070790146. |

August 2007 A-165 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

the Draft EIS should have addressed the issue and the new information and presented, as a |

draft, for further comment, the Staffs analysis of this information and the Staffs conclusion as to |

whether further action should be taken by the Commission. |

|

To remedy the defect in the Draft EIS, the Staff must issue a supplement to the Draft EIS to |

enable Vermont, the Applicant and other interested parties to file comments on the Staffs |

tentative conclusions regarding the new and significant information presented by Vermont (and |

any other relevant of which the Staff is aware) and to comment on the Staffs tentative |

recommendations regarding the need for additional action by the Commission. |

|

NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION |

|

The relevant new and significant information which should have been addressed in the Draft |

EIS is referenced and identified in the following documents which are attached to these |

comments and made a part of them: (a) |

|

1. June 23,2006 letter and attachments from William K. Sherman, State Nuclear Engineer, |

to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services Office of the |

Administration of the NRC; |

2. Vermont Department of Public Service Notice of Intention to Participate And Petition to |

Intervene in Entergy’s application for License Renewal in Docket No. 50-271 filed on May |

26,2006 at pp. 12-3 1, including all attachments referenced in those pages; |

3. Vermont Department of Public Service Reply to Answers of Applicant and NRC Staff to |

Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene corrected copy filed July 6, 2006, |

at pp. 17-40, including all attachments referenced in those pages. |

In addition, Entergy possesses substantial new information directly relevant to the issue of |

whether it will have to store spent fuel at the Vermont Yankee site for an indefinite period. As |

Vermont observed in its Reply to Answers of Applicant and NRC Staff to Notice of Intention to |

Participate and Petition to Intervene: |

|

In Entergy Nuclear Generating Co.v. U.S., 64 Fed.Cl. 336 (2005) Entergy successfully sued |

the United States on the theory that DOE had breached a contractual duty to take |

possession of, and title to, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) within 63 months after a utility submitted |

a delivery commitment schedule (DCS) with regard to such SNF. In that suit, and at the |

urging of Entergy, the Court of Claims, in reliance on the stipulation of the parties and |

otherwise undisputed facts reached the following conclusion: |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-166 August 2007

| This aborted effort in 2004 to reinstitute the DCS process signals that no disposal of

| SNF will occur during 2010, taking into account the 63-month period between

| designation and collection, and moreover that disposal may not occur within any

| foreseeable time in the future. No repository is available. 

|

| Id. 64 Fed.Cl. at 340 (citation omitted)(the chaotic nature of the entire spent fuel storage

| management scheme is detailed in the Court’s opinion at footnotes 3 and 4). Entergy was

| fully capable of setting forth these new and significant facts, plus we suspect much more

| information not readily available from the printed case, in order to meet its obligations under

| 10 CFR $5la53(c)(3)(iv) but failed to do so, thus depriving the NRC, potential intervenors,

| and this Board of the truth about the uncertainty in how Entergy will manage the spent fuel it

| proposes to generate over the extended 20 years of operation of VY. 

|

| Id. at 21-2. As part of its NEPA responsibilities the Staff should obtain whatever information is

| available to Entergy and which supported its successful claim against the government and

| resulted in its obtaining a federal court ruling that “[off-site] disposal [of spent nuclear fuel] may

| not occur within any foreseeable time in the future. No repository is available.” Enterm Nuclear

| Generating Co. v. U.S., 64 Fed.Cl. at 340. 

|

| CONCLUSION 

|

| For the reasons stated above, we urge the Staff to issue a supplemental Draft EIS which fully

| discusses the new and significant information provided by Vermont and otherwise available to

| the Staff, including information it seeks and obtains from Entergy, regarding whether spent fuel

| will have to be stored at the Vermont Yankee site indefinitely, the environmental impact of such

| indefinite spent fuel storage on land use and land values for the Vermont Yankee site and

| surrounding land, all is presented in more detail in the attached documents and references, and

| alternatives to avoid or mitigate these anticipated adverse impacts. (EEE-1)

|

| Comment: The Federal, long term nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada is still in

| construction and already over committed. In September, 2005, there were 210,000 tons of

| spent fuel waiting to be disposed of. Yucca Mountain is designed to accept only one-third of

| that, i.e. 70,000 tons. There is no prospect for the long term storage of the other 140,000

| metric tons. The Vermont Yankee, between 2005 to the end of first license, 2012, will have

| produced an additional 140 metric tons of spent fuel assemblies. By 2012 many cooled

| assemblies will have been removed and stored in short term dry cask canisters on site. If

| Entergy is given the go-ahead by the Vermont State Legislature, the Vermont Yankee will be

| permitted to operate until 2032. It will have produced an additional 540 metric tons of spent

| fuel. By that time, with the spent fuel build-up at the other 102 reactors across the nation, many

| more long term storage sites must be accepting. 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-167 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

The Massachusetts Attorney General, and other attorneys general across the country, are |

concerned about how the short term packaging will endure the elongated waiting period. The |

Connecticut River could rise and flood the area. With global warming this is a growing concern. |

If these casks eventually join the other reactors’ casks on the long trip to Nevada, they will have |

to be further hardened before transport. How will they be reinforced? How much will it cost? |

Who will pay? |

|

These are “new and significant problems” that pertain to storage. They have emerged during |

the 35 years of Vermont Yankee’s first license period. They need to be solved before the |

Vermont Legislature can consider a twenty year relicensing. I list just two: |

|

1. It is new and significant that there is still strong resistance against storage at Yucca |

Mountain. Other states, New Hampshire, for example --have flatly refused to take it. Over time, |

“short term” dry cask storage units stored near reactors will deteriorate. A nation stressed by |

global warming reparations will be hard put to restore all these storage units, and there may be |

moisture seeping in, due to a recent flood. Highly radioactive Strontium, Cesium, Plutonium, |

etc. may be already breaking through the cask barrier. (WWW-2) |

|

Comment: I, for one, urge that NEPA’s decision making documents include deep scrutiny of |

the new, significant and very possible impacts of spent fuel storage, namely: |

|

2. -the growing need, since global warming, for dry-cask units to be kept on high ground, |

completely isolated from a flooding Connecticut River or any other flood water seepage, in |

hardened bunker pits with regular human monitoring to prevent diversion by ground attack |

(WWW-4) |

|

Comment: In conjunction with the above, please, Mr. Secretary, support the exclusion of the |

Waste Confidence Rule, so that the NRC will be in the position to take on, without delay, its |

responsibility for the security and safety of spent fuel rod assemblies. AU this because the |

mission of the NRC is, first and foremost, public health and safety. (WWW-6) |

|

Comment: I have been working all my life on the design of nuclear reactors, under the |

assumption that Yucca Mountain would be ready on time. Now I realize that it is not and is |

already over committed. I would like to see all reactors reach their end of life safely, and see |

that the final spent fuel disposal is secured. (WWW-7) |

|

Response: Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue. The safety and |

environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite have been evaluated by the |

NRC, and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule at 10 CFR 51.23 (available at |

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part051/part051-0023.html), the NRC |

generically determined that “if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored |

safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-168 August 2007

| life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at

| its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage

| installations. Further, the Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one

| mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century and

| sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for

| operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating

| in any such reactor and generated up to that time.” As stated in Section 6.1, no repository

| application has been completed or reviewed. The comments provide no new and significant

| information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: NRC Staff should have included an environmentally oriented definition of low-level

| radioactive waste, that is, a physical, not a legal definition. 

|

| We believe that properly stated, contaminated soil low-level would have been included in that

| definition. (QQQ-6)

|

| Comment: Section 6-7 of Supplement 30 states that the “Commission concludes that there is a

| reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal capacity will be made available

| when needed...” 

|

| The States through the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its Amendments are

| responsible for providing disposal capacity. The basis for NRC conclusions is not explained. 

| Under federal law, without the state’s involvement, no reasonable assurance can be made that

| waste disposal capacity will be available. It is requested that NRC obtain detailed waste volume

| and activity projections from Entergy for the license renewal period so as to fairly assess the

| potential impacts of license extension, support the conclusions in Section 6-7 of Supplement 30,

| and assist Vermont in meeting its compact responsibilities. 

|

| In accordance with the compact system, the State of Vermont has a responsibility to provide

| disposal capacity for generators of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in Vermont. Vermont is a

| member of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. Under Vermont statute waste

| generation must be minimized and waste volumes tracked to ensure proper disposal. As such,

| any increases in waste generation are of concern to the State. Title 10 VSA Section 7066 (c)

| governs the disposal of LLW and states as follows: 

|

| “No generator of low-level radioactive waste in the state existing on the date of enactment of

| this section may increase its generation of waste in a year by more than 20 percent of the total

| annual volume of waste from all generators estimated for disposal by the secretary of natural

| resources, under subdivision 7065(a)(3) of this title, unless that generator receives a favorable

| determination from the secretary of natural resources that disposal capacity will be available as

| provided by section 3.04(11) of the compact agreement.” 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-169 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

In addition, Section 7065 (a) (3) directs the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources to |

“....establish the annual projected volume of low-level radioactive waste from each generator in |

Vermont to be disposed in the compact facility for the years 1995-2045, to determine |

compliance with section 3.04(11) of the compact agreement.” |

|

The proposed extended life (2012-2032) will shift decommissioning volumes to after 2032. |

Operational volumes will continue adjusted for the previously granted extended power uprate. |

During the license renewal period many of the plant components will be 40 years or older. In |

the context of re-licensing, it is expected that VYNPS will plan for replacement of components |

for engineering considerations and predict maintenance costs. When components are replaced |

there could be spikes in waste volumes for any particular year. Any increase in waste stream |

impacts on low-level waste disposal capacity has the potential to impact on human health and |

the environment. VANR would like access to this information to facilitate the determination that |

disposal capacity is available for LLW generation as per State statute. (CCC-3) |

|

Response: Low-level waste storage and disposal were evaluated in the GEIS and were |

determined to be Category 1 issues. The impact was determined to be SMALL. Licensees are |

required to store and dispose of low-level radioactive wastes in accordance with NRC |

regulations, including 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61. In addition, NRC inspectors observe the |

licensee’s storage and disposal of low-level waste to ensure that the regulations are met. |

Therefore, the NRC is confident that all nuclear waste generated will be handled, stored, and |

disposed of in a manner that ensures public health and safety. The comments provide no new |

and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these |

comments. |

|

Comment: At page 2-13, the draft EIS explains that VY installed an incinerator to burn, “slightly |

radioactive waste oil for space heating purposes.” NRC cannot credibly quantify environmental |

impact from this activity without answering the following questions: Is the oil radiologically or |

chemically analyzed before incineration? Does this oil heater ever experience flame-outs or |

back draft episodes? Is the heater’s intake monitored for leaks and blow-backs? Does NRC |

directly confirm any of this? It does not appear so. (QQQ-9) |

|

Response: The radiological doses discussed in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS include any |

radioactive emissions resulting from the burning of contaminated used oil on site. The oil is well |

characterized before burning. The management of used oil and its chracterization are |

discussed in Section 2.2.4.2 of the SEIS. The comment provides no new and significant |

information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: The Draft EIS states at page 7-3 decommissioning at the end of a 20 year renewal |

period would generate no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. NRC |

staff has apparently failed to considered the obvious fact that the VY steam dryer is in poor |

condition and, while it may last until 2012, is not likely to last until 2032; thus joining the waste |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-170 August 2007

| stream. NRC review has not projected the service life of other components in the steam system

| as well and has not considered the phenomena of increased failure rates as these 

| components approach the end of design life. NRC considered the increased stresses on

| reactor internals and increased replacement rates due to uprate and extended service. 

| (QQQ-16)

|

| Response: The statement referenced in the comment is taken from Chapter 7.0,

| Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning, of the SEIS and it pertains to the amount of waste

| generated at the time of decommissioning. Wastes generated during the operation of the plant,

| including any wastes resulting from the maintenance and replacement activities, prior to

| decommissioning are addressed in Chapter 6.0 of the SEIS. Some amount of contaminated

| components are replaced every year at VYNPS to maintain safe operation of the plant. These

| components become solid radioactive waste. Neither the extended power uprate or license

| renewal is expected to significantly increase this source of waste. The comment provides no

| new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to

| this comment.

|

| Comment: PCB, heavy metal, and hazardous chemical runoff from coated surfaces has been

| an issue at other nuclear plants of Vermont Yankee’s vintage when undertaking environmental

| review for decommissioning. The draft EIS is negligently silent about the potential for additional

| accelerated coatings breakdown and PCB, lead, arsenate, and mercury leaching during the

| extended 20 years of exposure under re-licensing? (QQQ-15)

|

| Response: The NRC staff is not aware of any significant environmental issues related to

| chemical runoff from coated surfaces at VYNPS. In the GEIS, the discharge of sanitary wastes

| and minor chemical spills and the discharge of other metals in wastewater were considered

| Category 1 issues and were determined to have a SMALL impact at all operating nuclear plants. 

| The NRC staff’s environmental review did not identify any information that would call into

| question these conclusions in the GEIS. Monitoring of surface water contaminants of concern is

| covered under the NPDES permitting process. In the VYNPS NPDES permit, the State has

| identified copper, zinc, and iron for monitoring. VYNPS also must comply with State and

| Federal requirements for the proper storage and handling of toxic and hazardous chemicals to

| minimize potential releases to the environment. The comment provides no new and significant

| information, and, therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS.

|

| Comment: There is legitimate concern about the future of the used nuclear fuel stored on-site

| at Vermont Yankee. Thankfully, there is a new impetus to establish a nuclear fuel recycling

| industry in the United States, as has already been established in France, the U.K., Japan and

| Russia. Ninety-five percent of the original energy is still contained in the used fuel, recycling or

| reprocessing, as it is also known, allows the recovery of this energy in the form of uranium and

| plutonium, results in a much reduced and shorter-lived waste in the form of the fission products

| that can be glassified and buried. (B-3)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-171 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: We are in the process of building a recycling or reprocessing plant in Salt Lake |

City, so there is hope on the horizon for reprocessing all of this waste that everybody is so |

concerned about. It will turn the waste into a resource which will keep our nuclear power plants |

running for hundreds of years. (V-2) |

|

Comment: The fuel that we have, you’ve heard people talk about it tonight, and they classify it |

as waste. Those that might have heard Dr. Moore speak last night, they said a very profound |

statement in that because of recycling, it’s not waste at all. |

|

And we, as humans, have relatively short life spans on this planet and, over the course of time, |

our lives are very small, compared to the ecology itself, and I fully believe that the fuel that we |

are taking out of the reactor now that has not been used will be able to be used in the future in |

mixed oxide fuels and other ways that we may not even perceive right now. (Y-2) |

|

Comment: The idea of recycling the waste, as suggested at the meeting, would lead to nuclear |

proliferation and the production of weapons grade materials -just what the world does not need. |

(TT-4) |

|

Response: The comments discuss potential recycling of nuclear waste. The comments |

provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in |

response to these comments. |

|

Comment: In the mid 1990s, Vermont Yankee applied for and received permission for outdoor |

on-site storage of up to 35 cubic yards of radiological contaminated soil per year, this soil is |

drawn from building excavations and from traction sand and salt that have been applied to and |

gather from VY roads during winter. In 2003, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee applied for and |

received permission for outdoor on-site storage of a one-time dump of approximately 300 cubic |

meters and an annual deposit of up to 150 cubic meters of radiological contaminated soil. |

|

This soil will be stored south of the cooling towers on what may be fairly characterized as the |

banks of the Connecticut River, VY irradiating 20 percent more uranium under increased flow |

turbulence will produce in excess of 20 percent additional low-level waste and contamination |

due to extended power uprate. NRC cannot credibly assert that this excess site contamination |

will remain within regulatory bounds with quantification and verification of potential radiological |

effects, as they may be aggravated by leeching, stratification, migration and bio accumulation. |

The presence of this low-level waste dump on the banks of the Connecticut is a new, since the |

original licensing and not included in any license amendments and it is site-specific, it should be |

considered in any license renewal evaluation. (JJ-4) |

|

Comment: I also have a great concern regarding the back 40 that was mentioned earlier, that |

low-level waste dump allowed once on the south side by the cooling towers, and how close it is |

to the water, given the potential for being near the flood plain. (NN-4) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-172 August 2007

| Comment: Just preceding the uprate application, Entergy was given permission to stockpile

| 150 cubic yards of radioactive soil per year on-site, that’s about eight large dump truck loads

| per year dumped apparently in an unlined and uncovered location near the Connecticut River. 

| These piles of radioactive dirt will be subject to erosion and over land flow, rain and snow melt

| tend to wash into the river. The storm drains are designed to collect over land flow but no

| monitoring is done on the storm drains, so how do we know that the effluent that discharges

| from these storm drains is within regulatory limits or that there is no environmental impact from

| it? (OO-6)

|

| Comment: Septic sludge too hot to send to commercial septic haulers is also surface spread in

| three or four locations on the site. This is a site, by the way, that was deemed unsuitable for a

| low-level waste dump by an independent environmental review a number of years back, I think it

| was in the `80s. If you don’t monitor the outflow pipes that collect storm drain run off from the

| site, how can the NRC claim in this supplemental environmental impact statement that there are

| no radioactive liquid effluents? (OO-7)

|

| Comment: Just preceding the Uprate application, Entergy was granted permission to stockpile

| 150 cu. meters of radioactive soil per year outside on site (that’s eight LARGE dumptruck loads

| per year) in uncovered, unlined piles. There is no mention of this large quantity of radioactive

| soil in the SEIS, nor an explanation of where it comes from. The soil is apparently in the open,

| exposed to rain, snow, overland flow, erosion. Storm drains tend to pick up overland flow-but

| no monitoring is done so how do you know that the outfall effluent from the storm drains is

| within regulatory limits? I submit as new and significant information the Site Characterization

| Data Report for the Vernon/Vermont Yankee Site Volume 1, November 1991 prepared for the

| Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority by Battelle [Battelle, 1991, Site

| Characterization Data Report for the Vernon/Vermont Yankee Site Volume, prepared for the

| Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority]. The study concluded that due to a number

| concerns the site should be removed from consideration for siting a low level rad waste facility. 

| Concerns included jurisdictional wetlands (VYWI, VYW2, VYW3 and VYW4) which meet federal

| criteria under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (in addition, the palustrine wetlands are likely

| to be within the 100-year flood limit of the Connecticut River, under the new FEMA floodplain

| delineation);depth to water table (water level data from spring 1990 indicated groundwater

| within 4 inches of land surface at one location (103S in Battelle, table 3.1-1); travel times to

| river, to shallow domestic wells south of the site, and to surface seeps south of the site

| (preliminary minimum travel time (along most conservative pathway to riverbank estimate: 3

| months to 9 yrs; to domestic wells uncertain. This travel time for leachate is not enough for

| Cobalt 60 and other long half-life radioisotopes WHICH WERE FOUND IN SEDIMENTS IN THE

| 1989 VYNPS RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY, ALONG WITH “DETECTABLE LEVELS OF

| HUMAN-MADE RADIONUCLIDES IN MILK, MIXED VEGETATION, AND FISH.” (p. 2.9-1,

| Battelle). The study’s conclusion was to recommend that the Authority suspend further

| characterization at this site and consider other alternatives. Why then is ENVY allowed to turn

| the site into a de facto low level radioactive waste dump with its open air radioactive soil
Appendix A

August 2007 A-173 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

stockpiles and septic sludge (see below)? Yet NRC concludes that low-level waste storage will |

have small impacts. At 150 cu. meter/year times up to 40 additional years, 6000 cubic meters |

of radioactive soil will have accumulated on a site deemed unsuitable for low level radioactive |

waste. How can this be of small significance? (RRR-6) |

|

Comment: Septic sludge too hot to send to commercial septic haulers is also surface-spread |

on site. Exactly which isotopes does this septic waste contain? Any runoff from the fields where |

septic sludge is spread in spring or during a heavy rainstorm (that which does not percolate |

down and reach the riverbank in just a matter of months) would be collected by the storm drains |

and flow out the outfall pipes in a matter of hours. If the outfall pipes are not regulated or |

monitored, how can NRC claim in this SEIS that there are no radioactive liquid effluents? |

(RRR-7) |

|

Comment: Entergy Vermont Yankee has obtained NRC permission to yard or pile in the open |

150 cubic meters per year of radioactively contaminated soil per year. If VY has no discharge of |

radioactive solid effluents, as SEIS says, then the NRC Staff should explain how so much soil |

becomes radioactively contaminated to measurable levels or levels distinguishable from |

background. What radioactive elements or isotopes are in this soil? What is to prevent runoff to |

the river or migration as dust in the wind? (QQQ-7) |

|

Response: Text has been added to Sections 2.1.4.3 and 2.2.7 of the SEIS to clarify that, under |

an approval granted by the NRC, slightly contaminated septic waste, cooling tower silt, soils, |

and sand are being disposed of onsite by land spreading. The text added to Section 2.2.7 also |

provides a discussion of doses resulting from these disposal activities. |

|

Comment: I, for one, urge that NEPA’s decision making documents include deep scrutiny of |

the new, significant and very possible impacts of spent fuel storage, namely: |

|

3.--the assurance that the long trips to Yucca Mountain be safe and secure, without use of |

tunnels where fires could be compounded as in the recent Baltimore tunnel fire. (WWW-5) |

|

Response: Transportation of spent fuel is addressed in Section 6.1 of the SEIS. The impacts |

associated with transportation of spent fuel are identified as a Category 1 issue and are |

bounded by the impacts discussed in Addendum 1 to the GEIS. The comment provides no new |

and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

A.2.13 Comments Concerning Alternatives |

|

Comment: You have an environmentally enviable record and you’ve got to keep Vermont |

Yankee running if you want to keep that record because there is no plans for any non-CO2 |

emitting alternatives at present and certainly none under construction. Again, I suggest that you |

try and figure out your little argument about where the wind power should be and get some |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-174 August 2007

| windmills in this state, maybe you can get five percent of your electricity from wind, if you

| actually build some wind farms, and Vermont should engage with the heightened national

| dialogue on climate change.

|

| Now that the democrats are in control of Congress, there is going to be a much larger emphasis

| on environmental issues, climate change being the most important one. You can demonstrate

| that you are a model with the lowest CO2 emissions in the country, and you should get the

| credit for this in the ongoing dialogue so that people can see how you did it. The people who

| decided to buy the hydro and build a nuclear didn’t even know about climate change when

| those decisions were made, but they were rather prescient; in retrospect, they made decisions

| that gave you the best carbon footprint in the country. (B-2)

|

| Comment: Perhaps right now an even greater benefit of the plant is its low environmental

| impact, especially as it relates to the issue of global warming and climate change. Many claim,

| including Vermont’s own legislature, that global warming is possibly the most serious

| environmental issue we face. Today, the United States is largely dependent on coal fired

| plants; approximately 600 coal fired plants supply 50 percent of this country’s electricity. 

| Unfortunately, these plants also release harmful toxins and greenhouse gases into our

| atmosphere.

|

| Now, while the country looks to reduce its reliance on carbon emitting sources like coal, here in

| Vermont our story is different, we have one of the cleanest electricity portfolios, one of the

| lowest carbon emitting portfolios because our two main sources of power, including Vermont

| Yankee, do not release carbon emissions when producing electricity. Should Vermont

| Yankee’s operating license not be extended, then our utilities would be forced to purchase

| power from the spot market at a high economic and environmental cost, as the only realistic

| alternatives to replacing Vermont Yankee lie in other baseload sources of power such as coal. 

| (F-5)

|

| Comment: A final point on efficiency and conservation, both of which are very important,

| efficiency being improvements in technology, conservation being changes in behavior. As I like

| to put it, conservation is turning a light out when you leave the room, efficiency is swapping out

| the incandescent bulb for a compact fluorescent one.

|

| Since 1973, the U.S. economy has grown by 157 percent. In that same time, energy production

| and consumption has increased by only 32 percent, that is a very clear measure of the

| effectiveness of conservation and efficiency practiced by American individual citizens and

| businesses. This will continue into the future, no doubt. (B-5)

|

| Comment: Now if the decision were, for whatever set of reasons, not to relicense this plant and

| an inability to renew the Hydro Quebec contracts, the natural and probable consequence of that

| is rather clear, we would move for our energy supplies, with no plans whatsoever to pursue
Appendix A

August 2007 A-175 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

other alternatives at the present time, to the spot market of America, when it comes to electric |

energy, and we would find that market inordinately expensive. |

|

And we would find the enviable position we find ourselves in, as a non-toxic state, moving sadly |

the other way and such would not enure well from either an environmental or an economic |

perspective to the people of the State of Vermont because arguably beneath the surface, in my |

view at least, the most compelling issue facing our people here and now is our demographic |

profile. We our losing our young people between the ages of 25 and 44 and people between 45 |

and 65 are emerging as the dominant class in the state and, if that trend continues, in very, very |

few years, we’ll have the most senior population in all of these United States per capita, and |

that is a subject of profound and considerable concern in terms of how we, with a reduced base |

of citizens, remain capable to serve the needs of all of our citizens. (C-2) |

|

Comment: Each one of us has to start turning off the lights, changing our light bulbs to |

compact fluorescents, driving at least half less than we drive now. Every gallon of gasoline puts |

out 18 to 19 pounds of carbon into the air, every gallon. Now what’s your fuel efficiency, 12, 15, |

20, maybe 35 or 40? But that’s very few people. |

|

And this includes anyone from the NRC or from Entergy, no one is exempt, every car puts out |

that much carbon, unless of course you are driving an electric vehicle or you are driving one that |

has a high fuel efficiency, like the new hybrids or whatever, but we need to each one of us take |

into account what we do and how we can make a change. And the only reason Entergy and all |

the other corporations who run nuclear power plants are trying to put this as a green, clean |

solution to global warming is because we are all scared, and we have reason to be scared, but |

the thing is that nuclear is not going to dig us out of the hole. |

|

We are so far in the hole, we have to take every measure to get out of the hole, and electricity |

generation only accounts for maybe a third of the carbon dioxide that is going into the air, |

transportation accounts for another third and another third, amazingly enough, is attributed to |

natural, such as forest fires, actually, it’s really scary. (E-4) |

|

Comment: Now, this is my question to you folks who are so proud of your nuclear power |

industry and what wealth and wonder it has brought to us, when we have 600 milliwatts or |

megawatts of power produced by one facility and suddenly, just like that, as happened in |

Monticello, in the dead of winter when it is the coldest part of the winter it suddenly goes off line, |

what happens? You lose 600 megawatts of power. |

|

The irony here is we have been told time and time again that we can’t possibly go to wind, solar, |

methane, hydro because those produce too little power. The fact of the matter is we need to |

have small power plants scattered throughout the land, providing jobs throughout the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-176 August 2007

| land--providing power that may not be huge in its amount, it may vary from moment to moment

| in the amount it feeds to the grid, but it will not suddenly cut out just like that, 600 megawatts

| gone in a moment in the dead of winter. (K-3)

|

| Comment: I refuse to believe that we can’t do better, I refuse to believe that we have to stay on

| this same course that we’ve been on. I’m still seeing way more lights on than we need and I

| see it in every aspect of our society, we are gluttonous consumers of energy in all of its different

| forms. (MM-1)

|

| Comment: Decommissioning the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Facility before any serious or minor

| leakages or cracks occur would provide more local jobs than running the plant because local,

| non-college educated workers could be hired and paid more than minimum wage. If

| decommissioning is postponed more than 10 years, the Entergy company could become

| bankrupt if any of their many aging plants have a serious operational problem or terrorist attack

| or expensive repairs to make while other energy alternatives get built and start producing power

| at more economical rates over the long run. The statement on p. 8-2 of Draft NUREG-1437,

| Supplement 30, Dec. 2006 says, “The impacts of decommissioning after 60 years of operation

| are not expected to be significantly different from those that would occur after 40 years of

| operation.” What kind of an analytical, scientific, fact based statement is that? No

| documentation or facts are given t o explain this statement which sounds more like a child’s

| wish than a scientific analysis of reality! (TTT-3)

|

| Comment: The environmental impacts from the alternatives are at least moderate to large. 

| (SS-4)

|

| Comment: Finally, only the deluded could conclude that the potential environmental impacts of

| nearly doubling radioactive emissions and high level nuclear waste on a site within the 100 year

| floodplain are small compared to the impacts of implementing efficiency coupled with the

| development of wind, solar, cogeneration or even one new biomass plant in Vermont or

| elsewhere in New England. I find this conclusion extraordinary. I hope you will revisit it. 

| (RRR-19)

|

| Response: The commenters express their views on the United States government energy

| policy. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were

| made to the SEIS in response to these comments. 

|

| Comment: Well Vermont gets maybe 200 to 250 kilowatt hours from that power plant. 

| Megawatts, sorry, I made the same mistake the last time too, I saw it in the transcripts. So,

| megawatts. I want it to be small, I’m trying to make it really small. So, of those 250 megawatts,

| we can actually replace tomorrow, this is not in 10, or 15 or 20 years, we can replace tomorrow

| 25 percent of it just through conservation and energy efficiency. If the State of Vermont decided

| it was the will of the people and the will of the state, we could replace our washing machines,
Appendix A

August 2007 A-177 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

our dishwashers, our refrigerators, our air conditioners and other appliances with energy |

efficient ones and we could immediately drop 25 percent of our demand. |

|

Now that takes care of more than half of Vermont Yankee, what Vermont uses from Vermont |

Yankee. Massachusetts uses another 25 percent of Vermont Yankee, approximately, I don’t |

know the numbers exactly, so Massachusetts could do the same thing, poof, we could shut |

Vermont Yankee down tomorrow and it would be amazing. So it’s not inconceivable, it’s not this |

unreachable solution, it is within our power, the people can decide. That’s all it takes and that’s |

all it’s ever taken is the people deciding that they want to do something different and they are |

going to do it now. We can’t sit on our duffs anymore. (E-5) |

|

Response: The comment speculates about the ability of demand-side management (DSM) to |

reduce the amount of electricity needed in the region. An evaluation of DSM is provided in |

Section 8.2.5.11 of the SEIS. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: I haven’t heard much talk, except the last fellow talked about methane being |

produced and used as an energy source. One of the things that many people do not realize is |

that we are pouring huge amounts of methane as well as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere |

and both of these greenhouse gasses contribute to greenhouse warming; you can read more |

about it in The Inconvenient Truth and other web sites. |

|

The problem is that, in farming communities, such as we still have in Vermont and |

Massachusetts, we have the opportunity to reduce the methane that we put into the atmosphere |

by simply making containment types of facilities on farms that can produce methane and |

generate electricity, thus reducing the amount of methane that goes into the atmosphere during |

farm, that type of farming production. There is, the leftovers from the digestion tanks can then |

be used by fertilizer, they are less odoriferous because the methane has been used, drawn off, |

and they are just as good as fertilizers, if not better, because they are not raw, they have been |

digested and, in doing this type of change, we can create an avenue for our farms to remain |

economically viable. |

|

Why isn’t this happening like wild fire all over New England and other parts of the United |

States? Because forces within our generation industry our power generation industry, have a |

vested interest in making sure that our power is produced by huge facilities that can be |

controlled by huge corporations. These people do not have a vested interest in allowing small |

generation facilities to develop and proliferate across the United States, even if scientists could |

do a very thorough study and prove that this would be a more efficient, effective, cost, both cost |

effective and an economically effective way of producing energy that could be sustainable into |

the future, not only providing jobs in areas that are rural and sustaining farming in areas that are |

barely able to have their farmers make a living, but by making a whole, a much cleaner, safer |

form of energy production. (K-1) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-178 August 2007

|

| Comment: The key to Vermont’s future prosperity is through a broad, diversified electricity

| portfolio. To this end, the partnership urges the state to work to permit and develop new

| in-state generating sources like wind, solar, small scale hydro, biomass and other

| environmentally friendly resources. The partnership also feels it is equally important that

| Vermonters incorporate more energy efficient products into their homes and businesses, as well

| as looking for ways to increase their conservation practices. (F-2)

|

| Comment: But if the majority of the people here would spend their time and effort promoting

| wind power and implementing many of the good ideas that have been expressed here today, we

| would all be further ahead. (J-2)

|

| Comment: We have a motivated New England Yankee ingenuity to start using methane,

| hydro. We have vast hydro resources not just in Canada, right here in Vermont and

| Massachusetts.

|

| And we don’t have to make huge dams and flood property to make, we have the technology to

| take a little tiny stream that I have next to my house, I could generate all the electricity I need in

| that house, in my household, with a little micro hydro system the size of this speaker platform,

| and it only costs a few thousands dollars. Why isn’t everybody doing it? Because we don’t

| have the knowledge, but we do, in this area, have some well educated ingenuity, people with a

| lot of ingenuity that also have time on their hands because we don’t have a lot of job growth

| here. (K-6)

|

| Comment: We don’t need Vermont Yankee’s power to lull us into submission and continue on

| the track that most of the United States is on, thinking that we can’t possibly do anything except

| keep this power plant going as long as possible. We can show the rest of the United States a

| different way, we also have huge wind resources. It breaks my heart when I hear that people

| will not accept wind power because it’s aesthetically unpleasing and therefore it’s not a viable

| alternative. How aesthetically pleasing is any power plant that you’ve ever seen? How

| aesthetically pleasing is any electrical line running over a mountain top? None of it is. (K-7)

|

| Comment: The potential for anything to take place will happen at a state level in which the

| State of Vermont has the power to transform energy production, but the truth is it’s not the State

| of Vermont, it’s the people of Vermont that will determine the course of history not just for the

| State of Vermont but actually for Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, since

| we all dip our beak into Vermont Yankee’s power. And the truth is it can be transformed and

| what it will take is people getting engaged to make sure that, at this legislative session in

| Vermont, that a green energy portfolio is passed and that we commit to a life that includes jobs,

| prosperity and respect for our human family, as well as our environment. (O-6)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-179 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: I would like to urge everybody in the State of Vermont, and I just heard the former |

CEO of Vermont Yankee talk about Vermont Yankee’s commitment to green energy, the |

$25 million contribution to the green energy fund. Well there is something we can all do as |

Vermonters if we care about the energy future of this state and it’s to contact our legislators, all |

of you, please, and those of you that don’t want to, you won’t, but I’m going to implore all of you |

to call your legislators and ask them to support House Bill 127, currently under consideration in |

Montpelier by the legislature. |

|

House Bill 127 provides for an expanded portfolio standard for renewable energy, which I know |

my colleagues in the clean energy and anti-nuclear movement agree, as well as Patrick Moore, |

who was here earlier, the folks from the Vermont Energy Partnership, as well as the Entergy |

Corporation which has made a generous $25 million contribution to clean, green energy here in |

the State of Vermont.) |

|

Comment: There are there realistic energy alternatives to coal or nuclear power: In Iceland |

geothermal, in Denmark windmills, hydroelectric on rivers around the world, etc.. (GGG-2) |

|

Response: The commenters support the use of alternative technologies for energy production. |

The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: I also was somewhat stunned, actually disgusted to see a slide up there that said it |

would have a large impact to go alternative. Well they are comparing all kinds of interesting |

little financial tidbits but, if you read the papers, if you understand more about the reactor sitting |

right over there and it not creating greenhouse gasses, then you are forgetting the entire, the |

entirety of the nuclear process, the mining, the milling, the tailing, the reprocessing, the storage, |

the transportation, the transmission, the decommission and so on, and all the multi megawatts |

that are consumed in those processes, so don’t tell me that nuclear is green. (KK-2) |

|

Response: The indirect effects of operating a nuclear power plant such as mining are |

discussed in Section 8.2.3 of the SEIS. The comment provides no new and significant |

information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: I have attached 4 pieces of specific information that explain how much potential |

exists for the development of 200 to 600 MW of NEW hydro, methane, wind, and solar produced |

power into the grid in the region within 100 miles of Vernon, VT over the next 5 years. The |

statements made in the GEIS Supplement 30 about hydro and wind potential for development |

are false and totally undocumented with local facts. There is also a very real push to conserve |

energy in this region. Massachusetts has several programs for residents and municipalities that |

are encouraging and supplying grant money to do all kinds of projects from replacing lights with |

compact fluorescents, to insulating and weatherstripping, to adding solar hot water units, to |

generating electricity with methane produced at dairy farms in this region and from wood and |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-180 August 2007

| other biomass. None of these projects were even considered or mentioned in the GEIS

| Supplement. Some of these savings are small but added together, there are significant energy

| savings. Small energy production projects that produced .25MW (from methane on a dairy farm

| such as Blue Spruce Farm in Bridgeport, VT) seem small, but if 100 farms were to do similar

| projects, 25 MW would be produced. Five “new” hydropower projects using existing small dams

| on the North River or Deerfield River could produce 20 to 40 MW each or a total of 100 to 200

| MW of power that could be quickly adjusted according to demand. Two new wind projects of 12

| new 2 MW turbines each are proposed in Florida, MA and Searsburg, VT. These projects could

| produce about 40 MW of power or more. Add these together and there is a total of 150 to 300

| MW of new power potential in just these proposed projects alone! These facts were omitted

| from the GEIS Supplement and deserve to be considered by the NRC before granting any

| license renewal for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station. The scientists at Argonne National

| Labs did not appear to spend any time actually researching any of the projects that groups such

| as CET, NESEA, Co-op Power, and smaller environmental groups have proposed. National

| Energy & Gas Transmission, Inc.and wind power companies were also left out of the GEIS. If

| they did any research about clean, safe, alternative energy in the Vernon, VT region, they left

| that information out of their report and their resulting conclusions are misleading and false. The

| jobs that could be created by many small hydro and methane and wind projects would be

| significant for our region as well. (TTT-2)

|

| Comment: Why was this information totally excluded from the GEIS Supplement 30 alternative

| energy and energy conservation section?

|

| Clean Energy Plan for the Pioneer Valley 

|

| Plan Summary 

|

| As part of Massachusetts’ electric utility restructuring legislation in 1997, the state passed

| several new policy programs which require a small, but increasing, amount of electricity sold to

| Massachusetts customers to come from new, qualified renewable energy sources. These

| renewable energy sources are defined as solar photovoltaic, wind energy, landfill methane gas,

| biomass, and fuel cells using a renewable fuel. 

|

| Beginning in the fall of 2005, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) and the Franklin

| Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) have been working with the Pioneer Valley

| Renewable Energy Collaborative and vast public input to develop a regional strategic plan for

| clean energy with funding from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. The purpose of

| this two-year project is to develop a community-based, yet regional, strategic plan to implement

| shared goals (the following are draft goals): 

|

| Create new clean energy in the range of 75-100 MW /year in the Pioneer Valley (Franklin,

| Hampshire, and Hampden counties) by 2010; 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-181 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Increase energy efficiency across the board on the order of reducing year 2000 energy demand |

by 100-200 MW/year; and, |

Create jobs associated with clean energy technologies. |

|

Our Clean Energy Planning Process involves the following: |

|

Update an inventory of renewable energy (RE) activities and efforts in the Pioneer Valley; |

Create, administer, and compile the results from a public Web-based RE opinion survey; |

Create, administer, and compile the results from a survey of municipal officials in 69 cities and |

towns; |

Create, administer, and compile the results of a detailed SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, |

opportunities,and threats) analysis surveying 30 regional stakeholders including municipal |

officials, business owners, environmentalists, RE experts, and RE advocates; |

|

During Clean Energy Month October 2006: |

|

Nine Clean Energy Education Sessions on topics ranging from small-scale biomass to energy |

audits; |

Four weeks of on-line discussions to develop consensus on goals, guiding principles, selection |

criteria, strategies, and an implementation plan; and |

3 Strategic Planning Sessions in October to confirm on-line work. |

|

In the spring of 2007, as each of the Plan partners begins to implement the strategies, PVPC |

and FRCOG will be inviting all 69 cities and towns the region to endorse the Clean Energy Plan |

in principle and to commit to pursuing a few specific activities. PVPC and FRCOG will also |

apply to MTC and work with other supporters to secure funding to implement recommendations |

of the Plan. |

|

Note: This report is about the region from 10 to 50 miles to the south of Vermont Yankee |

Nuclear Station. This is the region that uses much of the power currently generated there AND |

it is the region that shares the electricity “grid” with all other consumers of electricity that use |

Vermont Yankee’s power. Over 5 yrs. this region would be able to do without 800 MW/year of |

power (or even more than this amount to) make up for any unexpected growth or problems |

metting goals. Vermont Yankee could close down in 2012. (TTT-6) |

|

Comment: NRC does not consider the impact of replacement power sources from a regional |

perspective. Inasmuch as Entergy Vermont Yankee is no longer owned by Vermont’s regulated |

utilities, it may during the duration of license renewal sell its power on the open market rather |

than through contract to Vermont utilities. Thus it is a regional “asset” and not a Vermont |

“asset” solely. (QQQ-17) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-182 August 2007

| Comment: When the draft EIS considers available resources for alternative electrical general

| such as wood fired generation, it confines itself to an assay of Vermont’s capacity and not

| regional (New England) capacity and invokes the burden of replacing 650 Megawatts (e); not

| Vermont’s contracted share of half that amount Why is that? (QQQ-18)

|

| Comment: The draft EIS does not contemplate in perspective Entergy Vermont Yankee’s

| contribution to New England ISO electrical generation capacity. At 650 Megawatts (e) to the

| ISO capacity of 35,000 Megawatts(e), Vermont Yankee’s capacity is less that 1.8 percent of

| what is available in New England. While we are at one hand talking about replacing more than

| 30 percent of Vermont’s power supply, we are silent that this means replacing only 1.8 percent

| of New England’s power supply. Why is that? (QQQ-19)

|

| Comment: When discussing the availability of alternative power options (for Vermont), the draft

| EIS ignores initiatives in other New England states and initiatives in near-by Canadian

| provinces. For example, the State of Maine is currently exploring the potential benefits to

| regular and economical power supply of leaving New England ISO and interconnecting with

| New Brunswick province. For example, dual cycle gas plants built over the last decade and

| scattered across New England may have the capacity to uprate or add new units. None of this

| is explored. Why? (QQQ-20)

|

| Response: The commenters state that several proposed or potential projects along with some

| demand-side management could alleviate the need for the power provided by VYNPS. The

| potential for wind and hydropower in the region surrounding VYNPS is discussed in

| Sections 8.2.5.2 and 8.2.5.4. The large amount of land needed for a wind park and the limited

| potential for wind development in the region makes this technology unfeasible for replacing

| VYNPS power levels. Likewise, the lack of new hydroelectric development potential makes this

| technology untenable as a replacement source for the power generated by VYNPS.

|

| The NRC staff analysis focuses on the impact of alternatives available to replace the electrical

| power generated by VYNPS. Discussions on the need for power or electric power strategies in

| the region are the exclusive purview of any State and local governments.

|

| Comment: This [Not to compete with Vermont utilities] is direct evidence that your GEIS

| statements about the small potential for future development of hydropower in the Vernon, VT

| region, are misleading and NOT based on facts. The only thing holding back hydropower

| development in this region is the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Facility itself because hydropower

| would “compete” with that power utility company unless it is closed in the near future. (TTT-5)

|

| Response: The NRC staff based its analysis on information available from State agencies. 

| The NRC staff believes that the information provided by these agencies is current and valid. 

| The commenter does not identify a specific dispute with the data used; therefore, no changes

| were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-183 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

|

Comment: You stated at the meeting that the major reasons that the alternative environmental |

impacts were considered moderate to large was construction of new facilities. I would hope that |

the ongoing activities of these postulated new facilities would be considered too. It seems to |

me that the greenhouse gas effects of a new natural gas plant would far out weigh the damage |

from construction activities. I would call these impacts severe. I also do not think that |

conservation and exotic alternative sources are a legitimate alternative to base load power |

given the costs and technical uncertainties involved. Cheap clean power is the holy grail of |

inventors and investors. If it exists there is a huge incentive to find-it. So far no one has. |

(SS-7) |

|

Response: The impacts of construction and ongoing operation of a new natural gas facility |

were discussed in Section 8.2.2 and summarized in Table 8-4. |

|

Comment: There are so many more options that are available: hydro with the Conn. River, |

solar, wind. It’s all sitting there for the taking and it’s safe and better for the environment and |

people. All the money wasted on fighting to keep Yankee operating could be put to better use |

in these new forms. Let’s move on and make a change. (VV-2) |

|

Response: The potential for the increased use of hydropower, solar power, and wind power is |

discussed in Sections 8.2.5.4, 8.2.5.3, and 8.2.5.2, respectively, in the SEIS. These |

alternatives do not currently appear to be viable options for replacement of VYNPS, primarily |

due to lack of viable hydropower sites and a lack of viable power storage technologies to |

complement intermittent wind and solar power generation. The comment provides no new and |

significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 9-7, line 19: The dSEIS states that closed-cycle cooling systems were |

assumed for all power-generation alternatives. The FSEIS should explain why closed-cycle |

operation was assumed for other power generation alternatives, but not for VY. (PPP-41) |

|

Response: As required in 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 125, any new plant construction |

would be required to use closed cycle cooling to minimize its impact. The water analysis |

conducted for the SEIS used data provided on past plant operation. The plant can operate with |

a range of cooling modes and, therefore, the analysis was not restricted to any one cooling |

mode. The NRC staff assessed the potential impacts related to the cooling system based on |

the likely future operating restrictions placed upon VYNPS by the NPDES permit issued by |

VDEC. The permit allows station operators to use once-through, hybrid-cycle, and closed-cycle |

cooling during various times of the year. The NRC staff has determined that the impacts related |

to this operating scheme would be SMALL and would likely continue during the renewal period. |

Therefore, the NRC staff did not assess impacts using only closed-cycle cooling throughout the |

year. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-184 August 2007

|

| Comment: Page 8-11, Line 8 

| Under the Impact Column, change “MODERATE to LARGE” to “SMALL to LARGE” based on

| the conclusions reached for transportation on Page 8-17 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-68)

|

| Response: Although impacts associated with rail transportation may range from SMALL to

| LARGE, transportation impacts from commuting workers during construction are MODERATE. 

| Therefore, the overall impact from transportation cannot be SMALL. No change was made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-22, Line 8 

| Under the VYNPS Site Impact Column, change “SMALL to MODERATE” to “MODERATE to

| LARGE” based on the conclusions reached for ecology on Page 8-26 of the Draft SEIS. 

| (UUU-70)

|

| Response: The text has been changed to reflect information provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-23, Line 9 

| Under the VYNPS Site Comments Column, change “ during construction would be SMALL” to

| “.......during construction would be MODERATE” since the conclusions reached for

| transportation during construction on Page 8-29 of the Draft SEIS was classified as

| “MODERATE”. (UUU-71)

|

| Comment: Page 8-23, Line 9 

| Under the Alternate Site Comments Column, change “Impacts during construction would be

| SMALL” to “Impacts during construction would be MODERATE” since the conclusions reached

| for transportation during construction on Page 8-29 of the Draft SEIS was classified as

| “MODERATE.” (UUU-72)

|

| Response: The conclusions reached for transportation during construction on Page 8-29 refer

| to impacts associated with commuting construction workers. The construction impacts on

| Page 8-23, Line 9, refer to impacts from fugitive dust and emissions from vehicles during

| construction, which are determined to be SMALL. No change was made to the SEIS in

| response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-24, Line 1 

| Under the VYNPS Site Impact Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE”

| based on the conclusions reached for socioeconomics on Page 8-29 of the Draft SEIS. 

| (UUU-73)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-185 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: Text was changed to clarify that operational socioeconomic impacts are SMALL. |

The overall socioeconomic impacts of a natural-gas-fired plant using closed-cycle cooling at the |

VYNPS plant remain MODERATE. |

|

Comment: Page 8-24, Line 1 |

Under the Alternate Site Impact Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE” |

based on the conclusions reached for socioeconomics on Page 8-29 of the Draft SEIS. |

(UUU-74) |

|

Response: Text was changed to reflect that operational socioeconomic impacts are SMALL. |

The overall socioeconomic impacts of a natural-gas-fired plant using closed-cycle cooling at an |

alternate site remain MODERATE. |

|

Comment: Page 8-24, Line 2 |

Under the VYNPS Site Impact Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE” |

based on the conclusions reached for transportation on Page 8-29 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-75) |

|

Response: Although transportation impacts during operation are considered SMALL, the |

impacts associated with transportation during construction are MODERATE. Therefore, the |

overall impact from transportation would be MODERATE. No change was made to the SEIS in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-24, Line 2 |

Under the Alternate Site Impact Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE” |

based on the conclusions reached for transportation on Page 8-29 of the |

Draft SEIS. (UUU-76) |

|

Response: Although transportation impacts during operation are considered SMALL, the |

impacts associated with transportation during construction are MODERATE. Therefore, the |

overall impact of transportation during construction and operations would be MODERATE. No |

change was made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-32, Line 18 -20 |

Delete the sentence “An evaluation of the impacts of a new nuclear generating plant to replace |

VYNPS was not included in the Entergy ER (Entergy 2006)” since the statement is incorrect. |

Section 8.1.3 of the Entergy ER contained an evaluation of the impacts of a new nuclear |

generating plant at an alternate site to replace VYNPS. (UUU-77) |

|

Response: The text in Section 8.2.3 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-186 August 2007

| Comment: Page 8-33, Line 11 

| Under the Impact Column, change “SMALL” to “SMALL to MODERATE” based on the

| conclusions reached for air quality on Page 8-35 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-78)

|

| Comment: Page 8-33, Line 11 

| Under the Comments Column, change “....during construction would be SMALL” to “....during

| construction would be MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for air quality on

| Page 8-35 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-79)

|

| Response: Recent analysis performed for early site permit reviews concludes that the impacts

| on air quality from construction of a new nuclear power plant using closed-cycle cooling at an

| alternate site are SMALL. The text in Section 8.2.3.1 has been modified to reflect this new

| information.

|

| Comment: Page 8-33, Line 15 

| Under the Impact Column, change “MODERATE to LARGE” to “SMALL to LARGE” based on

| the conclusions reached for transportation on Page 8-36 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-80)

|

| Response: Although transportation impacts during operation could be SMALL to MODERATE,

| the impacts associated with transportation during construction could be MODERATE to LARGE. 

| Therefore, the overall impact of transportation during construction and operations would be

| MODERATE to LARGE. No change has resulted in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-34, Line 4 

| Under the Comments Column, change “.........impacts ranging from SMALL to MODERATE” to

| only “......”........MODERATE impacts” to be consistent with the conclusions reached for 

| aesthetics on Page 8-36 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-81)

|

| Response: Although the overall aesthetic impacts of a new nuclear power plant using closed

| cycle cooling at an alternate site are characterized as MODERATE to LARGE, the impacts from

| intermittent noise are expected to range from SMALL to MODERATE. In response to this

| comment, additional information was added to Section 8.2.3.1 to clarify the conclusions

| reached.

|

| Comment: Page 8-34, Line 7 

| Under the Impact Column, change “SMALL to LARGE” to “SMALL” only based on the

| conclusions reached for environmental justice on Page 8-37 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-82)

|

| Response: Text has been added to Section 8.2.3.1 to clarify the range of environmental justice

| impacts of a new nuclear plant using closed-cycle cooling at an alternate site. The impact

| would range from SMALL to LARGE depending on the characteristics of the site.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-187 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Page 8-35, Line 25 |

Would recommend deleting “(see Section 2.2.2)” since it is not clear why the Draft SEIS is |

referencing this section here and it appears to be inappropriate at the end of the sentence. |

(UUU-83) |

|

Response: The reference to Section 2.2.2 has been deleted based on information provided in |

this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-48, Line 9 |

Under the VYNPS Site Impact Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE” |

based on the conclusions reached under the VYNPS Site Comments Column for this category. |

(UUU-85) |

|

Response: Although air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL, the impacts |

associated with operation are expected to be MODERATE. Therefore, the overall air quality |

impact during construction and operations would be MODERATE. No change to the text was |

made in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-49, Line 1 |

Under the VYNPS Site Impact Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE” |

based on the conclusions reached under the VYNPS Site Comments Column for this category. |

(UUU-86) |

|

Response: Although socioeconomic impacts during operation would be SMALL, the impacts |

during construction would be MODERATE. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during |

construction and operations would be MODERATE. No change to the text was made in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-49, Line 1 |

Under the Alternate Site Impact Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE” |

since operational impacts would be the same as that for the VYNPS site (SMALL). (UUU-87) |

|

Response: Although socioeconomic impacts during operation would be SMALL, the impacts |

during construction would be MODERATE. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during |

construction and operations would be MODERATE. No change to the text was made in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-49, Line 1 |

Under the Alternate Site Comments Column, add the sentence “Impact during operation would |

be SMALL.” (UUU-88) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-188 August 2007

| Response: The text in Section 8.2.6 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-49, Line 2 

| Under the VYNPS Site Impact Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE”

| based on the conclusions reached under the VYNPS Site Comments Column for this category. 

| (UUU-89)

|

| Response: Although transportation impacts during operation would be SMALL, the impacts

| associated with transportation during construction would be MODERATE. Therefore, the overall

| impact to transportation during construction and operations would be MODERATE. No change

| was made to the text in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-49, Line 2 

| Under the Alternate Site Impact Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL to MODERATE”

| based on the conclusions reached under the Alternate Site Comments Column for this category. 

| (UUU-90)

|

| Response: Although transportation impacts during operation would be SMALL, the impacts

| associated with transportation during construction would be MODERATE. Therefore, the overall

| impact to transportation during construction and operations would be MODERATE. Table 8-8 in

| the SEIS has been modified in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 9-8, Line 19 

| Under the Coal-Fired Generation (Alternate Site) Column, change “MODERATE to LARGE” to

| “SMALL to LARGE” based on the conclusions reached for transportation on Page 8-17 of 

| the Draft SEIS. (UUU-96)

|

| Response: See response to comment UUU-68 for explanation. No change to the text was

| made in response to this comment. 

|

| Comment: Page 9-8, Line 8 

| Under the Natural Gas-Fired Generation (VYNPS Site) Column, change “SMALL to

| MODERATE” to “MODERATE to LARGE” based on the conclusions reached for ecology on 

| Page 8-26 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-97)

|

| Response: Table 9-1 has been changed to be consistent with the text in Section 8.2.2.1.

|

| Comment: Page 9-8, Line 18 

| Under the Natural Gas-Fired Generation (VYNPS Site) Column, change “MODERATE” to

| “SMALL to MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for socioeconomics on Page 8-29

| of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-98)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-189 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: See response to comment UUU-73. No change to the text was made in response |

to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 9-8, Line 19 |

Under the Natural Gas-Fired Generation (VYNPS Site) Column, change “MODERATE” to |

“SMALL to MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for transportation on Page 8-29 of |

the Draft SEIS. (UUU-99) |

|

Response: See response to comment UUU-75. No change to the text was made in response |

to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 9-8 , Line18 |

Under the Natural Gas-Fired Generation (Alternate Site) Column, change “MODERATE” to |

“SMALL to MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for socioeconomics on Page 8-29 |

of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-100) |

|

Response: See response to comment UUU-74. No change to the text was made in response |

to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 9-8, Line 19 |

Under the Natural Gas-Fired Generation (Alternate Site) Column, change “MODERATE” to |

“SMALL to MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for transportation on Page 8-29 of |

the Draft SEIS. (UUU-101) |

|

Response: See response to comment UUU-76. No change to the text was made in response |

to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 9-8, Line 15 |

Under the New Nuclear Generation (Alternate Site) Column, change “SMALL” to “SMALL to |

MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for air quality on Page 8-35 of the Draft SEIS. |

(UUU-102) |

|

Response: See response to Comment UUU-78. The text in Table 9-1 of the SEIS was |

modified in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 9-8, Line 19 |

Under the New Nuclear Generation (Alternate Site) Column, change “MODERATE to LARGE” |

to “SMALL to LARGE” based on the conclusions reached for transportation on Page 8-36 of the |

Draft SEIS. (UUU-103) |

|

Response: See response to comment UUU-80. No change to the text was made in response |

to this comment. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-190 August 2007

| Comment: Page 9-8, Line 24 -25 

| Under the New Nuclear Generation (Alternate Site) Column, change “SMALL to LARGE” to

| “SMALL” only based on the conclusions reached for environmental justice on Page 8-37 of the

| Draft SEIS. (UUU-104)

|

| Response: See response to comment UUU-82. No change to the text was made in response

| to this comment. 

|

| Comment: Page 9-8, Line 15 

| Under the Combination of Alternatives (VYNPS Site) Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL

| to MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for air quality in Table 8-8 on Page 848 of

| the Draft SEIS. (UUU-105)

|

| Response: See response to comment UUU-85. No change to the text was made in response

| to this comment. 

|

| Comment: Page 9-8, Line 18 

| Under the Combination of Alternatives (VYNPS Site) Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL

| to MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for socioeconomics in Table 8-8 on Page

| 8-49 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-106)

|

| Response: See response to comment UUU-86. No change to the text was made in response

| to this comment. 

|

|

| Comment: Page 9-8, Line 19 

| Under the Combination of Alternatives (VYNPS Site) Column, change “MODERATE” to “SMALL

| to MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for transportation in Table 8-8 on Page 8-49

| of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-107)

|

| Response: See response to comment UUU-89. No change to the text was made in response

| to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 9-8, Line 18 

| Under the Combination of Alternatives (Alternate Site) Column, change “MODERATE” to

| “SMALL to MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for socioeconomics in Table 8-8 on

| Page 8-49 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-108)

|

| Response: See response to comment UUU-87. No change to the text was made in response

| to this comment. 

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-191 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Page 9-8, Line 19 |

Under the Combination of Alternatives (Alternate Site) Column, change “MODERATE” to |

“SMALL to MODERATE” based on the conclusions reached for transportation in Table 8-8 on |

Page 8-49 of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-109) |

|

Response: See response to comment UUU-90. No change to the text was made in response |

to this comment. |

|

Comment: NRC Staff does not discuss the simply alternative of seeking new long-term |

competitive power contracts for Vermont utilities from existing or expanding regional generators. |

Why? (QQQ-21) |

|

Response: Section 8.2.4 examines the possibility of purchasing the power from existing |

sources to replace the power provided by VYNPS. |

|

Comment: NRC Staff discusses the hypothetical installation of a dual-cycle natural gas fuel |

generator on the Vermont Yankee site but does not refer to the data produced by two gas |

generation developers that explored just that possibility just before Entergy bought the plant. |

Why? (QQQ-22) |

|

Response: The commenter does not provide the source of the information cited. The analysis |

provided in the SEIS is based on currently available technologies that are consistent with the |

information used in the GEIS. The commenter does not state any dispute with the data used by |

the NRC staff. No change to the text was made in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: NRC Staff rates the environmental impact, including socio-economics, of taking no |

action and letting VY close in 2012 as “SMALL.” [Page 8-3]. A single “LARGE” impact is |

assigned under the topic of taxes. NRC Staff should define or quantify the impact categories |

used in the draft EIS: SMALL, MODERATE. LARGE. NRC Staff included no comparisons of |

taxes paid, revenue to local business, or work force size and wages paid during the 7-15 year |

period of decommissioning at other New England power stations. Why? There’s plenty of data |

there, about taxes, employment, cost of replacement power, economic growth, and employment |

Wouldn’t it be fair to assess for comparison purposes how reactor closure and decommissioning |

affected other New England areas? (QQQ-23) |

|

Response: Even though the no-action alternative (not renewing the VYNPS operating license) |

would impact employment, wages, business revenues, and taxes, the relative impact of closure |

of VYNPS on the economy of the State and on State tax collections would be small, because of |

the size of the impact of no action compared to total employment in the State, and to State tax |

revenues. At the local level, however, impacts of the no-action alternative on property taxes |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-192 August 2007

| paid to local jurisdictions would be large because of the importance of these revenues relative

| to total property tax collections by these jurisdictions. The text in the SEIS has been modified to

| clarify socioeconomic impacts at both geographic levels.

|

| A.2.14 Comments Concerning Editorial Issues

|

| Comment: Page 2-6, lines 1-5: Text generally describes land uses within a 5 mile radius of

| VYNPS. On the other hand, Figure 2-2 (pg. 2-3) illustrates a 6 mile radius. (CCC-15)

|

| Response: There is no correspondence between the textual description on page 2-6 and

| Figure 2-2. There is also no reference to Figure 2-2 in the mentioned text. No change has

| resulted in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-45, lines 30-31: Flalladay Brook should be Halladay brook; Whetstone

| creek should be Whetstone Brook. (CCC-16)

|

| Response: Text in Section 2.2.5.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment. 

|

| Comment: Page 1-2, Line 32 

| Change “Table E-I” to “Table E-2" to accurately reflect the table in Appendix E. (UUU-3)

|

| Response: Text in Section 1.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-1, Line 17

| Delete “larger” to correct a typographical error. (UUU-5)

|

| Response: Text in Section 2.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-8, Line 42 

| Change “(Entergy 2006j)” to “(Entergy 2006h)” to accurately reflect the reference source in the

| Section 2.3 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-6)

|

| Response: The reference callout has been changed in Section 2.1.3 to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-15, Line 30

| Change “pulled out” to “removed”. (UUU-7)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-193 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: Text in Section 2.1.5 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-20, Line 20 |

Change “(Entergy 2006b)” to “(Entergy 2006a)” to accurately reflect the reference source in the |

Section 2.3 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-8) |

|

Response: The reference callout has been changed in Section 2.2.1 to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-36, Line 24 |

Change “station”to “Station” to correct a typographical error. (UUU-9) |

|

Response: Text in Section 2.2.3.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-36, Line 25 |

Change “station”to “Station” to correct a typographical error. (UUU-10) |

|

Response: Text in Section 2.2.3.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-43, Line 28 |

Delete “or oil from any offsite source” since VYNPS does not receive used oil from any offsite |

source. (UUU-11) |

|

Response: The text in Section 2.2.4.2 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-52, Line 33 Insert “River’ between “Connecticut” and “Atlantic” to correct a |

typographical error. (UUU-12) |

|

Response: The text in Section 2.2.5.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-52, Line 34 |

There is no “FWS 2005d” listing in the Section 2.3 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-13) |

|

Response: Reference citations in Section 2.2.5.1 and Section 2.3 have been changed to |

reflect information provided in the comment. |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-194 August 2007

| Comment: Page 2-53, Line 5 

| Change “Salmon” to “States”to correct a typographical error. (UUU-14)

|

| Response: Text in Section 2.2.5.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-53, Line 35 

| Change “(Table 2-5)” to “(Table 2-9)” to accurately reflect table showing Blueback Herring

| counted. (UUU-15)

|

| Response: Text in Section 2.2.5.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: 2-66, Line 11

| Insert a space between “of” and “other”to correct a typographical error. (UUU-17)

|

| Response: Text in Section 2.2.6.2 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-70, Line 2

| Delete “of” prior to “0.0063" to correct a typographical error. (UUU-18)

|

| Response: Text in Section 2.2.7 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-76, Line 11 

| There is no “USDA 2006" listing only in the Section 2.3 references of the Draft SEIS. 

| Section 2.3 references list “USDA 2006a, USDA 2006b and USDA 2006c”. (UUU-19)

|

| Response: The reference has been added to Section 2.2.8.3 to reflect information provided in

| the comment. 

|

| Comment: Page 2-85, Line N/A 

| Add “10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

| Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions” to the

| Section 2.3 references since it is in the section write-up and is consistent with other regulations

| listed in this section. (UUU-20)

|

| Response: The reference has been added to Section 2.3 to reflect information provided in the

| comment. 

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-195 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Page 2-85, Line N/A |

Add “40 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part |

70, “State Operating Permit Programs” to the Section 2.3 references since it is in the section |

write-up and is consistent with other regulations listed in this section. (UUU-21) |

|

Response: The reference has been added to Section 2.3 to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-85, Line N/A |

Add “Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (CAA) 42 USC 7401, et seq.” to the Section 2.3 |

references since it is in the section write-up and is consistent with other Acts listed in this |

section. (UUU-22) |

|

Response: The reference has been added to Section 2.3 to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-85, Line N/A |

Add “National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 42 USC 4321, et seq.” to |

the Section 2.3 references since it is in the section write-up and is consistent with other Acts |

listed in this section. (UUU-23) |

|

Response: The reference has been added to Section 2.3 to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-88, Line 7 -8 |

There is no “DeWald 2006b” reference listing in the Section 2.0 write-up (Pages 2-1 through |

2-85). (UUU-24) |

|

Response: The reference DeWald (2006b) is now cited in Tables 2-5 and 2-6. |

|

Comment: Page 2-88, Line 13 -15 |

There is no “DeWald 2006d” reference listing in the Section 2.0 write-up (Pages 2-1 through |

2-85). (UUU-25) |

|

Response: The reference callout in Section 2.3 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-89, Line 31 -33 |

There is no “Entergy 2005f” reference listing in the Section 2.0 |

write-up (Pages 2-1 through 2-85). (UUU-26) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-196 August 2007

| Response: The reference callout in Section 2.3 has been changed to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-90, Line 38 -39 

| There is no “Entergy 2006k” reference listing in the Section 2.0 write-up (Pages 2-1 through

| 2-85). (UUU-27)

|

| Response: The reference callout in Section 2.3 has been changed to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-92, Line 31

| Insert “Division” between “Massachusetts” and “of” to correct a typographical error. (UUU-28)

|

| Response: Text in Section 2.3 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-93, Line 17 -19

| There is no “NCDC 2006a” reference listing in the Section 2.0 write-up (Pages 2-1 through

| 2-85). (UUU-29)

|

| Response: The reference callout in Section 2.2.4.1 has been changed to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

|

| Comment: Page 2-96, Line 38 -39

| There is no “USDA 2006a” reference listing in the Section 2.0 write-up (Pages 2-1 through

| 2-85). (UUU-30)

|

| Response: The reference callout in Section 2.2.8.3 has been changed to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-97, Line 9 -11 

| There is no “EPA 2006a” reference listing in the Section 2.0 write-up (Pages 2-1 through 2-85). 

| (UUU-31)

|

| Response: The reference callout in Section 2.2.3.1 has been changed to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-97, Line 37 -40 

| There is no “FWS 2001" reference listing in the Section 2.0 write-up (Pages 2-1 through 2-85). 

| (UUU-32)

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-197 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Response: The reference callout in Section 2.3 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-100, Line 24 -27 |

There is no “VDEC 2005b” reference listing in the Section 2.0 write-up (Pages 2-1 through |

2-85). (UUU-33) |

|

Response: The reference callout in Section 2.2.2.1 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-100, Line 41 -42 |

There is no “VDEC 2006c” reference listing in the Section 2.0 2-101 1 -2 write-up (Pages 2-1 |

through 2-85). (UUU-34) |

|

Response: The reference callout in Section 2.3 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-101, Line 4 -6 |

There is no “VDEC 2006d” reference listing in the Section 2.0 write-up (Pages 2-1 through |

2-85). (UUU-35) |

|

Response: The reference callout in Section 2.3 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 4-14, Line 16 |

Change “Normandeau 2004" to “Normandeau 2004a” to accurately reflect the reference source |

in the Section 4.10 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-36) |

|

Response: Text in Section 4.1.2 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 4-15, Line 39 |

Insert a space between “salmon” and “(Salmo” to correct a typographical error. (UUU-38) |

|

Response: Text in Section 4.1.2 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 4-44, Line 18 |

Change “2.2.5.5" to “2.2.5.2" to correct a typographical error. (UUU-42) |

|

Response: Text in Section 4.6 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-198 August 2007

| Comment: Page 4-48, Line 17 

| Change “Entergy 2005e” to “Entergy 2005a” to accurately reflect the reference source in the

| Section 4.10 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-44)

|

| Response: The reference callout in Section 4.7.1 has been changed to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 4-48, Line 9 

| Change the spelling of Spectruc to Spectrus NX-1 104 to accurately reflect the name of the

| product. (UUU-45)

|

| Response: Text in Section 4.7.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 4-49, Line 39 

| Change “NRC 1999" to “NRC 1996" to accurately reflect the reference source in the

| Section 4.10 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-46)

|

| Response: Text in Section 4.7.2 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 4-53, Line 5 

| Change “Savoy et al. 2004" to “Savoy and Crecco 2004" to accurately reflect the reference

| listing in the Section 4.10 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-47)

|

| Response: The reference callout in Section 4.8.1 has been changed to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 4-58, Line 2 Change “(as listed in Table 2-1)” to “(as listed in Table 2-2)” to

| accurately reflect the source for the onsite wells. (UUU-49)

|

| Response: Text in Section 4.8.5 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 4-59, Line N/A Add “36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36,

| Parks, Forests and Public Property,Part 800, “Protection Of Historic Properties” to the Section

| 4.10 references since it is in the section write-up and is consistent with other regulations listed

| in this section. (UUU-50)

|

| Response: The reference has been added to Section 4.10 to reflect information provided in the

| comment. 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-199 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Page 4-59, Line N/A Add “40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title |

40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508, “Terminology And Index” to the Section 4.10 |

references since it is in the section write-up and is consistent with other regulations listed in this |

section. (UUU-51) |

|

Response: The reference has been added to Section 4.10 to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 4-59, Line N/A Add “Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 33 USC |

1326, et seq. (Also known as the Clean Water Act [CWA])” to the Section 4.10 references since |

it is in the section write-up and is consistent with other Acts listed in this section. (UUU-52) |

|

Response: The reference has been added to Section 4.10 to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 4-59, Line N/A Add “National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended |

(NHPA) 16 USC 470, et seq.” to the Section 4.10 references since it is in the section write-up |

and is consistent with other Acts listed in this section. (UUU-53) |

|

Response: The reference has been added to Section 4.10 to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 5-3, Line 17 |

Change “Entergy 2006" to “Entergy 2006a” to accurately reflect the reference source in the |

Section 5.3 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-55) |

|

Response: The reference callout in Section 5.1.1 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 5-3, Line 33 |

Delete “(NRC 1996)” {Footnote on page 5-1 states that all GElS references are to the GElS and |

Addendum 1) (UUU-56) |

|

Response: Text in Section 5.1.2 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 5-4, Line 25 |

Change “Entergy 2006" to “Entergy 2006a” to accurately reflect the reference source in the |

Section 5.3 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-57) |

|

Response: The reference callout in Section 5.1.2 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-200 August 2007

| Comment: Page 5-11, Line 1 4

| There is no “Entergy 2006b” reference listing in the Section 5.0 write-up (Pages 5-1 through

| 5-10). (UUU-61)

|

| Comment: Page 5-11, Line 16 -19 

| There is no “Entergy 2006e” reference listing in the Section 5.0 write-up (Pages 5-1 through

| 5-10). (UUU-62)

|

| Response: The reference to Entergy 2006b, Entergy 2006c, and Entergy 2006d have been

| revised. The reference to Entergy 2006e has been removed. 

|

| Comment: Page 6-6, Line 16 

| Need to add “(NRC 2005)” after “(70 FR 53313)” to tie it to the reference source in the

| Section 6.2 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-63)

|

| Response: Text in Section 6.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 6-10, Line 8 

| Need to reconcile the “September 28, 2005" date with the “September 8, 2005" date shown on

| Page 6-6 (Line 16) of the Draft SEIS which states”...proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 63 on

| September 8, 2005 (70 FR 53313)”. (UUU-64)

|

| Response: Text in Section 6.2 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 6-10, Line 6 -8 

| There is no “NRC 2005" reference listing in the Section 6.0 write-up (Pages 6-1 through 6-8). 

| Refer to Comment 59 to correct this item. (UUU-65)

|

| Response: Text in Section 6.1 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-7, Line 34 

| Change “(Section 3.2.1; Entergy 2005)” to “(Entergy 2006)” to accurately reflect the reference

| source in the Section 8.4 references of the Draft SEIS. As a note, there is no “Entergy 2005" in

| the Section 8.4 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-66)

|

| Response: The reference callout in Section 8.2 has been changed to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-201 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Page 8-7, Line 37 |

Change “(Entergy 2005)” to “(Entergy 2006)” to accurately reflect the reference source in the |

Section 8.4 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-67) |

|

Response: The reference callout in Section 8.2 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-14, Line 22 |

Change “(Entergy 2005)” to “(Entergy 2006)” to accurately reflect the reference source in the |

Section 8.4 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-69) |

|

Response: The reference callout in Section 8.2.1.1 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-40, Line 11 |

Change “(PNNL 1986)” to “(PNL 1986)” to correct a typographical error and to accurately the |

reference listing in the Section 8.4 references of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-84) |

|

Response: Text in Section 8.4 has been changed to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-51, Line N/A |

Add “Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514; 99th Cong., H.R. 3838 (JCS-10-87)” to the |

Section 8.4 references since it is in the section write-up and to be consistent with typical Acts |

listed in this section. (UUU-91) |

|

Response: The reference has been added to Section 8.4 to reflect information provided in the |

comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-55, Line 20 -22 |

There is no “NRC 2001" reference listing in the Section 8.0 write-up (Pages 8-1 through 8-51). |

(UUU-92) |

|

Response: The reference callout in Section 8.4 has been changed to reflect information |

provided in the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-55, Line 31 -33 |

Change ‘”Walsh, M.E., et al. 2000" to “Walsh, M.E., Perlack, R.L., Turhollow, A., Ugarte, D.T., |

Becker, D.E., Graham, R.L., Slinsky, S.E. and Ray, D.E. 2000" to capture all authors. |

(UUU-93) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-202 August 2007

| Response: Text in Section 8.4 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page 9-9, Line 17 -18 

| There is no “Entergy 2006c” reference listing in the Section 9.0 write-up (Pages 9-1 through

| 9-8). (UUU-110)

|

| Response: The reference callout in Section 9.4 has been changed to reflect information

| provided in the comment.

|

| Comment: Page E-5, Line 5 

| Change “0002-44-04-X” to ‘”0002-44-07" under Number Column, “01/01/06" to “01/01/07" under

| Issue Date Column and “12/31/06" to “12/31/07" under Expiration Date Column on Table E-2. 

| (UUU-111)

|

| Response: Text in Table E-2 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page E-5 , Line 6 

| Change “T-VTO01 -L06" to ‘”’T-VTO01 -L07" under Number Column, “01/01/06" to “11/20/06"

| under Issue Date Column and “12/31/06"to “12/31/07" under Expiration Date Column on

| Table E-2. (UUU-112)

|

| Response: Text in Table E-2 has been changed to reflect information provided in the

| comment.

|

| Comment: Page E-27, Line 33 

| Change “(NRC 2006a)” to “(NRC 2006b)” to accurately reflect the reference source in the

| Section 9.0 references in Appendix E of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-113)

|

| Comment: Page E-35, Line 34 “Marcy (2004c (1976c)” is not listed in the Section 9.0

| references in Appendix E of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-14)

|

| Comment: Page E-40, Line 8 “(Entergy 2005e)” is not listed in the Section 9.0 references in

| Appendix E of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-115)

|

| Comment: Page E-40, Line 11 

| Change “(VDEC 2005a)” to “(VDEC 2005)” to accurately reflect the listing in the Section 9.0

| references in Appendix E of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-116)

|

| Comment: Page E-42, Line 32 “(DeWald 2006c)” is not listed in the Section 9.0 references in

| Appendix E of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-117)
Appendix A

August 2007 A-203 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: Page E-52, Line 29 “(VFWD 2006)” is not listed in the Section 9.0 references in |

Appendix E of the Draft SEIS. (UUU-118) |

|

Comment: Page E-55, Line 6 |

Under the Expected Effect of VYNPS Operations on EFH Column, change “Parr habitat no |

present” to “Parr habitat not present” to correct a typographical error. (UUU-120) |

|

Comment: Page E-56, Line N/A |

Add “Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. |

1801-1882, as amended 1996" to the Section 9.0 references in Appendix E of the Draft SEIS |

since it is in the section write-up and is consistent with other Acts listed in this section. |

(UUU-121) |

|

Comment: Page E-56, Line 39 -40 |

“Dewald 2006a” is not listed in the Section 9.0 references in Appendix E of the Draft SEIS. |

(UUU-122) |

|

Comment: Page E-56, Line 33 & 36 |

Change “Dewald” to “DeWald” to correct a typographical error. (UUU-123) |

|

Comment: Page E-57, Line 1 |

Change “Dewald” to “DeWald” to correct a typographical error. (UUU-124) |

|

Comment: Page E-60, Line 17-19 |

“NRC 2006a” is not listed in the Section 9.0 references in Appendix E of the Draft SEIS. |

(UUU-125) |

|

Response: The NRC’s EFH assessment was transmitted to the NMFS by letter dated |

December 12, 2006, and includes the NRC’s assessment of the impacts of continued operation |

of VYNPS on Atlantic salmon EFH. Therefore, the EFH assessment contained in the Final |

SEIS has not been revised as suggested. |

|

A.2.15 Issues Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review for License Renewal: |

Safeguards and Security; Operational Safety; Aging Management; Emergency |

Preparedness and Response; Cost-Benefit; and Energy Policy |

|

Safeguards and Security |

|

Comment: Of the 32 boiling water reactors that are still in operation, there are 24 that have |

mark one containments, it’s only this one that interests me, the one that’s five miles from here. |

The NRC is attempting to conceal the fact that a large release of radioactivity as a result of a |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-204 August 2007

| terrorist attack on this structure is entirely possible, which is according to a Congressionally

| mandated study by the National Academy of Science. There is no mention of the word

| terrorism in the entire EIS, I’ve read it.

|

| Nearly 3,000 Americans died on 9/11. Since then, more than 3,000 Americans have died

| fighting terrorism. Roughly 70,000, if we could know, Iraqi civilians have died, I’m sorry,

| civilians, terrorists, insurgents, whatever one chooses to call them, have died, Iraqi citizens, and

| the NRC considers it okay to not include the word terrorism in it’s environmental impact

| statement. (D-1)

|

| Comment: There is no evaluation of the probability that security protocol is adequate, this is

| even though, in 2001, not even one month prior to 9/11, Vermont Yankee had the notorious

| rating as the least secure reactor in the country, that’s as the result of the operational safety

| response evaluation test of the NRC. Vermont Yankee has repeatedly said, since 9/11, that

| they have invested $8 million strengthening their defenses, upgrading their security systems. 

| So what? I don’t know if that’s any more or any less than the Pilgrim reactor, or the Monticello

| reactor, or any other boiling water reactor or PWR, pressurized water reactor, for that matter, in

| this country.

|

| All we here can know is that we started on 9/11/01 with the least secure reactor in the country,

| as determined by NRC tests. Maybe it’s more secure now, maybe not. There is no assessment

| of the environmental, the economic, employment or sociological impacts and costs if this

| environmental impact study, or your regulation or your insight, or your oversight of this industry,

| excuse me, is not adequate to prevent an uncontrolled and catastrophic release of radioactive

| nuclides. You have no analysis of the probability the plant management procedures actually

| can prevent an uncontrolled catastrophic release of radiation or of the environmental, economic,

| employment and sociological impacts if those procedures are not sufficient to prevent such a

| release. (D-3)

|

| Comment: Terrorism must be considered here on a site-specific basis. (D-5)

|

| Comment: One of the things that Congress did right away, which has not gotten very much

| good coverage in the press, was take a quick look at our most vulnerable infrastructure in the

| country to see what measures ought to be taken right away, and they found the most vulnerable

| infrastructure and they took action.

|

| That most vulnerable infrastructure was our public water supply system, reservoirs are wide

| open and so forth. The electric transmission system has had damage to it on a far greater scale

| by ice storms than terrorists could ever do. Natural gas pipelines are designed for

| sectionalizations because, as the representatives told us, our worst enemy is somebody with a

| backhoe, people are digging up natural gas pipelines all the time, so they are designed for

| accidents, terrorists couldn’t possibly do worse. 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-205 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

And nuclear power plants were not on the list at all because of, as Mr. Sachs proved by his |

remarks, there was a formal process in place since 1979 to guard against terrorism, as the court |

mentioned in the Diablo Canyon decision, 1979 is when the NRC started formally looking at |

terrorism, and there were bullet proof steel shields in the hallways of the plants and so forth |

during the 1980s when I was back here working again on the plant. So, as I found in |

Washington, at the end, all decisions are based on personal value judgements, all the important |

ones, not science and engineering alone. |

|

As a matter of fact, there are no scientific formulas or engineering processes that can tell you |

whether something is safe or not, science and engineering can only tell you how something |

works and what the consequences are. Whether that’s safe or whether it’s acceptable is a |

personal value judgement and that’s what politics is all about in this country, but making the |

right value judgements depends on public education and the industry, and I want to say to the |

staff members here, and I hope you’ll take it back, the Commission has a long way to go on |

public education on these matters. |

|

Even though people may still continue to disagree with us forever or with the Commission and |

the majority view on nuclear power and other things forever, we have an obligation to continue |

the public education. I realize, in a politically charged environment like Washington, particularly |

when there is a hostile majority in Congress or hostile administration in the White House, how |

difficult it is to not seem to be an advocate, but I would offer for the Commission’s consideration |

that telling the whole truth in things that have happened is not advocacy. |

|

There is nothing wrong with saying that the Commission’s activity on concerns on terrorism |

began in 1979 so, when 2001 came, we are not starting from ground zero. There is nothing |

wrong with saying, when you look at health and safety of radioactivity and radiation, that the |

research and development began over 100 years ago and the regulatory process began in |

1928. There is nothing wrong with saying those things to continue to reach out to people, so my |

message is we must continue the public education process but at the end know that there will |

still be people who disagree with us, but remember what one of the founders of our country |

said, I may disagree with what you say but I would defend with my life your right to say it. (G-1) |

|

Comment: I do believe that the NRC is aware that there are increased risks for us who live |

downwind and that a catastrophic accident is possible, the likes of Chernobyl or Three Mile |

Island. It could be a terrorist target. (M-2) |

|

Comment: So terrorism must be included in the environmental impact statement and in |

relicensing. (KK-4) |

|

Comment: I have a concern regarding the terrorist issue regarding these spent fuel casks. |

(NN-2) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-206 August 2007

| Comment: My second concern with the inadequacy and incompleteness of the supplemental

| environmental impact statement is the NRC’s refusal to consider the environmental effects of an

| act of terrorism upon the spent fuel pool. I think this stance that the NRC is taking is not only

| tantamount to criminal negligence, it’s silly, they know that it’s only a matter of time before the

| Supreme Court or Congress catches up with them on this issue. Saying it’s up to the military to

| protect nuclear facilities, which I read in the paper just a couple of days ago, that was

| supposedly a decision on the part of the Commissioners themselves, is irresponsible when

| there are technologies readily available today that could make these predeployed weapons of

| mass destruction, the vulnerable spent fuel pools, much safer, hardened on-site storage, for

| one. (OO-2)

|

| Comment: The statement should deal openly with the threat of attack instead of sweeping it

| under the rug. (TT-3)

|

| Comment: Regards the terrorist threat, I don’t know which option is safer, the spent fuel pool

| or dry casks. If the dry casks are deemed to be safer, and if we need to transfer our spent fuel

| to transport casks at some point in the future anyways, then I would support moving the fuel to

| the casks now. If this is considered a decommissioning cost then I would support allowing the

| utilities to use decommissioning funds to do this.

|

| If there are mitigation strategies that are cost effective I would support those too. These would

| seem to me to be sensible anti-terrorist measures. Evaluating these small probability events

| with unknowable consequences is difficult. They must be balanced against the severe

| consequences that are certainties when considering fossil fueled alternatives. I would ask you

| to weigh the comparison as if your office was in the Netherlands (and to be fair, down wind from

| a dry cask storage facility). (SS-6)

|

| Comment: Why can’t the nuclear industry use a little bit of the $12 billion corporate welfare

| package they were given in the Energy Act of 2005 to show us that they are responsible

| corporate citizens by stopping the overfilling of spent fuel pools and putting the fuel in hardened

| storage casks in bounds, far enough apart that they are not likely to bonk into each other in a

| terrorist attack, tip over and cause a cladding fire? (OO-3)

|

| Response: The issue of security and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power plants is

| considered out of scope for license renewal. These matters continue to be addressed through

| the ongoing regulatory oversight process as current and generic regulatory issues that affect all

| nuclear facilities. Appropriate safeguards and security measures have been incorporated into

| the site security and emergency preparedness plans. Any required changes to emergency and

| safeguards contingency plans related to terrorist events will be incorporated and reviewed

| under the operating license. 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-207 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Comment: My understanding is that the general security has been beefed up since 9/11, yet |

nothing has been added for security from the air. If this plant is relicensed, how can we feel |

secure from an attack on the spent fuel pool? (H-1) |

|

Comment: The spent fuel pool is radically more dangerous and susceptible to terrorism than |

previously thought. (H-3) |

|

Comment: In 1971, at Vermont Yankee operating license hearings before the Atomic Energy |

Commission, the matter of nuclear waste was excluded. The Natural Resources Defense |

Council, the State of Kansas and the New England Coalition all attempted to raise it repeatedly |

and were always told it would be dealt with later. |

|

The plan, at that point, was that 600 irradiated fuel bundles would remain in the spent fuel pool |

for a few months only. As we know, all the spent fuel ever generated at Vermont Yankee now |

remains in the spent fuel pool. Now we know the spent fuel pool is even more vulnerable |

because of its density. I’m not quite sure of the number but it’s something like 2,800 fuel |

bundles are more which are there at elevation and we now know more clearly than we did |

before that the possibility of a terrorist attack is very real. (N-1) |

|

Comment: I’m aware that a rule making is underway for Massachusetts and, a rule making, |

yes, for Massachusetts and its license extension and at Vermont Yankee. However, it’s |

exceedingly important that this sort of thing be completed before any relicensing, if it were to |

occur, is considered. The results of course of a spent fuel pool fire would be catastrophic. We |

learned a few days ago that the NRC has also declined to provide protection for reactors from |

an air crash, it can’t happen. Together, these illustrate a serious either disregard or |

unwillingness to address very certain serious issues within your agency. (N-4) |

|

Comment: Further, it admits that it is impossible to assign probability to acts of terror. This is |

new information and has yet not been considered for its VY site-specific references and |

implications. No credible assessment of potential accident consequences or mitigation at |

Vermont Yankee can be undertaken without including consideration of the information in |

NUREG-1738. (JJ-6) |

|

Comment: When I read recently that the NRC had ruled that guarding against the threat of a |

terrorist air attack on the reactor was the responsibility of the Dept. of Defense, thus rendering |

Entergy as not accountable for efforts in that direction, I knew the shell game had just been |

ramped up a few notches. Entergy cannot protect the exposed fuel pool against air attack; the |

Dept of Defense will not protect the fuel pool against air attack, so the NRC states that the core |

containment structure is of a robust nature to withstand most air attacks and totally ignores the |

real danger, the fuel pool. (DDD-4; Z-5) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-208 August 2007

| Comment: The comparably narrow benefits to continuing the production of tons of radioactive

| wastes can be understood in a broad way, but I doubt they can be readily quantified. We assert

| this broad understanding: Nuclear waste piles are likely targets in a time of war. We need you

| to report this reality to all levels of government by asserting this in your findings. We need you

| to report that the radioactive contamination that would result from an attack on the spent fuel

| pool and an ensuing fire lasting from one to three months would threaten all species living

| down-wind in New England and beyond. (KKK-3)

|

| Comment: Your refusal to consider the environmental effects of an act of terrorism upon the

| spent fuel pool is not only tantamount to criminal negligence, it is silly. You know it is only a

| matter of time before the Supreme Court or U.S. Congress catches up with you. Saying it is up

| to the military to protect nuclear facilities is irresponsible when there are technologies readily

| available to the reactor and spent fuel owners today that could make these pre-deployed

| nuclear weapons MUCH safer. Hardened on-site storage for one. (RRR-3)

|

| Comment: According to a NATO Draft Report, NATO Parliamentary Assembly Report AV 118

| STC/MT (02) 3, (April 25, 2002), 

|

| A Brookhaven National Laboratory study showed that a spent pool fire could cause

| contamination for 188 square miles, approximately 30,000 cancer fatalities and $ 59 billion

| in damage An even greater threat to civilian nuclear facilities may come from ground assault

| or sabotage, with or without the help of insiders. 

|

| The Report states further, that, 

|

| Experts from Stanford University’s CISAC indicated that, given the increase in truck bomb

| attacks over the last decade, terrorist attacks with conventional explosives against nuclear

| power plants, spent fuel pools or spent fuel in transport are major sources of concern 

|

| Given that NRC Staff is well aware of the information above, it remains disturbing that the NRC

| obdurately refuses to newly consider the vulnerability of elevated spent fuel pools to malevolent

| acts and the potential consequences of those acts, even in defiance of the intent of the recent

| SO Circuit Federal Appeals Court decision. (QQQ-26)

|

| Comment: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision is very clear that environmental

| assessment must be done in regard to storage of spent fuel, the NRC should pay attention and

| do it across the board for all spent fuel storage facilities, and I know you are going to say that’s

| not entirely within your purview and it probably isn’t. However, it is something that I think you

| should make very clear to your superiors and everyone in the NRC. (N-3)

|

| Comment: The NRC is basically once again attempting to operate outside the rules and

| outside the law. The 9th Circuit came to a decision that the NRC had to address the
Appendix A

August 2007 A-209 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

vulnerability of its spent nuclear fuel in terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, in terms |

of the movement of fuel into dry cask storage, at a site in California. The NRC objected and |

there the court rejected their position and in fact Pacific Gas and Electric, the corporation that |

has the fuel, appealed to the Supreme Court and was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court. |

|

At this point, the NRC has been ordered to rewrite its rules and regulations in terms of |

incorporating the issue of the vulnerability of spent fuel into the National Environmental Policy |

Act review, this effects all reactor licenses under NEPA review. We are in a NEPA review, |

aren’t we? Isn’t that what we are here to do tonight? Then why are we here? If this is now |

under rewriting the regulations, why hasn’t the NRC suspended its evaluation? Why doesn’t it |

take the hard look that the National Environmental Policy Act requires it to do, instead of |

avoiding the issue? Because the truth is when you have a problem and you have no solution, |

then you have no problem. (O-1) |

|

Comment: The Supreme Court recently ruled, they ruled --. Are they not the highest court in |

the land? They ruled that relicensing must include the consideration of terrorism, period, not for |

the NRC to then say, no. The Supreme Court ruled it so it must be included in the relicensing |

consideration of Vermont Yankee, period. (KK-1) |

|

Comment: It is new and significant that polarization against the U.S. has increased since the |

second Iraq war and attack from the air is of greater concern. The Vermont Yankee storage |

pool is seven stories high and is hardened against impact from the side but its roof is not |

hardened to withstand a plane crash or bombing. |

|

In conclusion, Mr. Secretary of the NRC, I, for one, urge that NEPA’s decision making |

documents include deep scrutiny of the new, significant and very possible impacts of spent fuel |

storage, namely: |

|

1. -an attack on the cooling pool from above --causing the pool to drain, the hot fuel assemblies |

to be exposed, the radioactive assemblies’ zirconium cladding to burn, and the ionizing radiation |

to be released in smoke causing death and a sharp increase in cancer throughout Vermont into |

lower Quebec, and into New Hampshire, most of central and western Massachusetts and |

northern Connecticut. (WWW-3) |

|

Response: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, et al. v. |

NRC, No. 03-74628 (June 2, 2006), upheld the Commission’s decision on the Atomic Energy |

Act issues, but, as to the NEPA issues, concluded that “the NRC’s determination that NEPA |

does not require a consideration of the environmental impact of terrorist attacks does not satisfy |

reasonableness review,” and held that “the EA prepared in reliance on that determination is |

inadequate and fails to comply with NEPA’s mandate.” San Luis Obispo at 6096. In the recent |

Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-07-08, Amergen Energy Company, LLC - License |

Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, dated February 26, 2007 (ADAMS |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-210 August 2007

| Accession No. ML070570511), the Commission reaffirms its decision “that NEPA demands no

| terrorism inquiry.” Specifically, the Commission “respectfully... disagrees” with the Ninth Circuit

| Court of Appeals’ decision and will follow the decision of the court as applicable to Diablo

| Canyon.

|

| In the Memorandum and Order, CLI-07-08 (Feb. 26, 2007), the Commission stated several

| conclusions. First, the environmental effect caused by terrorists is simply too far removed from

| the natural or expected consequences of agency action to require a study under NEPA. 

| Second, a NEPA-driven review of the risks of terrorism would not be necessary because the

| NRC has undertaken extensive efforts to enhance security at nuclear facilities. These ongoing

| post-9/11 enhancements provide the best vehicle for protecting the public. Third, substantial

| practical difficulties impede meaningful NEPA-terrorism review, while the problem of protecting

| sensitive security information in the quintessentially public NEPA and adjudicatory process

| presents additional obstacles. Finally, the GEIS has already performed a discretionary analysis

| of terrorist acts in connection with license renewal and concluded that the damage and

| radiological release from such acts would be no worse than the damage and release to be

| expected from postulated accidents.

|

| Safety

|

| Comment: The ironic thing about the whole study of the effect of the nuclear power plant as

| being so much safer and more wonderful for our region because it produces enough power and

| we aren’t going to have the lights to out or the heat go off, the ironic thing about that is that, this

| month, in Monticello, at the Monticello facility in St. Cloud, Minnesota, a nuclear facility that is

| just about the same type and age as the Vermont Yankee plant and the Pilgrim plant, in a

| facility that was just recently granted their 20-year renewal, a 13 ton control box fell and hit, it

| didn’t cause a serious amount of damage but it caused the steam lines to dent and the steam

| pressure to drop, and that power plant had to be suddenly closed down. (K-2)

|

| Comment: Evidently, in the pharmaceutical field, people are more concerned about quality

| assurance than the NRC is because it is a known fact that quality cannot be inspected into a

| facility. In other words, you can inspect a facility every single day, that does not make it safer or

| more quality than it already is, what it does is it lets you see the problems as they come up.

|

| And in the pharmaceutical industry, there is a rule that when any major change is made in a

| facility, a whole new quality assurance program must be written because when any retrofit, or

| upgrade or change is made in the facility, everything in the facility is effected by that change

| and it is impossible to know what the quality is going to be, whether it’s safe, whether there is

| going to be a potential problem, unless you completely redo your whole quality analysis.

|

| Now, if this is done in the pharmaceutical industry where there is time to call back medicines

| that are found to be poorly made, and poorly designed and so forth, before people actually
Appendix A

August 2007 A-211 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

swallow them, why isn’t it the policy in a field like nuclear energy production where when a |

problem occurs, time can be of the essence and people who may have inspected the plant |

years ago or may have some inkling of what the problem is may have retired or may not be |

there, they may have died. The plant is way beyond its original life span and yet we aren’t |

requiring this kind of quality inspection and assurance from this industry? (K-8) |

|

Comment: My concern is how many guys like him are retiring that are familiar with the |

idiosyncracies of that facility? I know how to drive my car, I know it might pull a little bit to the |

left because of the brakes up front, I know what to expect in operating that vehicle. The retiring |

folks are the ones that have that ingrained knowledge and they are leaving, and they are |

replaced by someone else who has been here for, you know, the fellow from Maine who has |

been here for I think 12 years, and that’s a drop in the bucket. (MM-3) |

|

Comment: Vermont Yankee has served its purpose and is at the stage that too many things |

are in question with its operation. It just doesn’t seem safe to be living near that plant. Pushing |

operations up to 120% on an old plant. Vibration problems, warming of the river water, etc. |

How do you think that make people feel to be living in the shadow of that? The envelope is |

being pushed on that thing and do we keep pushing till something tragic happens. I have never |

like nuclear energy for safety reasons. (VV-1) |

|

Comment: The recent occurrence at the Monticello Nuclear Plant where a large cabinet of |

safety related circuitry fell from a girder due to weld fatique is a good example of the folly of |

relicensing older plants. I worked for Northern States Power and knew a lot of the startup crew |

for Monticello. Back then most of the startup personnel were utility folks who had worked at the |

Pathfinder Plant in the Dakotas for NSP. Quality Assurance for such items as I&C circuit boxes |

and such were virtually non-existant. Piping of course was controlled but there was little |

thought to welding the hangers for electrical boxes onto structural steel. As a result, I feel the |

Monticello occurrence was just a bellweather of what is to come with these older generation |

plants. To allow them to run past their original license period is not in the public interest unless |

the utility is willing to spend a considerable sum of money upgrading even mundane items like |

electrical box mounting) |

|

Comment: I have the following questions for the NRC as related to the renewal of the Vermont |

Yankee Facility: |

|

1. How do you plan to assure that any upgrades, retrofits or system componentry changes to |

the exiting system will not have a detrimental effect on another system which may then become |

a major problem that was overlooked by inspectors? |

2. How will you ensure that inspections are carried out not only by well trained, experienced |

individuals, but by teams that are unbiased and looking at things without prior observations |

creating a mindset that everything is OK? |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-212 August 2007

| 3. How can you be sure that your quality inspections are looking at 100% of every plant system. 

| If you admit that they are not, how can you justify using a random inspection as being

| representative of the entire facility? 

| 4. And finally, how will you guarantee to the public, that if the Vermont Yankee is given a

| 20 year renewal, that we will be assured of honest decisions related to these inspections and

| not let greed, money and jobs interfere with the truth? (SSS-1)

|

| Response: The NRC’s ongoing safety program focuses on prevention of safety problems so

| that potential issues such as the weld failures on the control instrumentation box at the

| Monticello Nuclear Plant do not lead to accidents and subsequent environmental impacts. To

| the extent that the comments pertaining to safety are within the scope of license renewal, these

| issues will be addressed during the parallel safety review performed under 10 CFR Part 54. 

| Operational safety issues are outside of the scope of the license renewal review. Although a

| topic may not be within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is responsible for

| protecting public health and safety. Any matter affecting safety can be addressed under

| processes currently available for an existing operating license absent a license renewal

| application.

|

| The comments are outside the scope of the license renewal review; therefore, they will not be

| evaluated further. However, the comments will be forwarded to the project manager for the

| license renewal safety review for consideration. 

|

| Aging Management

|

| Comment: Moniz and Deutsch are these professors from MIT, were the professors who were

| the cosponsors of the 2003 future of nuclear power MIT white paper. They also, however, in the

| September, `06 edition of Scientific American, which was the future of nuclear, the future of

| energy, they stated in the Scientific American, September `06 edition, that the current

| generation of nuclear reactors have a safe life span of 50 years. Correct me if I’m wrong but

| Vermont Yankee Entergy is currently seeking a 60-year life span. (NN-5)

|

| Response: The NRC’s environmental review focuses on environmental impacts relevant to the

| extended period of operation requested by the applicant. Safety matters related to aging are

| addressed as a part of the NRC safety review for the license renewal, which is conducted

| separately, and will be documented in an NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report. The safety

| review looks at the applicant’s aging management programs for passive long-lived systems,

| structures, and components. The VYNPS Safety Evaluation with Confirmatory Items was

| published March 30, 2007, and can be accessed in ADAMS at Accession No. ML070890638. 

| The comment is outside the scope of the environmental review for license renewal.

|

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-213 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Emergency Preparedness |

|

Comment: If we had a catastrophic event at Vermont Yankee, we need an evacuation plan, we |

need a number of first responders, we need a number of measures that we need to take but, if |

we have a catastrophic event at a wind turbine or at a solar panel array, would we need |

evacuation routes or first emergency responders? I don’t think so. Louder? Really? Do we |

need that repeated, what I said previously, to those in the back? So, if there is a catastrophic |

event at a wind turbine or at a solar panel array, would we need first responders, or an |

evacuation route, or FEMA, or the Vermont Emergency Management Association or agency to |

come down and rescue us? No. |

|

But from Vermont Yankee, we do, and that is part, I think, of what the impact is of having that |

power plant within sight, and within smell and within hearing range, because we hear the sirens |

every Saturday at noon telling us what we might do if there was a catastrophic event. Yet none |

of those plans or measures are taken into account in the environmental impact statement, |

neither is the event of a terrorist attack and even not a terrorist attack, if there is any other kind |

of mishap that happens. (E-1) |

|

Comment: I live in Marlboro, Vermont and, for those of you that might not be familiar with that |

town, it’s a little area that Vermont Yankee’s emergency evacuation map for years showed as a |

non-town. It was a little airbrushed white space sort of stuck to the side of Brattleboro. We are |

to the west of Brattleboro and the north of Halifax, and part of our town extends within the ten |

mile circle which is the evacuation zone. |

|

Because our town fathers, in their wisdom, decided that the evacuation plan was really bogus |

and was nothing more than a placebo to try to appease the demands of the citizenry, the |

nuclear power plant decided we just weren’t there, and I’ve always used that as a sort of a |

pivotal point in my process of looking at the way the nuclear industry works. Because we didn’t |

get shown on the map, we weren’t there. Therefore, there was no problem. (Z-1) |

|

Response: The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in |

the context of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which |

included public notice and comment. As discussed in the Statement of Consideration for |

rulemaking (56 FR 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power |

facilities apply to all nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of |

protection from each licensee regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. |

Requirements related to emergency planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and |

Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. These requirements apply to all operating licenses and will |

continue to apply to facilities with renewed licenses. Through its standards and required |

exercises, the Commission reviews existing emergency preparedness plans throughout the life |

of any facility, keeping up with changing demographics and other site-related factors. |

Therefore, the Commission has determined that there is no need for a special review of |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-214 August 2007

| emergency planning issues in the context of an environmental review for license renewal. The

| comments are outside the scope of the license renewal review; therefore, they will not be

| evaluated further.

|

| Offsite entities such as State and local governments and the U.S. Federal Emergency

| Management Agency have responsibility for offsite emergency planning. Perceived deficiencies

| in the offsite emergency plans should be directed to the government entities that have

| responsibility for the specific portions of the plan judged to be deficient. 

|

| Cost-Benefit

|

| Comment: In addition, the efficient operation of Vermont Yankee also contributes to affordable

| electricity in Vermont. I ask you to learn from the mistake that the State of Maine has allowed to

| happen, closure of our nuclear power plant, which I believe has contributed to the escalating

| costs, 300 percent, to the people of the State of Maine. And I haven’t even mentioned what

| impact this has had on the economy which has not recovered in midcoast Maine as a result of

| the closure and the thousand people who were displaced because of the closure of the plant. 

| (CC-2)

|

| Comment: No one in this room has a clue what the price of electricity will be if this license is

| renewed, so any talk of how great our electric rates have been, we have the cheapest electricity

| in the New England Region, I know that’s been big news for Entergy this year or last year,

| excuse me. None of us have a clue what we are going to get charged after 2012, if the license

| is allowed to be renewed or extended, and the same is true for who knows what the cost to the

| State of Vermont would be if the hydro energy, by the way, when the talk has been so great

| tonight on how we have the cleanest portfolio, I have heard nothing of the fact that one third of

| our energy comes from hydro electric. (NN-6)

|

| Comment: Please assess the cost effectiveness of waste storage operations at Padukah,

| Kentucky for the next several hundred thousand years. (KKK-9)

|

| Comment: Reactors are amazing things but -unfortunately they are not cost effective and Wall

| Street knows this. They are being forced to operate longer to pay for their decommissioning

| and/or the safe storage of waste, etc. (BBB-4; AAA-3)

|

| Response: The Commission determined that an applicant for license renewal need not provide

| an analysis of the economic costs or economic benefits of the proposed or alternative actions. 

| The comments are outside the scope of the license renewal environmental review as set forth in

| 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54 and will not be evaluated further.

|

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-215 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Energy Policy |

|

Comment: In 1954, Congress decided they were the decider, along with the president, that we |

ought to have nuclear power as part of national energy policy, before there was a Department of |

Energy. |

|

That has continued through every Congress, they have not changed the national policy, and it is |

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s job to make sure that we carry out that policy in a safe |

fashion, it is not their job to decide we should not have nuclear power and to shut it down. If |

you want to do that, which is something that citizens can do and have had that kind of effect in |

the past, you need to convince a majority of congress and a super majority in the senate to |

block a filibuster and whoever is in the White House to change national energy policy. (QQ-1) |

|

Response: The NRC makes its decision whether or not to renew the license based on safety |

and environmental considerations. The final decision on whether or not to continue operating |

the nuclear plant will be made by the utility, State, and Federal (non-NRC) decision makers. |

This final decision may be based on economics, energy reliability goals, and other objectives |

over which the other entities may have jurisdiction. The comment is outside the scope of the |

license renewal review and will not be evaluated further. |

Appendix A

August 2007 A-217 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

A.3 Public Meeting Transcript Excerpts |

|

Transcripts of the Afternoon Public Meeting on January 31, 2007, in Brattleboro, Vermont |

|

[Introduction by Mr. Cameron] |

[Presentation by Mr. Emch] |

[Presentation by Dr. Miller] |

|

MR. CAMERON: And are we ready to go to questions? Just to emphasize what we said before |

is that all of the information on these slides, and of course all of the information in the draft |

environmental impact statement, are specific to the Vermont Yankee license renewal and we |

apologize for any confusion that might be caused. We have time for some questions on |

process, whatever, and if you could just please introduce yourself to us? |

|

MS. CASA: My name is Kate Casa, I'm with the Commons newspaper. What happens if the |

NRC approves the license extension but the state does not, in fact the state says no? |

|

MR. CAMERON: This sounds like we should probably turn to our representative from the Office |

of General Counsel who is here, Steve Hamrick. |

|

Steve, can we provide any information on that? |

|

MR. HAMRICK: At this point, there are a number of aspects of the regulation that are state |

governed. It is not clear, at this point, whether or not the state has authority to keep the renewal |

from happening. The federal government has what's known as preemption on certain issues, |

health and safety issues, and so it's the federal government that takes care of the license, so it's |

the federal government that issues the license and, as far as the federal government is |

concerned, the plant can, if the license is issued and renewed, the plant can proceed. |

|

MR. CAMERON: And just to clarify on that, Kate, there are certain permits that the license |

applicant has to get from either state agencies or other federal agencies and if they, they need |

to get those permits to operate, okay? That's correct, right? |

|

MR. HAMRICK: Yes, there are NPDES permits, which is the water permits under the Clean |

Water Act, it's a State of Vermont issue. There is also a Certificate of Public Good, which is a |

State of Vermont issue, which has to do with the need for power and electrical generation; that's |

a state issue. So there are other aspects that belong in the state's court. |

|

MR. CAMERON: So, generally, the license applicant also has to get those permits. There may |

be some state approvals that fall into this preemption area that Steve was talking about, but |

generally, the license applicant has to get the other permits in order to be able to operate. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-218 August 2007

| MS. CASA: Thank you.

|

| MR. CAMERON: You're welcome. 

|

| Yes, ma'am? And can you just introduce yourself?

|

| MS. STAMAS: I'm Emma Stamas and I'm not affiliated with any particular organization, but I

| recently read that the courts decided that the nuclear power industry did indeed have to

| evaluate the threat of terrorism for each nuclear plant, especially those under review for

| extension of licenses and so forth, but even every plant and every storage facility. And I would

| like to know why the threat of terrorism wasn't specifically evaluated and reviewed for this

| particular plant, not only for the plant but also for the control rods, the spent fuel rods that are in

| makeshift storage pools?

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Emma. 

|

| We are going to go to Steve Hamrick again from our Office of General Counsel to explain that. 

| It is a little bit confusing. 

|

| Steve?

|

| MR. HAMRICK: That's correct, there was a decision that came out of the 9th Circuit Court of

| Appeals, which is out in California, with respect to a spent fuel storage facility and, in that case,

| they, that court said that the NRC, when it does an environmental impact statement, should

| address the impacts of terrorism. The Commission has not yet, that decision was appealed by

| the licensee in that case to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decided not to hear the

| appeal. That happened very recently, like last week, I believe.

|

| At this point, the Commission has not decided, they have not told us how they would like to deal

| with that situation, they have not given us guidance yet so, at this point, we are awaiting

| guidance from the Commission for them to tell us how we should be going about interpreting

| that decision in our EISs.

|

| MR. CAMERON: And one of the important things, I guess two important things to understand

| about the decision is, I guess first of all and most importantly, it dealt with how the NRC would

| look at security issues, terrorism issues, in the context of an environmental impact statement

| and we do look at security considerations as a part of regulating any of these plants.

|

| MR. HAMRICK: This case was limited strictly to the evaluation in an EIS, an environmental

| impact statement. The court went to great pains to make sure that everyone understood, when

| they're reading it, that it was not a discussion of the NRC's security requirements, it was limited

| strictly to the NRC's evaluation of these risks and impacts in an EIS.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-219 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

A-1

A-2

MR. CAMERON: So that discussion was right in the court's opinion? |

|

MR. HAMRICK: Correct, yes. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Let me go to Sally, and then Gary has a question and I think we probably, all |

right. Well that's up to you, if you want to go home, but we are here after the meeting, if you |

want to talk further to Steve. But let me just get these couple other questions and then let's go |

to comments and, if we have time before the end of the meeting, we can go back to questions, |

including back to explaining this in more detail. |

|

Sally? Sally Shaw. |

|

MS. SHAW: May I have permission to go from a question right into my comment because I |

have to leave to pick up my daughter at the school bus? |

|

MR. CAMERON: Let me, yeah, do that. |

|

MS. SHAW: All right, I'll make it quick. I have to leave in three minutes. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. |

|

MS. SHAW: Okay. The process question is I thought this meeting was for the purpose of the |

NRC hearing from the public, so I think the back and forth with questions and answers does not |

serve that interest very well in that there are a lot of people here and you are going to run out of |

time. So, after saying that, I'm going to try to make it quick. My primary concern is that, as was |

in evidence with the slides that referred to Pilgrim and not from Yankee, that this is really not an |

environmental impact statement for Vermont Yankee and the communities who are suffering the |

effects of Vermont Yankee, but it is more accurately terms an environmental insult statement. |

|

The good news is that, as an ecologist, I can tell you that environmental systems are very |

resilient, natural systems are very resilient, but they only restore themselves if you stop the |

environmental insults, and then they can restore themselves. If you continue to insult them, |

they will continue to degrade. |

|

My primary concern here is that the GEIS, the generic environmental impact statement, which |

I've already spoken about at an earlier meeting, and the assumptions behind your supplemental |

environmental impact statement are based on erroneous and incomplete information, and |

therefore, your environmental review is neither thorough nor conservative. It has not been |

properly done. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-220 August 2007

A-3 | Since there is a petition for rule making questioning the scientific basis of the radiation

| standards and calculations in the GEIS, which is still in the comment period until February 5th,

| you can find information about this petition on the Federal Register web site, the environmental

| review cannot be considered complete until those issues are resolved and a decision is made

| whether the generic environmental impact statement accurately reflects risks or needs to be

| revised. 

|

| Therefore, I hereby petition you to halt the license renewal process of Vermont Yankee while

| the petition for rule making on the adequacy of radiation standards and risk factors in the GEIS

| is pending and until a full review and reconciliation of the radiation standards consistent with

| BEIR 7 and other current scientific studies of health effects of low-level ionizing radiation,

| external and internal, is undertaken. Then you can apply these more realistic standards to your

| estimates of early fatalities, latent mortality and radiation caused injuries that would be expected

| from continued operation of Entergy-Vermont Yankee under normal operating and accident

| scenarios.

|

| These data are of intimate concern to those of us living in Windham, Cheshire and Franklin

| Counties, the Vermont Yankee sacrifice zone. I would also like to present to you for your

| consideration this new and significant information. From 1999 to 2002, the Windham County

| cancer death rate was 12.7 percent above other Vermont counties based on 451 deaths during

| this four-year period. However, the death rate for all other causes in Windham County was only

| 1.7 percent greater. The source of this information is the National Center for Health Statistics at

| the Centers for Disease Control. Some factors causing Windham County residents to die in

| excessive numbers from cancer and not from other causes, reasons for the high death rates

| need to be understood. 

|

| Number two. Since 1979, the Windham County death rate exceeded the rest of the state by

| 19 percent for infants, 38 percent for children and adolescents and 30 percent for young adults. 

| High death rates for these 243 persons include cancer, birth defects and other causes. This

| information came from the same source, the CDC. Why should Windham County have high

| death rates? There is no obvious reason. The county is nearly identical to the state in percent

| of minorities and foreign born residents and educational, poverty and income levels.

|

| Reasons accounting for the high death rates need to be understood. Emissions from Vermont

| Yankee must be considered as one possible factor. For years, scientists have agreed that

| radiation is much more toxic to the very young. Our local children and young adults have lived

| all their lives with Vermont Yankee releasing radioactivity and have never breathed air or drunk

| water without this radioactivity. How do the infant mortality rates compare to the rest of the

| state? How do the premature births and, what do you call them, miscarriages rates compare to

| the rest of the state? This information needs to be systematically investigated.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-221 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

B-1

I'm going to stop there, although I have pages more, because I need to go pick up my dear |

daughter at the bus. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Sally. |

|

We are going to continue on with the comments and hopefully we'll be able to answer questions |

later on. Our next two speakers, we are going to go to Dr. Patrick Moore, and if you want to |

come up, and then we are going to go to Thomas Salmon. Go ahead, right up. Okay, Sally, |

let's, Sally, you can perhaps be able to do that some time or later, but let's let him talk and we'll |

see you later tonight. Then we are going to go to-- |

|

MR. MOORE: Cat calls and derision have actually no impact on my statement. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, let's hear Dr. Moore's statement, please. |

|

MR. MOORE: And in fact my comments are relatively generic with regard to the nuclear energy |

industry in general and energy in general. |

|

I would just like to point out off the top that I've spent the last 35 years as an environmental |

activist and Ph.D. ecologist trying to understand how we can continue to gain the energy, |

materials, food that we require for survival every day while at the same time working to change |

our behaviors and our technologies in ways that result in reduced negative impacts to the |

environment. To me, that is basically, in a nutshell, the definition of sustainability. |

|

We have to face the fact that there are six and a half billion people who wake up every morning |

on this planet who need resources in order to survive. We have to keep mining, logging, |

fishing, growing food and all these other things, and producing energy, and we have to do it in |

ways, intelligently, where we can hope that it will be more sustainable for the future, especially |

when that means technologies that we apply. |

|

The 103 nuclear plants that are now operating in the United States, producing 20 percent of the |

U.S.'s electricity, half of that, by the way, is using dismantled Soviet warheads, Russian |

warheads, for the power source as a result of the reduction in nuclear arms, the equivalent of |

100 million cars taken off the road, if that same power was being produced by coal, which |

50 percent of our power is produced by. That's a lot of cars, that's a lot of CO2. |

|

There is no other power source that results in a larger mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions |

than nuclear energy, so at least it must be given credit on that count. Coming to the State of |

Vermont, Vermont can be proud of the fact that it has the lowest carbon dioxide emissions per |

capita of any state in the country. In the case of many states, twice as low. There is only one |

reason for that and that is the mix of your electric supply, the fact that over two thirds of your |

electric supply is non-greenhouse gas emitting, the hydro and the nuclear, the largest ones by |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-222 August 2007

B-2

B-3

| far, and then a small amount of biomass, such as heating the state capital, which is also carbon

| neutral, and a little bit of wind, you could use more of that.

|

| You have an environmentally enviable record and you've got to keep Vermont Yankee running if

you want to keep that record because there is no plans for any non-CO2 | emitting alternatives at

| present and certainly none under construction. Again, I suggest that you try and figure out your

| little argument about where the wind power should be and get some windmills in this state,

| maybe you can get five percent of your electricity from wind, if you actually build some wind

| farms, and Vermont should engage with the heightened national dialogue on climate change.

|

| Now that the democrats are in control of Congress, there is going to be a much larger emphasis

| on environmental issues, climate change being the most important one. You can demonstrate

that you are a model with the lowest CO2 | emissions in the country, and you should get the credit

| for this in the ongoing dialogue so that people can see how you did it. The people who decided

| to buy the hydro and build a nuclear didn't even know about climate change when those

| decisions were made, but they were rather prescient; in retrospect, they made decisions that

| gave you the best carbon footprint in the country.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Excuse me, this is, let's listen to his comment and just like we are going to

| listen to everybody's comments.

|

| MR. MOORE: There is legitimate concern about the future of the used nuclear fuel stored

| on-site at Vermont Yankee. Thankfully, there is a new impetus to establish a nuclear fuel

| recycling industry in the United States, as has already been established in France, the U.K.,

| Japan and Russia. Ninety-five percent of the original energy is still contained in the used fuel,

| recycling or reprocessing, as it is also known, allows the recovery of this energy in the form of

| uranium and plutonium, results in a much reduced and shorter-lived waste in the form of the

| fission products that can be glassified and buried.

|

| The nuclear renaissance is a worldwide phenomenon, from Finland to Canada, to Australia to

| China, Russia, and India and many other countries are planning new nuclear construction now. 

| In fact the stigma against nuclear energy has largely been a North American phenomenon over

| the past 30 years, another area are the German speaking countries, but most countries have

| moved ahead with nuclear during the time that the United States has been more or less calm on

| the subject. 

|

Vermont should be part of the renaissance, both as a way of reducing CO2 | and the threat of

| climate change, yes, indeed, I think a lot of energy should be spent on ending the war in Iraq,

| the way to reduce reliance of fossil fuels from politically unstable, speaking of Iraq, and

| potentially hostile regions, so it's got to do with energy security, just as much as it has to do with

| climate change.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-223 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

B-4

B-5

I believe that nuclear energy is the only large baseload source of electricity that can effectively |

reduce fossil fuel consumption while at the same time satisfying the growing global demand for |

power. A final point on efficiency and conservation, both of which are very important, efficiency |

being improvements in technology, conservation being changes in behavior. As I like to put it, |

conservation is turning a light out when you leave the room, efficiency is swapping out the |

incandescent bulb for a compact fluorescent one. |

|

Since 1973, the U.S. economy has grown by 157 percent. In that same time, energy production |

and consumption has increased by only 32 percent, that is a very clear measure of the |

effectiveness of conservation and efficiency practiced by American individual citizens and |

businesses. This will continue into the future, no doubt. With that, I'll end my comments. |

Thank you very much. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. Moore. |

|

And please, just like everybody is going to have their chance, everybody is going to have their |

chance to come down here and comment, and we are not going to let anybody heckle someone |

up here, okay? |

|

So now we have the next three speakers, we are going to go to former Governor Thomas |

Salmon, and then we are going to go to Claire Chang and then to Gary Sachs. |

|

Governor Salmon? |

|

MR. SALMON: Good afternoon. My name is Thomas P. Salmon, I live in Rockingham in this |

county. I served two terms as Vermont Governor in the `70s and at least six years as President |

of the University of Vermont in the `90s. Along life's pathway, served some 17 years as Chair of |

the Board of Green Mountain Power Company, Vermont's second largest investor-owned utility, |

and I'll try to be very brief. |

|

Unlike Dr. Moore, I am not a scientist. Dr. Moore is one of the most gifted scientists I have ever |

met. And frankly, these snide comments don't add anything to this public hearing where the |

NRC is attempting to get a broad range of everybody's perspective, everybody's point of view, |

consistent with a great Vermont tradition of inordinate respect for the ideas, the thoughts, the |

perspectives of all of its citizens. |

|

Let me simply, let me simply say this, there is a quite amazing phenomena going on in Vermont |

here and now and Dr. Moore alluded to it, and the buzz words are about climate change. Can |

you believe that the first three weeks, the first three full weeks of Vermont legislative session |

has been dedicated to bringing in whole series of speakers from a variety of perspectives on the |

subject of climate change? And what is most remarkable about this, as again was largely |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-224 August 2007

C-1

C-2

| covered in Dr. Moore's remarks, is that the brave little State of Vermont leads this nation in the

| context of its energy portfolio contributing the very least of carbon dioxide and other noxious

| substances ingested into the environment.

|

| And that's something that all of us, all of us, ought to care about and ought to be concerned

| about and the reason for that again was covered but it relates to, yes, this nuclear facility in

| Vernon, a few short miles down the road, and it relates to the wisdom of entering into long-term

| contracts with Hydro Quebec for hydroelectric power. And now the issue is how can Vermont,

which is now number one, as the cleanest state in the Union on the CO2 | and related issues

| front, somehow strive diligently to hold onto its position and to hold onto that position. It is not

| rocket science to understand that relicensure of this nuclear facility would add vitally to our

| quest for continuing baseload reliable and cost effective energy, as would success in artful

| negotiations with our friends in Quebec to replicate in some significant way the hydroelectric

| contracts of the 1980s.

|

| Now even if we are hugely successful in this quest, we can make a contribution to the nation,

| we can make a contribution by showing our leadership here in this state. Our contribution will

| not show up so much as a speck on the horizon in terms of reversing the trend of climate

| change in this country but our leadership potential is significant and greatly in a significant

| potential fulfillment. 

|

| Now if the decision were, for whatever set of reasons, not to relicense this plant and an inability

| to renew the Hydro Quebec contracts, the natural and probable consequence of that is rather

| clear, we would move for our energy supplies, with no plans whatsoever to pursue other

| alternatives at the present time, to the spot market of America, when it comes to electric energy,

| and we would find that market inordinately expensive.

|

| And we would find the enviable position we find ourselves in, as a non-toxic state, moving sadly

| the other way and such would not enure well from either an environmental or an economic

| perspective to the people of the State of Vermont because arguably beneath the surface, in my

| view at least, the most compelling issue facing our people here and now is our demographic

| profile. We our losing our young people between the ages of 25 and 44 and people between 45

| and 65 are emerging as the dominant class in the state and, if that trend continues, in very, very

| few years, we'll have the most senior population in all of these United States per capita, and that

| is a subject of profound and considerable concern in terms of how we, with a reduced base of

| citizens, remain capable to serve the needs of all of our citizens. 

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you very much, Governor Salmon. 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-225 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

D-1

D-2

D-3

Now let's go to Gary, Gary Sachs, and then we'll go to Claire Chang. |

|

MR. SACHS: First off, if I might, I'm Gary Sachs, resident of Brattleboro. I'd like to respond to |

something I heard Dr. Moore say, which is that we do not currently have, developed any |

replacement sources for our electrical generation here in Vermont, to which I would say, since |

1940, roughly 1948 to 1999, there was $150 billion put to energy research and development, |

$145 billion of that went to nuclear, $5 billion went to replacement sources. I believe that is one |

of the reasons why we currently are behind the eight ball, as is everywhere in the country. I do |

wish you would get your facts and your science straight, sir. |

|

Of the 32 boiling water reactors that are still in operation, there are 24 that have mark one |

containments, it's only this one that interests me, the one that's five miles from here. The NRC |

is attempting to conceal the fact that a large release of radioactivity as a result of a terrorist |

attack on this structure is entirely possible, which is according to a Congressionally mandated |

study by the National Academy of Science. There is no mention of the word terrorism in the |

entire EIS, I've read it. |

|

Nearly 3,000 Americans died on 9/11. Since then, more than 3,000 Americans have died |

fighting terrorism. Roughly 70,000, if we could know, Iraqi civilians have died, I'm sorry, |

civilians, terrorists, insurgents, whatever one chooses to call them, have died, Iraqi citizens, and |

the NRC considers it okay to not include the word terrorism in it's environmental impact |

statement. |

|

I believe Vermont Yankee deserves an independent, site-specific analysis. In this |

environmental impact statement, any environmental, economic, employment, sociological |

impacts and costs of routine radiation releases that will, as the course of operation, result from |

this license extension, they are simply denied with no evaluation. |

|

There is no evaluation of the probability that security protocol is adequate, this is even though, |

in 2001, not even one month prior to 9/11, Vermont Yankee had the notorious rating as the least |

secure reactor in the country, that's as the result of the operational safety response evaluation |

test of the NRC. Vermont Yankee has repeatedly said, since 9/11, that they have invested $8 |

million strengthening their defenses, upgrading their security systems. So what? I don't know if |

that's any more or any less than the Pilgrim reactor, or the Monticello reactor, or any other |

boiling water reactor or PWR, pressurized water reactor, for that matter, in this country. |

|

All we here can know is that we started on 9/11/01 with the least secure reactor in the country, |

as determined by NRC tests. Maybe it's more secure now, maybe not. There is no assessment |

of the environmental, the economic, employment or sociological impacts and costs if this |

environmental impact study, or your regulation or your insight, or your oversight of this industry, |

excuse me, is not adequate to prevent an uncontrolled and catastrophic release of |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-226 August 2007

D-4

D-5

| radioactive nuclides. You have no analysis of the probability the plant management procedures

| actually can prevent an uncontrolled catastrophic release of radiation or of the environmental,

| economic, employment and sociological impacts if those procedures are not sufficient to

| prevent such a release.

|

| These flaws are fatal, they are not particularly difficult to understand. Information that allows the

| environmental impact statement to avoid these flaws is readily available on the record. If that

| information is rejected and this document is deemed adequate, it's only, it will only be because

| decision makers are intent on substituting their opinions, the privileges of nuclear theology for

| common sense, common decency, verifiable substance and the rule of law. This draft

| environmental impact statement includes the NRC's staff's analysis that considers and weighs

| the environmental impacts of the proposed action, its environmental impacts of alternatives to

| the proposed action and mitigation measures available for reducing and avoiding adverse

| impacts, that's taken directly from the abstract.

|

| This recommendation made in the environmental impact statement is based on the analysis and

| findings in the GEIS, which was written ten years ago, it's not site-specific and among other

| things, it's written based on the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received during

| the scoping process. One of those public comments was mine in reference to the BEIR 7 report

| released by the National Academy of Science in 2006. Apparently the NRC decided that this

| new study by America's top scientists was not good enough to warrant consideration to upset

| the generic environmental impact statement.

|

| Terrorism must be considered here on a site-specific basis. Oh, actually, I did have, I wanted to

| briefly, if I could, respond to something you said, Counselor, when you said that you do not

| believe the state has the ability to intervene or, I forget the verb you used, to, oh, that the federal

| government has precedent, can, preemptive power over, in terms of approval, what the state's

| ability is, for health and safety, correct. We are in a regulated state. 

|

| When Entergy took over and purchased this reactor in 2002, very clearly on July 2nd of that

| year, in the Public Service Board hearing room, they said to the Public Service Board that if the

| Public Service Board determines that Entergy stop, they will heed what the Public Service

| Board says, thus the state level, not the federal level. 

|

| I thought I would clarify that for you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Gary.

|

| And now we are going to go to Claire. This is Claire Chang.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-227 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

E-1

E-2

MS. CHANG: Hi. I'm Claire Chang. I have a PowerPoint presentation, I would like to invite, |

please, come up on stage. I have a PowerPoint presentation that I would like to have up on |

stage. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Claire, what are you doing? |

|

MS. CHANG: They will just be my PowerPoint presentation. I don't, I'm not allowed to have |

slides up there, so these are my slides. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, I'll tell you what, let's get them up here and let's do your presentation. |

|

MS. CHANG: Thank you. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Come on, ladies, and then we are going to ask you to step down after that. |

Okay, Claire, go ahead. |

|

MS. CHANG: So my name is Claire Chang and one thing I wanted to say was if we had a |

catastrophic event at Vermont Yankee, we need an evacuation plan, we need a number of first |

responders, we need a number of measures that we need to take but, if we have a catastrophic |

event at a wind turbine or at a solar panel array, would we need evacuation routes or first |

emergency responders? I don't think so. Louder? Really? Do we need that repeated, what I |

said previously, to those in the back? So, if there is a catastrophic event at a wind turbine or at |

a solar panel array, would we need first responders, or an evacuation route, or FEMA, or the |

Vermont Emergency Management Association or agency to come down and rescue us? No. |

|

But from Vermont Yankee, we do, and that is part, I think, of what the impact is of having that |

power plant within sight, and within smell and within hearing range, because we hear the sirens |

every Saturday at noon telling us what we might do if there was a catastrophic event. Yet none |

of those plans or measures are taken into account in the environmental impact statement, |

neither is the event of a terrorist attack and even not a terrorist attack, if there is any other kind |

of mishap that happens. |

|

And the National Academy of Sciences has already said that the spent fuel pool, which isn't |

included, I didn't see it on the slide, but maybe the gentleman hadn't prepared the slide and so |

the spent fuel pool isn't included in the slides, about it being 70 feet up in the air, outside of |

containment, in a tin swimming pool, basically. |

|

And if that swimming pool were breached, the water would start leaking out, and it doesn't all |

have to disappear, just some of that water needs to go and those fuel rods would start igniting |

on their own because even though they are spent fuel rods, they are actually highly radioactive, |

more radioactive than the fuel rods that go into the reactor. And those fuel rods would start |

igniting and there would not be an explosion but there would be a fire, a very, very long lasting |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-228 August 2007

E-3

E-4

E-5

| fire that would basically release radioactivity into the air and potentially contaminate

| 25,000 square miles. That's about 90 miles radius and, depending on how wind blows that

| day, who would get affected, but it would be a majority of New England, and that's all of us

| sitting in this room and I think that needs to be included in the environmental impact statement.

|

| Now Hellen Caldecott has written this book, it's called Nuclear Power is not the Answer, it's not

| the answer to our energy problem, it's not the answer to global warming and it's, but it is the

| answer for Entergy to make lots and lots of money and it is the answer for us, as the common

| people, to stay beholden to the corporation and to the central government. The only way we

| can get out from underneath this is if each one of us takes personal responsibility for all of our

| actions every day from this day on and that's the only way we are ever going to make any

| change.

|

| And that's why I've invited these women to come up, because they take personal responsibility

| every day for trying to figure out how to make the world a better place for themselves, and for 

| everyone in this room, and for everyone in the state and for everyone in New England. Each

| one of us has to start turning off the lights, changing our light bulbs to compact fluorescents,

| driving at least half less than we drive now. Every gallon of gasoline puts out 18 to 19 pounds

| of carbon into the air, every gallon. Now what's your fuel efficiency, 12, 15, 20, maybe 35 or

| 40? But that's very few people.

|

| And this includes anyone from the NRC or from Entergy, no one is exempt, every car puts out

| that much carbon, unless of course you are driving an electric vehicle or you are driving one that

| has a high fuel efficiency, like the new hybrids or whatever, but we need to each one of us take

| into account what we do and how we can make a change. And the only reason Entergy and all

| the other corporations who run nuclear power plants are trying to put this as a green, clean

| solution to global warming is because we are all scared, and we have reason to be scared, but

| the thing is that nuclear is not going to dig us out of the hole.

|

| We are so far in the hole, we have to take every measure to get out of the hole, and electricity

| generation only accounts for maybe a third of the carbon dioxide that is going into the air,

| transportation accounts for another third and another third, amazingly enough, is attributed to

| natural, such as forest fires, actually, it's really scary. So I'm not saying up here, well maybe I

| am, sorry. Okay, so, another thing I just remembered was that Patrick Moore said that we, and

| also the former governor said that we in Vermont need to have this power plant because we

| can't possibly replace it with anything else.

|

| Well Vermont gets maybe 200 to 250 kilowatt hours from that power plant. Megawatts, sorry, I

| made the same mistake the last time too, I saw it in the transcripts. So, megawatts. I want it to

| be small, I'm trying to make it really small. So, of those 250 megawatts, we can actually replace

| tomorrow, this is not in 10, or 15 or 20 years, we can replace tomorrow 25 percent of it just

| through conservation and energy efficiency. If the State of Vermont decided it was the will 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-229 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

F-1

F-2

F-3

of the people and the will of the state, we could replace our washing machines, our |

dishwashers, our refrigerators, our air conditioners and other appliances with energy efficient |

ones and we could immediately drop 25 percent of our demand. |

|

Now that takes care of more than half of Vermont Yankee, what Vermont uses from Vermont |

Yankee. Massachusetts uses another 25 percent of Vermont Yankee, approximately, I don't |

know the numbers exactly, so Massachusetts could do the same thing, poof, we could shut |

Vermont Yankee down tomorrow and it would be amazing. So it's not inconceivable, it's not this |

unreachable solution, it is within our power, the people can decide. That's all it takes and that's |

all it's ever taken is the people deciding that they want to do something different and they are |

going to do it now. We can't sit on our duffs anymore. Thank you very much. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, Claire. |

|

All right, ladies, if you could just go back and thank you very much. All right, the next three |

speakers, we are going to go to Amanda Ibey, and then Howard Shaffer and then Paul |

Bousquet. |

|

Amanda? |

|

MS. IBEY: Good afternoon. My name is Amanda Ibey, I was born and raised here in Vermont, |

I came back after graduating from college and today I'm here in my capacity as the Executive |

Director for the Vermont Energy Partnership. The partnership is a diverse group of 75 business, |

community and labor leaders, as well as individual energy experts, committed to |

addressing Vermont's impending electricity supply gap. The need for Vermont to secure a |

reliable, affordable and clean electricity portfolio has never been greater which leads the |

partnership to reiterate its support for the license renewal of Vermont Yankee. |

|

First, though, let me be clear, the key to Vermont's future prosperity is through a broad, |

diversified electricity portfolio. To this end, the partnership urges the state to work to permit and |

develop new in-state generating sources like wind, solar, small scale hydro, biomass and other |

environmentally friendly resources. The partnership also feels it is equally important that |

Vermonters incorporate more energy efficient products into their homes and businesses, as well |

as looking for ways to increase their conservation practices. |

|

While the partnership believes these steps outlined above should be implemented, we cannot |

ignore nor deny that the foundation for any successful electricity portfolio starts with baseload |

sources of power, this is why it is vital that we continue to secure HydroQuebec and Vermont |

Yankee beyond their current operating licenses. Vermont Yankee, our state's lone significant |

in-state source of power, has been safely and reliably providing Vermonters with electricity for |

over 30 years. It has continually met the NRC's highest safety standards largely due to the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-230 August 2007

F-4

F-5

F-6

| dedicated men and women who work at the plant and live with their families in the surrounding

| communities.

|

| It is important to keep in mind the public safety issues that are sure to arise if Vermont does not

| have an adequate supply of baseload power. With the New England Region strapped for power

| as it is, we cannot responsibly close the plant and cavalierly assume that our neighbors will

| provide us with sufficient let alone reasonably priced power. Should rolling blackouts and

| brownouts have to be implemented, the stress it will place on our public safety and health will

| be enormous. 

|

| The steady stream of electricity Vermont Yankee has supplied has been crucial for consumers

| and, at a time when Vermont must contend with an aging work force and an exodus of young

| people, the plant employs over 600 highly skilled men and women full time. Vermont Yankee

| provides more than $200 million of economic benefit annually to Windham County and the State

| of Vermont through state and local taxes, its payroll and the purchase of local goods and

| services, but the economics of the plant and its contributions are simply one piece of this

| discussion. 

|

| Perhaps right now an even greater benefit of the plant is its low environmental impact,

| especially as it relates to the issue of global warming and climate change. Many claim,

| including Vermont's own legislature, that global warming is possibly the most serious

| environmental issue we face. Today, the United States is largely dependent on coal fired

| plants; approximately 600 coal fired plants supply 50 percent of this country's electricity. 

| Unfortunately, these plants also release harmful toxins and greenhouse gases into our

| atmosphere.

|

| Now, while the country looks to reduce its reliance on carbon emitting sources like coal, here in

| Vermont our story is different, we have one of the cleanest electricity portfolios, one of the

| lowest carbon emitting portfolios because our two main sources of power, including Vermont

| Yankee, do not release carbon emissions when producing electricity. Should Vermont Yankee's

| operating license not be extended, then our utilities would be forced to purchase power from the

| spot market at a high economic and environmental cost, as the only realistic alternatives to

| replacing Vermont Yankee lie in other baseload sources of power such as coal.

|

| In closing, Vermont Yankee is a safe, is safe and good for the environment and economy, it has

| provided Vermonters with reliable, affordable and clean power for more than three decades and

| it has done so safely. We know there is a strong array of support throughout the state for the

| plant's continued operation and we believe that granting Vermont Yankee a license extension is

| a responsible and necessary action. 

|

| On behalf of the members of the Vermont Energy Partnership, I would like to thank you for this

| opportunity.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-231 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

G-1

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Amanda. |

|

And next, we are going to Howard Shaffer. Mr. Shaffer, excuse me, introduce yourself to us, |

okay? |

|

MR. SHAFFER: Good afternoon again. Can everybody hear me? My name is Howard Shaffer, |

I am a retired nuclear engineer now living in Enfield, New Hampshire, but continuing my license |

in nuclear engineering and professional engineering in Vermont, and New Hampshire, and |

Massachusetts and Illinois where I have worked. I have come back here for retirement, my first |

retirement activity was in public service as an American Association for the Advancement of |

Science Congressional Fellow in Washington in the year 2001, a very interesting year there. |

|

During that time, the House wrote and completed its energy bill and I was on the energy |

subcommittee of the House Committee on Science. That energy bill finally got passed in the |

last Congress, it went over to the Senate in September, 2001, but then they got their attention |

diverted by the events of September 11th. And interestingly enough, one of the things that |

Congress did right away, which has not gotten very much good coverage in the press, was take |

a quick look at our most vulnerable infrastructure in the country to see what measures ought to |

be taken right away, and they found the most vulnerable infrastructure and they took action. |

|

That most vulnerable infrastructure was our public water supply system, reservoirs are wide |

open and so forth. The electric transmission system has had damage to it on a far greater scale |

by ice storms than terrorists could ever do. Natural gas pipelines are designed for |

sectionalizations because, as the representatives told us, our worst enemy is somebody with a |

backhoe, people are digging up natural gas pipelines all the time, so they are designed for |

accidents, terrorists couldn't possibly do worse. |

|

And nuclear power plants were not on the list at all because of, as Mr. Sachs proved by his |

remarks, there was a formal process in place since 1979 to guard against terrorism, as the court |

mentioned in the Diablo Canyon decision, 1979 is when the NRC started formally looking at |

terrorism, and there were bullet proof steel shields in the hallways of the plants and so forth |

during the 1980s when I was back here working again on the plant. So, as I found in |

Washington, at the end, all decisions are based on personal value judgements, all the important |

ones, not science and engineering alone. |

|

As a matter of fact, there are no scientific formulas or engineering processes that can tell you |

whether something is safe or not, science and engineering can only tell you how something |

works and what the consequences are. Whether that's safe or whether it's acceptable is a |

personal value judgement and that's what politics is all about in this country, but making the |

right value judgements depends on public education and the industry, and I want to say to the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-232 August 2007

H-1

H-2

| staff members here, and I hope you'll take it back, the Commission has a long way to go on

| public education on these matters.

|

| Even though people may still continue to disagree with us forever or with the Commission and

| the majority view on nuclear power and other things forever, we have an obligation to continue

| the public education. I realize, in a politically charged environment like Washington, particularly

| when there is a hostile majority in Congress or hostile administration in the White House, how

| difficult it is to not seem to be an advocate, but I would offer for the Commission's consideration

| that telling the whole truth in things that have happened is not advocacy.

|

| There is nothing wrong with saying that the Commission's activity on concerns on terrorism 

| began in 1979 so, when 2001 came, we are not starting from ground zero. There is nothing

| wrong with saying, when you look at health and safety of radioactivity and radiation, that the

| research and development began over 100 years ago and the regulatory process began in

| 1928. There is nothing wrong with saying those things to continue to reach out to people, so my

| message is we must continue the public education process but at the end know that there will

| still be people who disagree with us, but remember what one of the founders of our country

| said, I may disagree with what you say but I would defend with my life your right to say it. 

| Thank you.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you very much, Howard. 

|

| And I think Paul is making his way up to the microphone now.

|

| MR. BOUSQUET: Hello. My name is Paul Bousquet, I live in West Townsend. This is the 

| question I asked last meeting and I didn't quite understand the answer then, so I'll repeat it. My

| understanding is that the general security has been beefed up since 9/11, yet nothing has been

| added for security from the air. If this plant is relicensed, how can we feel secure from an attack

| on the spent fuel pool? Then my speech goes, of course I don't see too many employees, but I

| thought they would have brought the bus and packed them in, like one meeting years ago.

|

| But I would like to speak today not only to the NRC folks but also to all the employees at all the

| remaining reactors around our vast country. I challenge all of you to read up on the changing

| science behind the nuclear industry, the National Academy of Sciences and the Union of

| Concerned Scientists have recent information that you need to know. Whatever information that

| your bosses are feeding you is incomplete and one-sided, the effects of ionizing radiation are

| greater than previously thought. It's all but proven that scheduled and accidental release are

| poisoning our surroundings.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-233 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

H-3

H-4

H-5

The spent fuel pool is radically more dangerous and susceptible to terrorism than previously |

thought. The highly toxic waste, with the national repository not going to open, is already at its |

final resting place, and that place happens to be in my backyard close to where both my father |

and my grandfather are buried, a place worth fighting for. You people of the industry should be |

ashamed, you've placed good paying jobs and careers ahead of responsibility. You've read |

your pipeline of propaganda and you feel reasonably sure you can keep your bomb material and |

cancer causing waste out of our environment, you must feel somewhat sure or you couldn't |

sleep at night. |

|

Have you ever wondered why your industry needs to dump so much time and money on the |

public relations around the reactor towns? Are you abnormally, are your abnormally large |

donations intended more as bribery than charity? Of course they are, you are trying to pacify |

the public while you shove your dirty industry down their throats. You know the majority of |

people don't want anything to do with this dangerous form of energy, so they have to be bribed. |

The bottom line is that this power plant and all the others are a liability to our future. |

|

You are poisoning not only ourselves and our environment but also the coming generation's. |

Every day, every minute that you are generating electricity, you are creating an obscene amount |

of atomic bomb making material and cancer causing toxins stored in temporary vessels |

seemingly without a clue as to what to do next. I've heard people from the outside of the fence |

refer to the people inside the fence as evil. I think of you more as greedy and misinformed. |

People, you've been lied to, there is no nuclear renaissance, there are no new safe waste-free |

reactors ready to go on line, just a dying industry treading water until the final science shuts |

them down. |

|

We need help in figuring out how on earth to ever clean up the mess your industry has created. |

I leave you with a misinformed quote from my ex-brother in law who was known to encourage |

other workers to go deeper into hotter areas of the plant to make more money. He was an |

electrician at Vermont Yankee for 14 years before he died, middle-aged, of leukemia. He said, |

in all seriousness, don't worry, nukes melt down, not up. Don't be misinformed, people, you |

know your industry is biased, maybe a career change is in order. Vermont is at the edge of |

creating true renewable energy, careers, and they should use some of you bright minds |

currently being wasted on your poisonous, gluttonous industry. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you for those opinions, Paul. |

|

And we are going to go to Daniel Marx, and then Art Greenbaum and then Emma next, Emma |

Stamas after that. This is Daniel, Daniel Marx. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-234 August 2007

I-1

| MR. MARX: My name is Dan Marx, I live in Dummerston, the next town up the road a bit. I'm a

| member of the Vermont Energy Partnership for about a month. For 24 years, from 1972 to

| 1996, I was the chief biologist at Vermont Yankee, I retired from Vermont Yankee in `96. I came

| to Vermont Yankee from the University of Minnesota with a Ph.D. in zoology. In Minnesota, I

| had some prior experience with aquatic environmental monitoring at the Monticello and Prairie

| Island Nuclear plants, both on the Mississippi River, I also worked with large coal fired

| generating plants.

|

| With Vermont Yankee, my primary function from day to day was management and

| implementation of the aquatic environmental monitoring program on the Connecticut River, my

| responsibilities including sampling, monitoring, surveillance of a large number of parameters,

| physical, chemical biological. Near the top of the list was temperature of the river at many fixed

| locations in the river and the plant discharge cooling water. I was also responsible for the

| management and maintenance of the environmental discharge permit, so called NPDES permit,

| which means National Pollutant, not Pollution, Discharge Elimination System, a minor bit of

| trivia there.

|

| This is a permitting system driven by the Federal Clean Water Act and the EPA. I spearheaded

| the renewal of the discharge permit every five years, I also guided two combined 316A,

| 316B demonstrations which resulted in modification of thermal discharge temperature criteria

| being permitted under very specific conditions of overflow and temperature to adequately

| protect river biota. During my 24-year tenure, all the data collected from the river, with

| associated analysis and interpretation, was conducted for Vermont Yankee by the

| environmental consulting firm Aquatech Incorporation out of South Burlington.

|

| Vermont Yankee and Aquatech actually began the studies pre-operationally in 1967 before I

| was on the scene. From day one, the early environmental program was crafted with consultant,

| with consultation and input from the state environmental agencies from Vermont, New

| Hampshire and Massachusetts. In the very early days, up to about 1972 or `73, the Atomic

| Energy Commission, now the NRC, you guys, was also on board in proffering the studies. The

| programs always remained flexible with an eye to modifications, as might be required in the

| future.

|

| Incidentally, it was also in 1967 that the New England states, which host the Connecticut River,

| launched a long term project to attempt to restore the Atlantic Salmon to the river, along with the

| collaboration of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The area of the river included in the Vermont

| Yankee study zone extends from up river in Brattleboro where the West River enters to the

| south, down river, at the old abandoned Shell Bridge at Northfield, Massachusetts. This 26-mile

| stretch of river is without question the most intensively and extensively studied section of the

| entire river.

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-235 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

I-2

J-1

In conclusion, my 24-year tenure, `72 to `96, in charge of the Vermont Yankee river studies, it's |

my professional judgement, opinion, that it has been adequately demonstrated that Vermont |

Yankee's impact on the ecosystem of the river has been negligible, not zero but negligible, very |

low, or, in the parlance of the NRC, very small. Vermont Yankee has been a very low |

environmental impact baseload, 24/7 producer of a major portion of Vermont's electrical energy, |

it deserves to be a part of Vermont's energy future along with green renewables, hydroelectric, |

wind, solar, biomass and conservation. Let's get off all fossil fuels to generate electricity. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Dan. |

|

Is Art Greenbaum here? Okay, great, and then we'll go next to Emma Stamas. |

|

MR. GREENBAUM: My name is Arthur Greenbaum. I'm a resident here of Brattleboro since |

1971, 36 years. My wife Susan and I have raised our two daughters here. I am also a part |

owner of a local 33-year old construction company, we employ approximately 15 people and |

work geographically within 60 miles of the Brattleboro area, and we do a small percentage of |

work with Vermont Yankee. I'm an active local businessman who has been part of the Rotary, |

the Chamber, serves also as a team member for the evacuation plan at the Bellows Falls |

Reception Center and I spend my free time with my family enjoying the outdoors. |

|

I support an environmentally sound electric portfolio, nuclear and Vermont Yankee are part of it. |

I've been driving a hybrid car for two years, home heating with wood for over 25 years and have |

replaced oil furnaces at six residences that we rent to local folks. I've done replacement |

windows and I purchase 25 percent of all of my electric through Vermont Cow Power. I've had |

the opportunity to see firsthand the amount of safety technology and training the plant, the |

industry and the NRC has put into Vermont Yankee to allow it to be safe and reliable. |

|

From the original design of the plant, with concrete walls several feet thick, to the ongoing |

upgrades and maintenance of the plant, I believe it is a safe plant, the millions of dollars spent |

on security, plant upgrades and training is part of the reason for this. Another part of its |

success is the process here today. The NRC, other industry organizations learn, listen and |

implement ideas from concerns raised. The development of technology needs to continue with |

power generation, as it is doing in other fields. Nuclear power, I believe, is a safe, cost effective |

component of our energy needs. |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-236 August 2007

K-1

| It is also a key component in solving greenhouse emissions and I encourage you to continue

| having Vermont Yankee to be part of our Vermont energy portfolio, keeping prices affordable

| and promoting economic development in the state while contributing to our economy. Thank

| you very much. I do have one other comment, it's not written.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Go ahead.

|

| MR. GREENBAUM: But if the majority of the people here would spend their time and effort

| promoting wind power and implementing many of the good ideas that have been expressed

| here today, we would all be further ahead. Thank you.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Art, for those comments. 

|

| And this is Emma.

|

| MS. STAMAS: I'm Emma Stamas, I'm not paid to be here. I hope there are some NRC people

| in the audience that are willing to listen. I noticed that a lot of the scientists who spoke left

| promptly, I guess we don't have, as citizens, anything that could possibly be interesting or

| informative to them, they know it all, I guess. Some of them seem pretty arrogant in terms of

| their long range views. 

|

| I am here to represent hundreds, literally hundreds of friends, relatives and teenagers who work

| with my, I know several teachers and I'm representing people from just south of the State of

| Vermont in the hill towns of Massachusetts.

|

| We are just as concerned as those that live a little bit over the border in Vermont, many of us

| are closer than most of the residents in Vermont and I think it's pretty arrogant for the Governor

| of Vermont, from many years ago, to be so sure that he is doing the right thing in supporting 

| this aging plant. I haven't heard much talk, except the last fellow talked about methane being

| produced and used as an energy source. One of the things that many people do not realize is

| that we are pouring huge amounts of methane as well as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

| and both of these greenhouse gasses contribute to greenhouse warming; you can read more

| about it in The Inconvenient Truth and other web sites.

|

| The problem is that, in farming communities, such as we still have in Vermont and

| Massachusetts, we have the opportunity to reduce the methane that we put into the atmosphere

| by simply making containment types of facilities on farms that can produce methane and

| generate electricity, thus reducing the amount of methane that goes into the atmosphere during

| farm, that type of farming production. There is, the leftovers from the digestion tanks can then

| be used by fertilizer, they are less odoriferous because the methane has been used, drawn off,

| and they are just as good as fertilizers, if not better, because they 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-237 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

K-2

K-3

are not raw, they have been digested and, in doing this type of change, we can create an |

avenue for our farms to remain economically viable. |

|

Why isn't this happening like wild fire all over New England and other parts of the United |

States? Because forces within our generation industry our power generation industry, have a |

vested interest in making sure that our power is produced by huge facilities that can be |

controlled by huge corporations. These people do not have a vested interest in allowing small |

generation facilities to develop and proliferate across the United States, even if scientists could |

do a very thorough study and prove that this would be a more efficient, effective, cost, both cost |

effective and an economically effective way of producing energy that could be sustainable into |

the future, not only providing jobs in areas that are rural and sustaining farming in areas that are |

barely able to have their farmers make a living, but by making a whole, a much cleaner, safer |

form of energy production. |

|

The ironic thing about the whole study of the effect of the nuclear power plant as being so much |

safer and more wonderful for our region because it produces enough power and we aren't going |

to have the lights to out or the heat go off, the ironic thing about that is that, this month, in |

Monticello, at the Monticello facility in St. Cloud, Minnesota, a nuclear facility that is just about |

the same type and age as the Vermont Yankee plant and the Pilgrim plant, in a facility that was |

just recently granted their 20-year renewal, a 13 ton control box fell and hit, it didn't cause a |

serious amount of damage but it caused the steam lines to dent and the steam pressure to |

drop, and that power plant had to be suddenly closed down. |

|

I don't even know if it's up and running again because there has been so little publicity about |

this event. I have heard one report on NPR, did a Google search on the Internet and found out, |

that same report I got written up but very little else, and I have not heard what has happened |

since this happened several weeks ago. |

|

Now, this is my question to you folks who are so proud of your nuclear power industry and what |

wealth and wonder it has brought to us, when we have 600 milliwatts or megawatts of power |

produced by one facility and suddenly, just like that, as happened in Monticello, in the dead of |

winter when it is the coldest part of the winter it suddenly goes off line, what happens? You lose |

600 megawatts of power. |

|

The irony here is we have been told time and time again that we can't possibly go to wind, solar, |

methane, hydro because those produce too little power. The fact of the matter is we need to |

have small power plants scattered throughout the land, providing jobs throughout the land-- |

|

(Applause) |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-238 August 2007

K-4

K-5

K-6

K-7

| MS. STAMAS: --providing power that may not be huge in its amount, it may vary from moment

| to moment in the amount it feeds to the grid, but it will not suddenly cut out just like that, 

| 600 megawatts gone in a moment in the dead of winter. We do not need this kind of power and

| we can do better than it, it's old fashioned, it's not sustainable, it's expensive. The Rowe power

| plant not far from here, it took 20 years to decommission that plant and it cost three times as

| much money to decommission that plant than it cost to build it, and that is adjusted for inflation,

| look it up on the Internet. These are facts that are not from some wild group, these are facts

| from the industry web sites, check them out.

|

| The fact of the matter is we cannot afford to keep these aging plants going, we must gradually

| phase them out. We are not asking for Vermont Yankee to shut down tomorrow, we are asking

| for it to phase out over a five year period and, during that five year period, we here in this part of

| the world are very, very fortunate to have several factors that can allow us to replace that 

| plant, and those factors are we have a motivated New England Yankee ingenuity to start using

| methane, hydro. We have vast hydro resources not just in Canada, right here in Vermont and

| Massachusetts.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MS. STAMAS: And we don't have to make huge dams and flood property to make, we have the

| technology to take a little tiny stream that I have next to my house, I could generate all the

| electricity I need in that house, in my household, with a little micro hydro system the size of this

| speaker platform, and it only costs a few thousands dollars. Why isn't everybody doing it? 

| Because we don't have the knowledge, but we do, in this area, have some well educated

| ingenuity, people with a lot of ingenuity that also have time on their hands because we don't

| have a lot of job growth here.

|

| We don't need Vermont Yankee's power to lull us into submission and continue on the track that

| most of the United States is on, thinking that we can't possibly do anything except keep this

| power plant going as long as possible. We can show the rest of the United States a different

| way, we also have huge wind resources. It breaks my heart when I hear that people will not

| accept wind power because it's aesthetically unpleasing and therefore it's not a viable

| alternative. How aesthetically pleasing is any power plant that you've ever seen? How

| aesthetically pleasing is any electrical line running over a mountain top? None of it is.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Emma, could you just sum up for us?

|

| MS. STAMAS: Okay, one final summation. 

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-239 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

K-8

L-1

My husband has worked for 30 years as a quality assurance manager in a pharmaceutical |

company. Evidently, in the pharmaceutical field, people are more concerned about quality |

assurance than the NRC is because it is a known fact that quality cannot be inspected into a |

facility. In other words, you can inspect a facility every single day, that does not make it safer or |

more quality than it already is, what it does is it lets you see the problems as they come up. |

|

And in the pharmaceutical industry, there is a rule that when any major change is made in a |

facility, a whole new quality assurance program must be written because when any retrofit, or |

upgrade or change is made in the facility, everything in the facility is effected by that change |

and it is impossible to know what the quality is going to be, whether it's safe, whether there is |

going to be a potential problem, unless you completely redo your whole quality analysis. |

|

Now, if this is done in the pharmaceutical industry where there is time to call back medicines |

that are found to be poorly made, and poorly designed and so forth, before people actually |

swallow them, why isn't it the policy in a field like nuclear energy production where when a |

problem occurs, time can be of the essence and people who may have inspected the plant |

years ago or may have some inkling of what the problem is may have retired or may not be |

there, they may have died. The plant is way beyond its original life span and yet we aren't |

requiring this kind of quality inspection and assurance from this industry? |

|

And I think that is something we are going to have to apologize to our grandchildren about when |

they have to deal with decommissioning the mess-- |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. |

|

MS. STAMAS: --that we've created. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Emma. |

|

We are going to go to Harvey, Harvey Schaktman? He is not here, okay. David McElwee? |

|

How about Sarah, Sarah Kotkov? Sarah? This is Sarah Kotkov. |

|

MS. KOTKOV: My name is Sarah Kotkov, I'm on the Board of New England Coalition but these |

remarks are my own. I was going to talk about the fuel pool fire, but Claire Chang already has |

discussed that. However, I haven't gone to these NRC meetings, I know that they talk about |

probabilistic risk assessment. Admittedly, it is a low probability that terrorists will attack the fuel |

pool, probably because Vermont is a little bit boring, but the consequences would be extremely |

severe. As Claire said, 25,000 miles would be contaminated by such an event. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-240 August 2007

L-2

L-3

L-4

| If some of the water drains out of the fuel pool, the chimney effect of the effect of cool air

| passing through the cladding would be stopped and therefore the zirconium would self-ignite,

| that's the cladding of the fuel would self-ignite and spew radioactive contamination over three

| states. Of course, assuming we got out, which is, which is quite an assumption of course

| because the evacuation plans are really laughable, assuming we got out, we could of course

| never come back, and neither could our children, grandchildren, etcetera, these areas would be

| basically permanently contaminated.

|

| The fuel pool could also be damaged in the case of an earthquake and this area is subject to 

| earthquakes. The fuel must remain in the fuel pools for five years to cool down, so even if the

| plant operates until 2012, the fuel would be there for another five years. Now, if the plant is

| relicensed, this situation will continue for 20 more years beyond that, of course. The fuel is,

| once it's taken out of the fuel pool, it is then placed in dry casks, so I think that now we have

| permission to have six dry casks on the banks of the river, then this would add another 20 more

| years of fuel that would be stored on the banks of the Connecticut River.

|

| This is of course high level waste, meaning that it is extremely long lasting, as well as highly

| radioactive. One of the lovely misnomers of the lingo is that low-level waste, we think that

| sounds not too dangerous, of course it's extremely radioactive, just as radioactive as the high

| level waste, it just won't last quite as many generations. I think that we can expect that this

| waste will be permanently on the banks of the river and this, the banks of the river, in 1991,

| were studied for a low-level radioactive storage facility, as it's called, and were deemed

| inappropriate because of the, because it's a wetland, basically.

|

| So now we would have a high level dump, with greatly more waste, if the plant is allowed to

| relicense, on the banks of the river permanently because Yucca Mountain of course is in

| nowheresville, that's probably never going to happen. Another issue of course is the fence line

| dose. Because of the uprate, the fence line dose is being exceeded and of course this is 

| another situation that would then continue for 20 more years. So I think that, to call this green

| is, this plant that is producing, that is leaking radiation and producing highly toxic waste that will

| last basically forever and will be here forever is just absurd. 

|

| I think that's all I have to say, thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. 

|

| Ed Sprague and Connie Burton? Ed Sprague? How about Connie Burton? And Bill Maguire? 

|

| And Teresa Caldwell? Here is Teresa.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-241 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

M-5

M-6

MS. CALDWELL: Hi everyone. I'm speaking off the cuff here and I'm going to try not to ramble. |

This is such a polarizing topic for people, and I don't think I'm going to change anybody's mind |

and I don't think anybody has said here before me is going to change my mind. |

|

I wish that Dr. Moore and the former governor hadn't left so soon because I did want to |

apologize to them for people who are heckling them and being disrespectful. I think that people |

get so emotional because we are afraid and that people who are opposed to this plant hear |

people expressing points of view that it's safe, and it doesn't emit carbon, you know, CO2s, and |

we are angry and afraid and so that we were disrespectful and I wanted to say I was sorry for |

that. |

|

I have to disagree with Dr. Moore because I think his point of view could kill me. I think that this |

plant is unsafe and it should be decommissioned, I do not believe it should have a 20-year |

license extension. I think that I've been coming to these meetings with the NRC for about |

30 years and I know there are some people here who truly believe nuclear power is the wave of |

the future. Most of the people I hear who speak on behalf of nuclear power have a financial |

investment in the industry and therefore I have to disagree with them just because I think that |

they're not thinking straight. |

|

I do believe that the NRC is aware that there are increased risks for us who live downwind and |

that a catastrophic accident is possible, the likes of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. It could be |

a terrorist target, and I believe there is no solution to the high level waste that is being created |

that will be deadly for thousands of years and I'm here to urge the NRC not to relicense |

Vermont Yankee. It's been my understanding that any nuclear power plant that has come up for |

an uprate or a license extension has been granted one automatically. |

|

I know a number of people who wanted to come to this meeting who didn't want to bother |

because they felt that it was a foregone conclusion, the NRC has made up their mind, and that |

they just have to listen to us complain and that it's already been decided. So, if there is any |

person here, who has any influence, who is with the NRC, I want you to think of me, look at my |

face, remember me. My name is Teresa Caldwell, and I live 12 miles from this plant and I sleep |

with my bedroom window open and when I go to bed at night, I think which way is the wind |

blowing? What is the wind carrying? Are they having a release today? Should I close the |

window? Has there been an accident? |

|

And I'm afraid of this plant and I know that there is a lot of people who think that I'm hysterical or |

that I'm misguided and uninformed, and I think I'm very informed and I think I'm very aware of |

the risks that this plant raises. So all of you, when you go to bed tonight, I hope that you don't |

sleep near this plant and I hope that you're not downwind from it but, if you are, think to yourself |

could I be making a mistake? Could I be wrong in supporting this plant? And if I am, then I am |

subjecting an entire community to unacceptable risks. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-242 August 2007

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, Teresa. 

|

| Did I miss anybody who signed up to speak today, this afternoon? We are going to be here

| tonight, open house starts at 6:00 until 7:00 and then the meeting is going to go from 7:00 to

| 10:00. There were a number of issues raised that I would like the NRC staff to, if the people are

| willing to talk about them, Paul had raised the question about aircraft and I think there is some

| recent Commission action that discussed aircraft, and at least we can tell him what that is. 

|

| There may be people who want to find out more about the 9th Circuit decision and what the

| NRC might do about that, and Emma raised a question about Monticello and what has been

| going on with that, and it may be that perhaps one of our residents might be able to talk about

| that. But the staff is here to talk to all of you and I would just thank all of you for coming out and

| your comments. 

|

| And I want to ask Rani Franovich, who is the chief of the environmental branch who does these

| reviews for license renewal, to close the meeting out for us this afternoon. 

|

| [Presentation by Ms. Franovich]

|

| Transcripts of the Evening Public Meeting on January 31, 2007, in Brattleboro, Vermont

|

| [Introduction by Mr. Cameron]

| [Presentation by Mr. Emch]

| [Presentation by Dr. Miller]

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Rich. 

|

| We don't have much time for questions during the formal part of the meeting, but I do need to

| ask if there is any question you need answered in order to either make your comments tonight

| or to submit written comments. We did have one question along those lines that I will ask for

| Gary Sachs and it had to do with the information on the SAMAs, and the term cost-beneficial

| was used in that connection and the question is what does that mean? What does cost-

| beneficial mean? And I'm going to ask Bob Palla from the NRC staff to try to simply explain that

| to all of us. 

|

| Bob?

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-243 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

N-1

MR. PALLA: Okay. When we look at a severe accident mitigation alternative, we look at its |

impact on the likelihood of core damage. We would expect these plant enhancements to |

reduce the likelihood of a core damage event and also we look at the impact of the improvement |

on the off-site consequences, and we generally would expect the consequences to be reduced |

by implementing the improvement. We then, so we would associate a reduction in core damage |

frequency and a reduction in population dose with each SAMA, we use the probabilistic risk |

assessment study to assign these values. |

|

And then we use what's called regulatory analysis guidance, it's basically a protocol developed |

by the NRC for assigning dollar values to the reduction in core damage frequency and off-site |

consequences, so we basically derive a dollar benefit and then we separately look at the costs |

to actually implement the improvement. It might be hardware costs, maintenance costs, all the |

things that would go into the cost to the utility to implement this, and so we compare the benefits |

achieved against the cost, and something that's called cost-beneficial would generally have |

benefits that exceed the costs. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Bob. |

|

And thank you, Gary, for that question. |

|

We are going to, we are going to start with Diana Sidebotham, and then go to Deb Katz. And as |

I said, we are going to have to try to be a little bit strict with the three to five minute rule. For |

those of you who weren't here this afternoon though, we can err on the farther side of that, even |

though it's not very fair. This is Diana Sidebotham who is coming up and then we'll go to Deb |

Katz. |

|

Diana? |

|

MS. SIDEBOTHAM: Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Diana Sidebotham, I'm |

one of a group of scientists and citizens from Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and |

New York who founded the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution in February, 1971, I am |

currently president. Our object then was to inform the public on issues of nuclear power plants |

and alternatives and to intervene in the then existent Vermont Yankee operating license |

proceeding, not to oppose at first but to question. We asked many questions and received full |

few, few full answers. |

|

I wish to give a brief historical perspective tonight relative to the EIS under consideration as, in |

36 years, certain issues and actions have come full circle, I'll concentrate on one particular |

matter tonight. In 1971, at Vermont Yankee operating license hearings before the Atomic |

Energy Commission, the matter of nuclear waste was excluded. The Natural Resources |

Defense Council, the State of Kansas and the New England Coalition all attempted to raise it |

repeatedly and were always told it would be dealt with later. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-244 August 2007

N-2

N-3

N-4

| The plan, at that point, was that 600 irradiated fuel bundles would remain in the spent fuel pool

| for a few months only. As we know, all the spent fuel ever generated at Vermont Yankee now

| remains in the spent fuel pool. Now we know the spent fuel pool is even more vulnerable

| because of its density. I'm not quite sure of the number but it's something like 2,800 fuel

| bundles are more which are there at elevation and we now know more clearly than we did

| before that the possibility of a terrorist attack is very real.

|

| In 1987, at the re-racking process, the second, the New England Coalition's expert witness

| Dr. Gordon Thompson's testimony was not allowed because, at that point, Dr. Thompson's

| contention that the possibility of a self-sustaining zirconium fire in a spent fuel pool in the event

| of a loss of coolant accident was not credible. Years passed and Dr. Thompson took this

| proposition to several reracking proceedings and, finally, in about 2000 to 2001, the NRC

| decided, oh, he is right, it could happen. 

|

| The thing that bothers me about your EIS or one of them is that NUREG-1738 I believe was

| promulgated in 1996. You speak of new and significant information which might change your

| view, 1996 was before the NRC realized that Dr. Thompson could be correct. NUREG-1783

| bases its calculation on lower density storage, which is not relevant now at Vermont Yankee,

| and also on instantaneous loss of coolant, rather than slow partial loss which will yield a much

| more severe accident. Consequently, your EIS for this relicense proposal does not have a

| factual basis.

|

| As I understand changes can be made, I would certainly encourage you to do a recalculation on

| the basis of what is in the pool, what will probably remain in the pool if Vermont Yankee 

| continues to operate. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision is very clear that environmental

| assessment must be done in regard to storage of spent fuel, the NRC should pay attention and

| do it across the board for all spent fuel storage facilities, and I know you are going to say that's

| not entirely within your purview and it probably isn't. However, it is something that I think you

| should make very clear to your superiors and everyone in the NRC.

|

| I'm aware that a rule making is underway for Massachusetts and, a rule making, yes, for

| Massachusetts and its license extension and at Vermont Yankee. However, it's exceedingly

| important that this sort of thing be completed before any relicensing, if it were to occur, is

| considered. The results of course of a spent fuel pool fire would be catastrophic. We learned a

| few days ago that the NRC has also declined to provide protection for reactors from an air

| crash, it can't happen. Together, these illustrate a serious either disregard or unwillingness to

| address very certain serious issues within your agency.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-245 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

N-5

N-6

N-7

N-8

N-9

O-1

So, while there is a great deal more to say, 36 years later, with Vermont Yankee's spent fuel |

pool stuffed dangerously full, at elevation, with no foreseeable repository anywhere in the world, |

the people of Vermont, and New Hampshire and Massachusetts are left with what was not part |

of the original bargain, it is now a true Faustian bargain and no consideration of nuclear waste |

in an EIS is complete on this issue, it is dismissed as a small effect. Among other things, an |

independent safety assessment is an absolute, fundamental minimum requirement for any |

possibility of license renewal. |

|

The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution is entirely opposed to license renewal and |

severe accident mitigation alternatives also need to be seriously addressed as, again, we don't |

think that they have been. We hope very much that you will address some of the issues which |

I've raised and which other members of the public will in a reevaluation of your environmental |

statement because, at this point, many of us feel it is quite deficient. |

|

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. You will continue to hear from the New England |

Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and others on these and other issues essential to our lives, |

health, environment, economy and good of our entire community. Thank you very much. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Diana. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Next we are going to hear from Deb Katz, Citizens Awareness Network. |

|

MS. KATZ: Well thank you for turning the microphone around so that people can see the |

person who is talking, instead of seeing their back. |

|

We'll get no satisfaction here tonight, let's get that clear from the get-go. The NRC is basically |

once again attempting to operate outside the rules and outside the law. The 9th Circuit came to |

a decision that the NRC had to address the vulnerability of its spent nuclear fuel in terms of the |

National Environmental Policy Act, in terms of the movement of fuel into dry cask storage, at a |

site in California. The NRC objected and there the court rejected their position and in fact |

Pacific Gas and Electric, the corporation that has the fuel, appealed to the Supreme Court and |

was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court. |

|

At this point, the NRC has been ordered to rewrite its rules and regulations in terms of |

incorporating the issue of the vulnerability of spent fuel into the National Environmental Policy |

Act review, this effects all reactor licenses under NEPA review. We are in a NEPA review, |

aren't we? Isn't that what we are here to do tonight? Then why are we here? If this is now |

under rewriting the regulations, why hasn't the NRC suspended its evaluation? Why doesn't it |

take the hard look that the National Environmental Policy Act requires it to do, instead of |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-246 August 2007

O-2

O-3

O-4

O-5

O-6

| avoiding the issue? Because the truth is when you have a problem and you have no solution,

| then you have no problem. 

|

| Now the National Academy of Science, in its BEIR 7 report, determined that there is no safe

| exposure to radiation, there is none. Is the BEIR 7 incorporated into the NRC's review of the 

| environmental effects on our communities? I didn't see it. And what about all of that high level

| waste sitting on the banks of the Connecticut River, potentially for 100 years or more, with no

| solution, with the bankrupt waste confidence rule that is still just dragged out to justify allowing

| the nuclear corporations to do what they want? The only protection available here tonight is for

| a foreign corporation and its shareholders.

|

| In my community, living in the shadow of the Yankee Rowe and Vermont Yankee reactor, there

| is an empty chair at too many dinner tables, there are too many lost lives. This human cost is

| not insignificant to the husbands, wives, children, friends left behind to carry on, there is no 

| relief here, there is no satisfaction available. There is a great opportunity but it won't be found in

| this NEPA review, or in the environmental impact statement or in the dog and pony shows that

| the NRC comes out and tells us that we are really privileged that they come here to hear us

| complain about what they are doing. That's an insult.

|

| The potential for anything to take place will happen at a state level in which the State of

| Vermont has the power to transform energy production, but the truth is it's not the State of

| Vermont, it's the people of Vermont that will determine the course of history not just for the State

| of Vermont but actually for Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, since we all

| dip our beak into Vermont Yankee's power. And the truth is it can be transformed and what it

| will take is people getting engaged to make sure that, at this legislative session in Vermont, that

| a green energy portfolio is passed and that we commit to a life that includes jobs, prosperity and

| respect for our human family, as well as our environment. 

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Deb. 

|

| Next we are going to go to Beth McElwee, then Bruce Wiggett and Andy Davis. 

|

| Beth?

|

| MS. MCELWEE: Good evening. My name is Beth McElwee and I have been a resident of

| Brattleboro, Vermont for most of my 25 years. I'm here tonight to share with you my perspective

| on the Vermont Yankee license renewal initiative as a community oriented young adult and a

| recent addition to the local job force. 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-247 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

P-1

I returned to the Brattleboro area one year ago, after spending a year in Boston and some time |

traveling. It was during this period I realized how fortunate I am to have been raised in this |

healthy, rural Vermont community. |

|

Vermont has played a vital role in the sustainability, Vermont Yankee has played a vital role in |

the sustainability of the lifestyle we all enjoy here. By supplying a clean, reliable and renewable |

source of energy, Vermont Yankee has lessened our dependency on fossil fuel and thus helped |

us to keep our environment free of these added pollutants. I have worked as a contractor at |

Vermont Yankee for the past eight months and have had the opportunity to interact with many of |

their employees. In doing so, my confidence in their ability to run a safe and efficient nuclear |

power plant has only grown. |

|

I have seen first hand the accountability, ownership and level of personal involvement the |

employees of Vermont Yankee take in all of their daily work activities. I have learned of their |

outstanding track record of safely providing energy at fair and favorable prices. And I know |

firsthand the importance of the economic infrastructure they provide to attract and retain |

employees from many surrounding communities. To extend the operating license for Vermont |

Yankee would be to continue supporting an environmentally, economically and socially |

responsible culture that has been established here. |

|

It is this type of community which we want to encourage, as our global energy requirements |

become greater and our environmental responsibility larger, nuclear power is a clear path to aid |

in tackling both of these very ominous issues. I encourage the NRC to look around this |

community and take note of the many positive influences from Vermont Yankee and I ask them |

to extend the operating license for another 20 years so we can all share in the benefits of this |

community for many years to come. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, thank you, Beth. |

|

And I believe this is Mr. Wiggett. |

|

MR. WIGGETT: Bruce Wiggett, yes. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, Bruce Wiggett. |

|

MR. WIGGETT: Thank you. Thank you for being here to recognize the input from the citizens |

of the area of Vermont Yankee. My name is Bruce Wiggett and I am the former CFO of |

Vermont Yankee, that is, I was the CFO prior to the sale. In that role, I had the opportunity to |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-248 August 2007

Q-1

Q-2

| know and work with the operating employees of Vermont Yankee, my experience with those

| employees is that they are very knowledgeable, hard working, dedicated employees whose

| primary focus is on the safe and reliable operation of that unit.

|

| During the sale, I also had the opportunity to work with many of the executives and managers of

| Entergy and I feel that their purchase only strengthened the focus and provided a learning and

| an expanded environment for those employees to operate within. However, my background is

| finance, so I am here this evening to talk a little bit about the economic benefits of Vermont

| Yankee and what it contributes to the economy of Southern Vermont, Windham County and the

| entire State of Vermont.

|

| Economic contributions from Vermont Yankee are felt throughout the state and have impact on

| just about every citizen within the state, relicensing of VY will have clear economic benefits to

| the state and the region. When VY was sold, a long-term purchase power agreement was a

| critical part of that sale, that agreement established the price of power from the plant to Vermont

| utilities. Due to that power purchase agreement, from 2002 to the present, they have already

| saved consumers in the State of Vermont $157 million, and that's in real dollars as compared to

| the purchase power, the cost of purchase power on the open market. And the Vermont

| Department of Public Service has estimated that savings to Vermont customers through 2012

| will total about $250 million. 

|

| In addition to the savings associated with the purchase power agreement, VY spends between

| $55 and $60 million on direct expenses within Windham County and the state annually, those

| expenditures are for taxes, payroll, contracted services, and supplies and equipment. These

| local expenditures will continue throughout any life extension period. By 2012, Vermont Yankee

| will have invested about $25 million to the, or paid about $25 million to the state's green energy

| fund, that's at a rate of about $4.5 million a year. The green energy fund supports energy

| efficiency efforts and the development of renewable energy sources in Vermont.

|

| Last night I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Moore, who I understand spoke earlier today

| before this meeting, and he feels that our energy future will require a combination of

| conservation, renewable energy sources and nuclear power to meet our energy needs. The

| green fund is a major source of funds for development of the non-nuclear aspects of that

| approach here in Vermont, $25 million will go a long way in Vermont towards future 

| developments throughout the state. Vermont Yankee supplies 34 percent of Vermont's

| electricity consumption and, without it, Vermont would be even more dependent on out of state

| sources to meet its electricity needs. Currently, Vermont purchases approximately 50 percent

| of its power from outside sources.

|

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-249 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Long-term safe operation, a major source of energy for the State of Vermont, significant | Q-3

contributions to the State of Vermont green energy fund, substantial local and statewide |

expenditures during, directly into the economy, it's for these reasons that I believe VY should |

receive an extension of its operating license. |

|

Again, thank you for all you do and for listening, being here to listen to our thoughts this |

evening. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you very much, Bruce. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Is Andy Davis here? Okay, we are going to go to Chris Williams, then |

Anthony Stevens and then Mike LaPorte. Oh, this is Andy Davis? Great. |

|

MR. DAVIS: Good evening. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Good evening. |

|

MR. DAVIS: I think it's always unfortunate when people say things that kind of cast this as |

neighbor against neighbor. We all know that good people work at Vermont Yankee, good |

people have worked at Ford Motor Company, General Motors and we still have global warming |

from all the release of all the automobiles. It's not about who works at Vermont Yankee and |

how good they are, it's not about how much it contributes to the economy, obviously a large |

company contributes a great deal. S.D. Organ Factory for many, many years was the major |

employer in Brattleboro, it's not today, Brattleboro is still a thriving community. |

|

I think it's wrong to mix those kinds of issues into an environmental impact statement review, we |

know those of you here tonight that work for Vermont Yankee are great folks, that's not why we |

are here. I know we are not supposed to ask questions, I always seem to come to a meeting |

when I can ask a question, and I ask it and it doesn't get an answer, and then I come to other |

meetings where I have questions and I'm told it's not a meeting to ask questions. This has been |

going on since I moved to Vermont in 1976, and Diana Sidebotham did a good review of some |

of the frustrations and the shell game that has been played with issues of great concern. |

|

There are many people not here tonight, but each of these empty seats represents many people |

in this community who are extremely concerned about the long-term environmental impacts that |

we are passing on to our children's children, children's, children's, it goes on and on. |

|

Excuse me, sir, I've listened to you politely many times. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-250 August 2007

R-1

| I have a simple question and I hope the NRC can answer this because it's, who owns the spent

| fuel? Is there an answer to that question? I mean who owns it?

|

| MR. CAMERON: Andy, if you could--

|

| MR. DAVIS: I just want, that's a simple question and it would just help me clarify the final

| comment I want to make before I sit down.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay.

|

| MR. DAVIS: But is there an answer to that?

|

| MR. CAMERON: I believe that the--

|

| MR. DAVIS: Who owns the spent fuel?

|

| MR. CAMERON: The contracts, there is contracts between the Department of Energy and each

| company that has spent fuel where the Department of Energy will take the spent fuel and I

| believe take title to that.

|

| MR. DAVIS: We have a lot of really knowledgeable people from the Nuclear Regulatory

| Commission here, that seems like a simple question, who owns the spent fuel? Like if I have a

| used car in my backyard, I own it.

|

| MR. CAMERON: The Department of Energy is going to take title to the spent fuel.

|

| MR. DAVIS: It's going to take title? When is it going to take title? Does it, who has title to it 

| now? Because this is the number one environmental concern of people in this area, besides,

| you know, fence-line radiation and some other things, but the long-term health of this

| community. Our governor still believes, I asked him on the radio, he still thinks the federal

| government is coming to get this. Harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, the most powerful man

| in the United States Senate has on his web site, unequivocally, that Yucca Mountain will not

| open. Where is it being taken that our governor still believes it's being removed?

|

| This is an environmental review, environmental as in ecological, one of the rules of ecological

| science is that there is no away in throw away, away does not exist. They don't want it in

| Nevada and Harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, says the reason they don't want it is the

| health and safety of the people of Nevada. Well if they don't want it in Nevada, why do we want

| it here? Okay, we are not sure who owns it now, who will own it in 100 years? Someone from

| the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who will own the spent fuel in 100 years when the casks

| need to be replaced? Who will own them?

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-251 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

R-2

And that's only the first little baby step in the life of this material. Who will own it? Simple |

question, someone from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? There is a lot of people here |

making a lot of money. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Andy, I'm going to have to ask you to finish your comments, instead of sitting |

here-- |

|

MR. DAVIS: Yeah, but these are the issues-- |

|

MR. CAMERON: --asking your questions, I'm sorry. |

|

MR. DAVIS: --that concern me and my neighbors and until you approach them and take them |

seriously, many of us walk out of this meeting with the same kind of frustration that has been |

expressed by other speakers. And it's not about the good people that work at Vermont Yankee, |

I love you all dearly as fellow members of this community, but that's not why we are here |

tonight. The environ, this industry has a cycle to it, we like to talk about it for electrical |

generation, the uranium is pulled out of the ground, there is a whole mining process. |

|

It doesn't take but a few minutes of looking at a web, at the worldwide web, to find the |

environmental problems wherever the uranium is mined. There are connections between the |

fuel cycle and military uses. You look at the countries that have nuclear power, many of them |

have nuclear weapons, that's the history of it, depleted uranium, all kinds of things. It just feels |

like what you all do with your environmental impact statement is you narrow it down to just this |

tiny little thing and then say it's all fine, but environmental deals with the fuel cycle, the final |

resting place of the waste and those questions. I have not heard them addressed by the |

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a public meeting. |

|

And I'm just pleading with you to really respond to these concerns because, so far, the generic |

environmental impact statement, the environmental impact statement don't seem to address |

these questions and they don't give me confidence that we should be parking this stuff on the |

banks of the Connecticut River for an indeterminate period of time, and we are not quite sure |

where it's going and it doesn't seem like that scenario deserves a little check, okay. Thank you |

very much. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you. |

|

Chris Williams? |

|

MR. WILLIAMS: Good evening. My name is Chris Williams, I live in Hancock, which is in |

Addison County, probably about 100 miles from here. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-252 August 2007

S-1

S-2

| I'm happy to be on the record with the NRC tonight, I want to state for the record that I'm not

| compensated for my appearance here tonight, there is no compensation connected to my words

| here tonight. I want to start out by thanking our new senator, Senator Sanders, Senator

| Sanders has recently sent a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requesting that a

| meeting just like this one be held in the very near future in the state capitol, in Montpelier, where

| all of our legislators are now in session, that's why many of them aren't here tonight. It makes a

| lot of sense to me, I think the NRC can afford it. It's happening? Well, that's great.

|

| I would like to, just for the record, again, put a little information into the record that I think is new

| and relevant to this process. By the way, I was here for the matinee today, there was lots of 

| great testimony and they have a very impressive record here. I read recently where

| Commissioner McGaffigan, who I understand is the longest sitting Commissioner on the NRC, is

| that correct? Right, he is the Commissioner who is still on the Commission and is the longest

| serving, has basically publicly stated that Yucca Mountain was mismanaged from the get-go

| and that they ought to give the order to stop digging. This isn't coming from me, an anti-nuclear

| activist, clean energy advocate, it's coming from the longest sitting Commissioner at the NRC. 

| That information I think is relevant to this process, as previous witnesses have pointed out,

| because we are still dealing with the frustrating problem of the waste. 

|

| As for a nuclear renaissance, which I believe people at Entergy and possibly people at the NRC

| may be interested, in the last two weeks, in financial reports coming out of Wall Street, two

| CEOs in this country, one by the name of Jim Rogers, who is the CEO of Duke Energy, and

| another by the name of John Rowe, who is the CEO of Excelon Corporation which, for the most

| part, is made up of Commonwealth Edison, serving the City of Chicago, both of these high

| powered CEOs who control a significant portion of the nuclear fleet in this country have stated

| for the record that they think building new plants is risky, that they've been sold a bill of goods

| about waste disposal and that they are not convinced, at this point, that their companies should

| go ahead and build new ones. Which brings us to the Entergy Corporation.

|

| Is Wayne Leonard in the house? I wish he was. Wayne Leonard, the CEO of Entergy

| Corporation, is somebody that I've actually been dealing with for about 20 years, I think he is a

| pretty straightforward guy. As a matter of fact, Wayne got his accounting degree at Ball State

| University in Muncie, Indiana, he is a pretty straightforward, bean counting kind of guy. I know I

| could have a conversation with Wayne Leonard about the good employees of Entergy Vermont

| Yankee here in Brattleboro, Vermont and their concerns about their jobs. 

|

| I would rather see this decommissioned as soon as possible because there is no waste answer,

| but I would also like to make sure that Mr. Leonard uses his power, as your boss, to see to it

| that all of you are employed until it's time to retire and employed in the capacity of diligently,

| prudently and professionally decommissioning the high level radioactive waste dump in Vernon. 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-253 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

In closing, I would like to urge everybody in the State of Vermont, and I just heard the former | S-3

CEO of Vermont Yankee talk about Vermont Yankee's commitment to green energy, the |

$25 million contribution to the green energy fund. Well there is something we can all do as |

Vermonters if we care about the energy future of this state and it's to contact our legislators, all |

of you, please, and those of you that don't want to, you won't, but I'm going to implore all of you |

to call your legislators and ask them to support House Bill 127, currently under consideration in |

Montpelier by the legislature. |

|

House Bill 127 provides for an expanded portfolio standard for renewable energy, which I know |

my colleagues in the clean energy and anti-nuclear movement agree, as well as Patrick Moore, |

who was here earlier, the folks from the Vermont Energy Partnership, as well as the Entergy |

Corporation which has made a generous $25 million contribution to clean, green energy here in |

the State of Vermont. |

|

And finally, I just want to say something that in my community, which stretches around the |

world, in terms of people committed to stopping the production of high level nuclear waste and |

providing for clean electricity with renewable, sustainable sources, we've already won. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Is Anthony Davis with us? |

|

Okay, Mike, why don't you go up and we'll find out if Anthony is here. This is Mike LaPorte |

|

MR. LAPORTE: Good evening. My name is Michael LaPorte, and I'm an employee of Vermont |

Yankee and I'm here to lend my support for renewal of Vermont Yankee's license. |

|

I would like to let you get a little bit of my credibility by making that statement, I've been working |

at Vermont Yankee for over 30 years. For the last 30 years, I've been a member of the |

operations department, part of my career there, I obtained an NRC license to operate the |

controls in the control room of the reactor and the plant. I feel that, working in the operations |

department for as long as I have, I really know the equipment of that plant and how it operates, |

how it's been maintained, how it's been surveilled and tested and inspected. |

|

Based on that knowledge that I have, and I'm telling you that, that I feel that Vermont Yankee is |

a good candidate for license extension. And you know what? I don't have to stand here in front |

of you people right now because, in a couple of months, I'm going to go to that happy place |

called retirement, but I did feel that I'm passionate about my plant, I love Vermont Yankee, I've |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-254 August 2007

T-1

U-1

| been working there my whole life, and I know it's a good plant and I know that adding another

| 20 years to its license is a good thing, it's good for a number of reasons.

|

| First of all, it's good for my company, Entergy, it's also good for my fellow employees that I love

| dearly, and a lot of them probably now will be able to have a career like I have had there. But

| foremost, foremost, it's good for Vermont, it's a good thing for Vermont, it's good for the United

| States and it's good for our Planet Earth, believe it or not. 

|

| Thank you very much.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mike, thank you very much. 

|

| Our next three speakers are going to be Dart Everett, Bill McKin and Bill Maguire. Is Dart

| Everett here? Okay, how about Bill McKin? You're not Bill McKin, right? Okay, Bill Maguire? 

|

| Mr. Maguire is here.

|

| MR. MAGUIRE: Good evening. My name is Bill Maguire and I'm the general manager of plant

| operations at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. I started in the power generation

| industry 24 years ago and I spent the last 20 years in nuclear power generation.

|

| And I want to tell you a little bit about the people at Vermont Yankee and how we conduct our

| business at the plant. First, I want to tell you that the employees are committed to excellence,

| by that I mean they are committed to their continuing education and training. I, myself, have

| received thousands of hours of training in my career in this industry, I have also been supported

| in attaining a masters degree.

|

| Our employees are also committed to continuous process improvement, something that existed

| at Vermont Yankee long before Entergy purchased the plant but is now part of the Entergy

| culture as a result of the process improvement culture that existed at Vermont Yankee. 

| Employees are dedicated to safety and reliability, all employees start their day with a safety

| briefing not only for their personal safety but for plant safety. Every task starts with a safety

| briefing, again reviewing their personal safety and the plant's safety.

|

| The reliability of the plant is ensured by a robust corrective action program, it's also ensured by

| a robust predictive and preventive maintenance program to ensure our plant runs reliably day in

| and day out. Vermont Yankee is a reliable source of economic power generation to the New

| England grid. As such, we supply electricity to the power grid 24 hours a day and have done so

| for the last 447 days continuously, since our last scheduled refueling and maintenance outage

| which, by the way, was Vermont Yankee's best.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-255 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

V-1

V-2

I'm proud to be part of the committed and dedicated Vermont Yankee team of professionals and |

I look forward to providing a clean, safe and reliable source of energy into this community well |

into the future. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Bill. |

|

We are going to go to Mr. Ed, we are going to go to Ed Sprague, then we are going to go to |

Norman Raymond, Bernie Buteau and Ann Howes. |

|

So this is Mr. Sprague. |

|

Mr. Sprague? |

|

MR. SPRAGUE: My name is Ed Sprague, I stand here tonight to recommend to relicense the |

nuclear plant here in Vernon. I have, my property is bounded on two sides by Vermont Yankee, |

I have never been one of their employees, their list of employees, I've certainly been a resident |

next door to them and I can say this, that in all the time that they've been there, and I've been, I |

moved in in 1955, when it was a diary farm. So we have lived there throughout the entire life of |

Vermont Yankee and I can say this, the only thing that's been disagreeable for me, personally, |

is the poison pens up at The Reformer and all the poison pens that they sponsor. It is just, you |

can't pick up a newspaper and find anything positive said about Vermont Yankee, it's a shame, |

it's a crime. |

|

Changing a little bit here, I was very, very upset when President Carter shut down a brand new |

reprocessing plant in South Carolina, about to come on line, and he just did two things with that |

one move, he took away the initiative of our people to run reprocessing and he also gave a |

hammer to the people who oppose nuclear energy, namely disposing of waste. |

|

Now I was in attendance last night when Dr. Patrick Moore gave his presentation and I came |

away with two things, one, we are in the process of building a recycling or reprocessing plant in |

Salt Lake City, so there is hope on the horizon for reprocessing all of this waste that everybody |

is so concerned about. It will turn the waste into a resource which will keep our nuclear power |

plants running for hundreds of years. It also, another thing I came away with was, one, that ten |

percent of the energy, of the fuel now going into our power plants is coming from Russian made |

bombs, it's taking away the threat of terrorists or abuse of that raw material. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-256 August 2007

W-1

| So, to me, the future is great, we don't have to worry about storing fuel for hundreds of years

| when we can reuse it and come away with a token amount of fuel that could be put in glass and

| buried deep in the earth. I think they've taken away, the weapons is about to be taken away. 

|

| Thank you for letting me speak.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ed. 

|

| Norman, Norman Raymond? How about, is this Norman? Okay.

|

| MR. RAYMOND: Good evening. My name is Norman Raymond, I'm a resident of Putney since

| 1999, currently a new employee to Entergy since `05 as a technical instructor. 

|

| I want to voice to the NRC that I believe that we should extend the license to Vermont Yankee,

| not just to save my job, but in my time being there, I received lots of training and have come to

| understand the preparation and the work that goes into running this plant to make it safe and

| reliable. I also believe that nuclear power is a safe, clean alternative with low and no emissions.

|

| And also I would like to thank Mr. Sprague for bringing up the recycling using of fuel, I think

| that's a very positive way to handle that situation for the future. 

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Norman. 

|

| Okay, Ann Howes is stepping up to the microphone right now. 

|

| Ann Howes?

|

| MS. HOWES: I'm Ann Howes, I'm a resident of Brattleboro, I grew up outside of Detroit in

| Michigan and I've been in this area some portion of every year of my life. I think of energy or

| the generation of energy as a hidden art and I see it only in my dreams. I'm concerned for

| safety because I have, you know, found radioactive substance in day to day living with no

| personal connection to environmentally sensitive areas. That factor of felonious use of waste

| materials is something that is of I think paramount concern to the individual in our society, but

| the generation of energy is something that we correlate to personal betterment through warmer

| homes, and clean hot water and those factors of comfort and domestic maintenance.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-257 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

X-1

Y-1

When you come into Vermont, you have the opportunity to try the older forms of lifestyles that |

are wood burning stoves and a pedestrian lifestyle. I do have great worry about nuclear waste |

storage and I don't think that it's a money issue because it's not going to, it's not going to phase |

my life as a money issue, it's something to do. I don't think that it's, I don't think it's |

insurmountable to dismantle and I do think that this community would feel excited by |

transforming our engineering capability into a very large hydro electric community, starting with |

this project. |

|

We know we like electricity a lot and we know we have a water system that we can harness. |

Packing radioactive substance for infamy is a task we can do, I don't, I'm very selfish, I don't |

want to store it in this soft loam. I think I was convinced in the `70s that we were going to put it |

in a desert far, far from where we are living, but I'm most afraid of it being used against |

humanity in a kind of vengeance of psychological neglect. |

|

Those who work in the plant feel that it's safe, I think there are some members of the |

employment league who think that it would be exciting to shut it down, and clean it up and take |

it away, that we don't even think we had one, and to concurrently figure out how to generate the |

hydroelectric potential that we have to compensate our needs with probably a small interaction |

of just shutting off the highway lights and I guess, in the winter time, the ski resorts, which |

constrains your night behavior, and that's all I have to say. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Ann. Thank you. |

|

Bernie, Bernie Buteau? |

|

MR. BUTEAU: Good evening. My name is Bernie Buteau, I too work at Vermont Yankee, I've |

worked there for over 30 years, although I'm not as old as Mike, if Mike is still here. |

|

I think it is the people and I think that, as part of the process, you need to consider that and |

consider some of the things that you've heard from Vermont Yankee employees tonight, |

consider the mentality that has developed over the 30 years that I've been involved in the |

business. When I got my nuclear engineering degree way back when, I was very excited about |

nuclear power and remain so today, and I believe there will be a resurgence, there is a |

resurgence already going on across the globe, we just need to get on board here in the U.S., |

and Entergy is one of the companies that is pursuing new technology, ESBWR, looking at sites |

down in Mississippi. |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-258 August 2007

Y-2

Y-3

 Y-3

| One of the things I was thinking about and I guess I subconsciously dressed in all green tonight

| for a reason, and I've always considered myself to be concerned about the environment and I

| think that nuclear power is an overall positive contributor to the environment in that it does not 

| create gasses, global warming. The fuel that we have, you've heard people talk about it tonight,

| and they classify it as waste. Those that might have heard Dr. Moore speak last night, they said

| a very profound statement in that because of recycling, it's not waste at all.

|

| And we, as humans, have relatively short life spans on this planet and, over the course of time,

| our lives are very small, compared to the ecology itself, and I fully believe that the fuel that we

| are taking out of the reactor now that has not been used will be able to be used in the future in

| mixed oxide fuels and other ways that we may not even perceive right now. 

|

| I just want to say one thing about safety, and working in the nuclear power industry has had a

| very profound effect on me, and Bill Maguire spoke to you and told you a moment ago about

| how we start everything off with safety, and the safety moments and that type of thing.

|

| From my own personal perspective, when I'm at home, I think more about safety than I ever

| would have if I had not worked in the nuclear power industry. I go out to mow my lawn and go

| out, I have two acres of grass, so I go out to get my John Deere, I've got a little John Deere that

| I drive around in but, before I do that, I grab my leather gloves. People from Vermont Yankee

| are snickering, going oh, I've heard this before, but I grab my leather gloves, I grab my hearing

| protection, my eye protection, sometimes I'll put my steel-toed shoes on, which I have on now,

| but I have to admit not always.

|

| But it profoundly has effected the way that I do things in my own life and I know it has the same

| effect on the folks who work at Vermont Yankee and that innately permeates the culture that we

| have there that continues us to be able to operate the plant safely, to design new and different

| ways of operating the plant, the systems that we maintain that you've heard, the systems that

| we add to the site, everything is done with safety in mind. 

|

| So I think it is the people that has to be considered in the equation when we are looking at the

| environmental impact, it's the people, it's the people. Thank you.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Bernie.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: We are going to go to our next three speakers who are Jim Herrick, Larry

| Cummings and David Mannai. 

|

| Is Jim Herrick here? Okay, Jim?

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-259 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Z-1

Z-2

Z-3

MR. HERRICK: My name is Jim Herrick, I live in Marlboro, Vermont and, for those of you that |

might not be familiar with that town, it's a little area that Vermont Yankee's emergency |

evacuation map for years showed as a non-town. It was a little airbrushed white space sort of |

stuck to the side of Brattleboro. We are to the west of Brattleboro and the north of Halifax, and |

part of our town extends within the ten mile circle which is the evacuation zone. |

|

Because our town fathers, in their wisdom, decided that the evacuation plan was really bogus |

and was nothing more than a placebo to try to appease the demands of the citizenry, the |

nuclear power plant decided we just weren't there, and I've always used that as a sort of a |

pivotal point in my process of looking at the way the nuclear industry works. Because we didn't |

get shown on the map, we weren't there. Therefore, there was no problem. |

|

My remarks tonight are aimed at the NRC and directly really to them, mainly. I'm here tonight |

with a real feeling of embarrassment and shame. As a responsible adult member of this |

community, I am once again, by my presence, complicit in this process of charade, this circus of |

obfuscation, this shell game without end to which you, the NRC, write the rules. One simple |

clear question stands front and center and towering over these interminable Kafkaesqe theater |

sessions, would sensible, caring people choose to live with a massive, huge bomb in their midst |

which, should it ever explode, would destroy lives, homes, lands and the future of all for many |

generations? |

|

Of course the answer is a resounding no and yet, for 35 years, we have been manipulated and |

forced into accepting that very condition by you hired men of power who write the rules, mark |

the cards, set the time clock and, at the end of the day, pack up and ride far away to live |

comfortably distant from the consequences of your machinations. We live in a society that is so |

sensitized to danger that report of a knife on a schoolground or a screwdriver in an airport will |

shut down the entire system, yet the shockingly vulnerable spent fuel pool at Vermont Yankee, |

with enough potential radiation released to make uninhabitable this entire three-state region, |

sits within sight of two school systems, sits on the very banks of our only river system which |

carries an entire multistate watershed south to our neighbors, sits on the unstable tectonic fault |

line that once divided two separate continental land masses, and finally, sits at the very gateway |

to the economy of all points north, and as always, the NRC and the power industry finds this all |

acceptable. |

|

Sitting on my doorstep and considering the nuclear reactor and its endless spew of deadly |

radioactive waste, it is easy to enclose the scenario in one simple metaphor, that of some |

loathsome, hell sprung beast risen to paradise to sow ruination. As a logical pragmatist who |

loves and honors this paradise in which I live, my response is simple, shut it down, secure the |

waste, decommission it and never build another. But you, the NRC, the hired guns of a very |

profitable industry, don't view the issues from the same perspective and you bend your full |

energy towards making the beast ever bigger and giving it life without end. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-260 August 2007

Z-4

Z-5

AA-1

| To this purpose, you stifle my voice and power as a citizen by building a regulatory maze of ever

| shifting aisles with no attainable objective except your own. Where logic decrees a straight,

| continuous line of purpose that ends at shut it down, you, the NRC, break that line into an

| infinite number of points, each of which must be dealt with as a separate battle and each which

| must be fought in endless, tedious meetings and hearings that break the will and finances of

| committed individuals and groups who fight for a future of community, home, neighbor and child.

|

| Against all sanity, you have designed a glide path for this tired old reactor to increase its output

| in waste generation by 20 percent and extend its life for another 20 years. As has been the

| case over the past 35 years, our comments and concerns regarding issues will be voiced with

| absolute sincerity but have no choice, excuse me, have no chance of achieving amelioration of

| your predetermined result. The 670 page environmental impact statement will be absorbed into

| the dull grey labyrinth of your calculated process, calculated to render us powerless and useless

| against your total control of the outcome.

|

| When I recently read that the NRC had ruled that guarding against the threat of a terrorist air

| attack on the reactor was the responsibility of the Department of Defense, thus rendering

| Entergy as not accountable for efforts in that direction, I knew the shell game had been ramped

| up a few notches. Entergy cannot protect the exposed fuel pool against an air attack, the

| Department of Defense will not protect the fuel pool against an air attack, so the NRC states

| that the core containment structure is of a robust nature to withstand most air attacks and totally

| ignores the real danger of the spent fuel pool.

|

| I end up by just asking this rhetorical question, is there anything that could get you, the NRC, to

| care more about the many people whose lives and future your hold in the palm of your hand and

| less about the industry robber barons who own you as shield and armor? 

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you. 

|

| Larry Cummings?

|

| MR. CUMMINGS: Good evening. My name is Larry Cummings, I'm a employee at Vermont

| Yankee, I've been here for about two years and two months, but I've been in nuclear power for 

| a little over 20 years. And I would recommend that we extend the license of Vermont Yankee

| for another 20 years. 

|

| I want to share with you a couple of my experiences outside of nuclear power. In the late `70s, I

| was working in Southwestern Pennsylvania, I was actually working on a nuclear power plant
Appendix A

August 2007 A-261 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

AA-2

construction project, but I lived in a town that had three coal fired units, those units had 960-foot |

smokestacks so that they could deliver the sulfur dioxide and the coal dust to Vermont, New |

Hampshire and places like that. |

|

In 1996, I was living and working in Louisiana and I had an opportunity to go to work in the |

chemical industry. After about five months of witnessing the environmental and safety issues |

there, I decided that I should tuck my tail between my legs and go back to the safety of the |

nuclear power industry. Of course you don't know much about refineries, you just burn the oil |

and burn the gas and put the sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere without thinking about it, but if |

you witness it and see what's going on, you will appreciate the environmental friendliness of |

nuclear power. |

|

And I can assure you, as an employee of Vermont Yankee, that the people that work there are |

very, very dedicated to the safety and health of the environment and the people of this |

community. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. |

|

And, David, David Mannai? |

|

MR. MANNAI: Good evening. My name is Dave Mannai. |

|

First of all, I would like to let you know I'm a resident of Vermont, I live in Westminster West, |

which is located just west of Putney, it's an agricultural part of Windham County. I'm also the |

father of two children. About ten years ago, I moved to Vermont. I'm a native New Englander, |

originally a flatlander, and I wanted to live and raise a family in Vermont, I have two children, |

and I mentioned, and I wanted to live in the Green Mountain State because of the great things I |

can do here. |

|

I also happen to be a farmer and I raise sheep, I have about 30 acres of land out there and I'm |

in the process of turning it into certified organic pasture. I consider myself an environmentalist |

and also a good environmental steward of the farm and land that I own and operate. I have also |

been employed in the nuclear industry for the last 25 years in various capacities. Prior to |

moving to Vermont ten years ago, I was a resident inspector for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission at a couple plants that were not Vermont Yankee but were in Region I. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-262 August 2007

BB-1

BB-2

| In the last ten years at Vermont Yankee, I've had responsibility here in fuel cycle management,

| core design, core management, reactor engineering and some involvement with the dry fuel

| storage project that is presently ongoing. I understand and view the license renewal of Vermont

| Yankee from the perspective and insights as a local resident, a farmer, a former NRC regulator

| and that of a Vermont Yankee employee. Not many people here tonight can say they share that

| same vantage point and perspective. And from each and every one of those perspectives, I can

| only reach one conclusion and that's the license renewal for Vermont Yankee is the best

| environmentally sound choice to meet Vermont's energy needs, since it's safe, it's

| non-greenhouse gas emitting, it's clean, reliable, efficient and cost effective, and it's local, a

| source of vitally needed baseload supply of electricity.

|

| There has been mention here tonight the fuel is going to be recycled in our lifetimes, that's

| going to be happening, that will happen. Vermont Yankee has a strong, safe, high quality and

| reliable performance record over the last 35 years, it's a real testament to the men and women

| of Vermont Yankee and Entergy who are absolutely committed to both safety, and quality and

| continuous improvement, as was mentioned earlier this evening, that's who we are. 

|

| And since 1972, safe, clean, reliable operation of Vermont Yankee has prevented millions of

| greenhouse emissions, millions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon

| dioxide, from entering the Vermont environment.

|

| In conclusion, looking at Vermont's future energy needs and the impacts on our environment,

| there is no alternative that is more beneficial to both the environment and the ability to meet the

| energy demands of Vermont. When all the facts are considered, not just part of them, simply

| said, it's the green choice. 

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you. 

|

| We are going to go to Judy Miller, then Nick Caristo, then W.H. Schulze. Judy Miller? 

|

| Okay, Nick, Nick Caristo?

|

| MR. CARISTO: Good evening. My name is Nick Caristo and I've been employed at Vermont

| Yankee for the last 12 years. I came here from the State of Maine where I previously worked at

| Maine Yankee. I'm still a resident of the State of Maine and, since the closing of our nuclear

| power plant, my electric bill has increased 300 percent over the past ten years. We now receive

| two combined electric bills each month, one from Central Maine Power and the other one from

| Constellation Power Company which doesn't even reside in our state.
Appendix A

August 2007 A-263 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

CC-1

CC-2

CC-3

I'll give you a little history of what happened to Maine after the power plant was shut down, the |

nuclear power plant was shut down. Two gas power plants were built in Maine to replace the |

Maine Yankee's production of electricity, these two power plants cannot run on a routine basis |

because of the escalating costs of gas today, they only operate when the peak demands require |

their electricity, which costs a lot more than the regular price, so Maine Yankee now imports a |

majority of its electricity from surrounding states and Canada. |

|

I started my career in nuclear power in 1965, 42 years ago, I have a bachelors degree in |

radiological health, and working at Vermont Yankee for the past 12 years, it is my observation |

that its management and my coworkers, me included, their top priority is to operate the plant |

safely and efficiently. |

|

The citizens of the State of Vermont can be proud that they have the lowest per capita |

greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, I think that was hard work and it wasn't done |

overnight. The State of Vermont can be very proud of that rating and the culture at Vermont |

Yankee to operate safely directly contributes to this status of the lowest overall greenhouse |

emissions, we don't produce any. |

|

In addition, the efficient operation of Vermont Yankee also contributes to affordable electricity in |

Vermont. I ask you to learn from the mistake that the State of Maine has allowed to happen, |

closure of our nuclear power plant, which I believe has contributed to the escalating costs, |

300 percent, to the people of the State of Maine. And I haven't even mentioned what impact |

this has had on the economy which has not recovered in midcoast Maine as a result of the |

closure and the thousand people who were displaced because of the closure of the plant. |

|

I'm asking the people of Vermont and the NRC to maintain the State of Vermont's status as the |

lowest emission of greenhouse gasses per capita and to keep Vermont electric rates |

competitive, so I ask the NRC to continue and to approve, to approve the continued safe and |

efficient operation of Vermont Yankee. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Nick. Okay, great, we can put that in |

the transcript. |

|

We have W.H. Schulze and then we are going to go to, we are going to go to Dick Brigham and |

then we are going to go to Ida Belivet, and I'm sorry if I mispronounced that, and to Kent Belivet. |

And this is W.H. Schulze. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-264 August 2007

DD-1

| MR. SCHULZE: Representatives of the NRC, ladies and gentlemen, good evening. My name

| is William Schulze, 27 years ago this month I started work at Vermont Yankee in the operations

| department, I later transferred to the training department where I've worked for the last

| 11 years. 

|

| I came here for two reasons, Vermont Yankee had a good reputation as a well run plant and the

| State of Vermont seemed like the idea place to start and raise a family. I'm very proud to be

| part of a company that has provided safe, clean and reliable energy to Vermont for 35 years.

|

| A large reason why the Vermont environment is where it is today is because of our operation, it

| produces no acid rain or greenhouse gasses. In a year, a typical 1,000 megawatt coal fired

| plant emits 100,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 75,000 tons of nitrogen oxides and 5,000 tons of fly

ash into the environment. It also contributes large amounts of CO2 | to the global warming

| problem. Going forward in Vermont, we need to have a diverse mix of energy options for the

| good of the state and the people. Solar, wind power, hydro and nuclear should all play a role in

| Vermont's energy future. Extending Vermont Yankee's license is the smart thing to do both

| economically and environmentally. 

|

| For 27 years, I have been sincerely and graciously thankful for the opportunity to give my

| absolutely best to the State of Vermont and my coworkers at Vermont Yankee, it continues to

| be my pleasure and privilege to do so. 

|

| Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Dick? Dick Brigham? 

|

| For those of you who were with us this afternoon, I'm going through the people who have not

| had a chance to speak today, but we will get to Gary Sachs, and Sally Shaw and others. This is

| Dick Brigham.

|

| MR. BRIGHAM: First off, I would like to say to the workers at Vermont Yankee, we look at you

| as Simon and Peter, whether you are fishermen or whether you are not, we are all fishing for

| the right thing, that's not part of my testimony, particularly. My name is Dick Brigham, I'm here

| representing myself, my family and hundreds of Vermonters who could not be here, we are

| addressing the relicensing of Vermont Yankee. We complement the NRC and review board for

| doing a wonderful job, doing a wonderful job of playing charades. 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-265 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

EE-1

EE-2

EE-3

FF-1

Vermont has one if not the highest, one of if not the highest rates per capita of radioactive waste |

in the nation, maybe in the world. This radioactive poison is, as we all know, stored in an |

overfull, unprotected precarious place in our state. Obviously the NRC is wanting to relicense a |

dangerous old plant to add to an unsolvable problem. We have seen this same NRC fox |

guarding our hen house of health before. To those of you at the NRC wanting to add to an |

unsolvable problem, to relicense Vermont Yankee, it is past time your consciences, obviously |

based on tilted education and money, begin to kick in since, no matter how much electricity we |

produce, it will never be enough. |

|

What is essentially important for future life on earth is what poison we produce in making |

electricity. Obviously Vermont Yankee produces the worst type of poison that man can fathom, |

carbon in the atmosphere is nothing compared to radioactivity. All this talk of millions of dollars |

for the green fund is total manure compared to any small radioactive mishap or your |

grandchild's cancer. For the life of your grandchildren and the health of the world, we demand |

the NRC deny Vermont Yankee the relicensing permit. As we say in Vermont, smarten up, |

NRC, we all see through your charade. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Dick. Ida? |

|

And are you bringing Kent down with you? Okay, and if you could just give is the correct |

pronunciation of your last name? Belivet? Belivet, this is Ida Belivet and Kent. |

|

MR. BELIVET: Ida Belivet and Kent Belivet. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you. |

|

MS. BELIVET: Good night, everybody. I just wanted to come down and say that this isn't |

actually a public hearing at all, this is gigantic, steaming pile of shit. I'm tired of hearing a bunch |

of bureaucrats blowing hot air up each others asses, I'm not buying it. What I'm really here to |

talk about is my main concern which is the radioactive waste that will outdate this reactor by |

tens of thousands of years. I wanted to bring down a diagram of the kind of waste that I |

produce in this community, it's a bag of returnables. Trading recyclables for radioactive waste |

can't really compare, no one has ever died from exposure to returnables. I don't think Entergy |

can say the same for their waste. |

|

Despite this fact, I was not permitted to bring my bag of trash into this room, while that reactor |

continues to produce some of the most dangerous materials on this planet. I don't think there is |

any negotiation for relicensing before anyone can anything to say about what's going to happen |

with that waste. Thank you. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-266 August 2007

GG-1

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: And now we are going to hear from Kent.

|

| MR. BELIVET: Good evening, everybody. I, unlike my wife, am a proponent of nuclear power. 

| I would like to thank Chip, you are doing a great job tonight emceeing. I would like to thank Bill

| Maguire for coming up here, he said some wonderful things. Patrick Moore, I heard him earlier,

| star on performance. I liked what he had to say about green effects, and Rich and really the

| whole NRC, thanks for coming and putting us on. I'm glad and I hope we can get this

| relicensing to pass. 

|

| My favorite part of the PowerPoint was the four references to the small environmental impacts

| of nuclear power, I really liked that and that truly is what I appreciate most about nuclear power

| is its effect on the environment, and that's why I'm here tonight at this environmental impact

| study, hearing or whatever. 

|

| I'll get on with my comment here. 

|

| The things I look forward to with 20 more years of Vermont Yankee running here 15 miles from

| where I was born and raised are pretty exciting, I look forward to my children or perhaps my wife

| getting breast cancer, I look forward to the time when I can hug them and feel only one of their

| breasts up against my breast because the other has been removed because of a tumor

| because there is 88,300 cubic yards of radioactive waste stored on the Connecticut River.

|

| I look forward to my kids having Downs Syndrome and I look forward to this community growing

| in all its new and mutated ways. I look forward to spending a hard life with my father or perhaps

| my children as they die a slow death of prostate cancer. I look forward to swimming in a

| warmer Connecticut River. I look forward to my friends returning from the Iraq War with post

| traumatic stress syndrome and something unknown, something that's killing them that's caused

| by depleted uranium which comes from nuclear power. I'm really into that, I think that will be

| great to hang out with my friends as they die a slow and painful death.

|

| I'm looking forward to more wars, I'm looking forward to more waste reprocessing and more

| efficient smart weaponry, and increased infant mortality is something I can barely hide my

| excitement about. And finally, I look forward to a time when I can abandon my home, the place

| where I grew up, because of a nuclear accident or simply because too much waste has

| accumulated and the environment becomes unsuitable for human habitation. So thanks a lot

| and thanks for everyone for encouraging this relicensing, keep it up, NRC.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay, Kent. 
Appendix A

August 2007 A-267 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

HH-1

We're going to go to Roy Ramsdell, Brian Tietze, Karen Murphy and Gail Elnell. Is this Roy? |

All right. |

|

MR. RAMSDELL: Good evening. My name is Roy Ramsdell, I am an employee of Vermont |

Yankee. |

|

I want to thank the NRC for holding the hearings to talk where everybody in the community can |

get together and share their view. Not all views are the same, it's good to hear the differences |

and work out those differences. There is a lot of technology, a lot of data, a lot of number |

crunching that went into the study that the NRC is looking at, I would like to focus on the human |

face at Vermont Yankee. I have a human factors background, it's also what I think makes it at |

the end of the day is the people. |

|

We look at our community and a number of folks have acknowledged that it isn't the people we |

don't like, it's nuclear power. Well guess what? It's the people that run the nuclear power plant, |

it's the same people that are in the community, the same people that are teachers, the same |

people that lead scouting groups, the same ones that volunteer at the hospital or Rescue, Inc. |

These are the people that work at the power plant, they are not different than the other folks. |

The one thing they have in common is the common purpose to run that plant safely and keep it |

that way for another 20 years. |

|

They are in the fabric of this community, they are here to stay, they live in the three surrounding |

states and they are not going to endanger their homes because this is home. So, at the end of |

the day, we have all the technology and all the studies, but what we are really left with is the |

people and it's the people that run that and keep it safe. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: All right, thank you. Is Brian here? Brian? And then we are going to go to |

Karen Murphy, if she is still here, and Nina, Nina Keller who is definitely here. |

|

MR. TIETZE: Good evening, thank you. My name is Brian Tietze, I am an employee of |

Vermont Yankee and have been for 25 years. |

|

A lot of people have made a lot of comments and I'm not going to repeat it, I know some people |

think that we shouldn't talk about the people but I would like to talk about the people. In the |

25 years I've been with Vermont Yankee, I've been on a lot of different assignments, one of the |

ones I'm currently involved with is our donations committed. We work very hard, working in the |

tristate area, looking at all the people that need our help and we diligently review, and we go out |

and we help these people. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-268 August 2007

 II-1

 JJ-1

 JJ-2

 JJ-3

| Last year, we gave over $250,000 to the tristate area and a lot of it had environmental impact. A

| lot of the things we do are with scouts, with other organizations that are doing great things in the

| town. Without our finances, and our help and our employees, those initiatives wouldn't 

| happen, so I do encourage that you consider us with a licensed extension for the next 20 years

| so that we can continue to be an important player in the community and that we can show you,

| as we have, as I've listened to comments for over 10 years for every time we try to do

| something, that we just show you that we are doing better and better, I guarantee you the

| employees that I work with are dedicated to doing that.

|

| As was stated, we work safely, we are well controlled and we do want to be a part of your

| future. 

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Brian. And this is Karen.

|

| MS. MURPHY: Good evening. My name is Karen Murphy, I do not work at Vermont Yankee,

| I'm also not going to be giving my own comments tonight, I've been asked to read a document

| sent by Ray Shadis, he is a consultant for the New England Coalition, and I have agreed to do 

| that. I am not going to read the entire document but I do have a copy to submit. In the

| environmental scoping process, the New England Coalition raised new, significant and

| site-specific issues affected by license renewal which the NRC, in responding to scoping

| meeting comments, ignored, trivialized or otherwise failed to answer.

|

| The relevant comments are four in number, high radiation readings inside the Vernon

| elementary school have correlated by vector and occurrence with high radiation readings on

| certain fence line instruments. New England Coalition expressed our belief that these high

| radiation readings in the school because of high correlation by vector and occurrence with high

| TLD readings on the site fence line warrant investigation in order to determine if licensee off-site

| radiation dose estimates are correct and then to quantify the actual off-site radiation dosages as

| they would be effected by 20 years of additional operation at extended power uprate levels.

|

| Number two, in 2002 Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee amended its discharge permits to

| include water treatment with a new list of chemical additives including proprietary formulas of

| biocides, detergents, surfactants and anti-corrosives to be applied, along with chlorine and

| fluorine compounds. These toxins and otherwise harmful materials may be incorporated in

| cooling tower drift, these are droplets which are expelled laterally from the towers as spray

| which have been found to travel and deposit up to a mile from the plant. 

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-269 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

JJ-4

JJ-5

JJ-6

There has been no formal evaluation of the environmental and human health impact Vermont |

Yankee's cooling tower drift, which is site-specific with respect to the chemical mix, solution, |

periods of use, tower spray physical characteristics, characterization and susceptibility of |

effected biota, weather patterns, terrain, and characterization and location of potentially affected |

human populations. The impact of cooling tower drift over 20 additional years of operation at |

extended power uprate conditions must be quantified and verified prior to any assertions of no |

significant environmental impact for license renewal. |

|

Three. In the mid 1990s, Vermont Yankee applied for and received permission for outdoor |

on-site storage of up to 35 cubic yards of radiological contaminated soil per year, this soil is |

drawn from building excavations and from traction sand and salt that have been applied to and |

gather from VY roads during winter. In 2003, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee applied for and |

received permission for outdoor on-site storage of a one-time dump of approximately 300 cubic |

meters and an annual deposit of up to 150 cubic meters of radiological contaminated soil. |

|

This soil will be stored south of the cooling towers on what may be fairly characterized as the |

banks of the Connecticut River, VY irradiating 20 percent more uranium under increased flow |

turbulence will produce in excess of 20 percent additional low-level waste and contamination |

due to extended power uprate. NRC cannot credibly assert that this excess site contamination |

will remain within regulatory bounds with quantification and verification of potential radiological |

effects, as they may be aggravated by leeching, stratification, migration and bio accumulation. |

The presence of this low-level waste dump on the banks of the Connecticut is a new, since the |

original licensing and not included in any license amendments and it is site-specific, it should be |

considered in any license renewal evaluation. |

|

And number four, the NRC fails to consider the potential environmental effects of the spent fuel |

pool accident or major spent fuel pool radiological release as a result of an act of terror. |

NUREG-1738 characterizes potential impacts as up to 25,000 fatalities at a distance of up to |

500 miles and this presumes 95 percent early evacuation. The model plant chosen for this |

study referenced in NUREG-1738 was Millstone One, a plant very similar to VY, albeit in an |

area of high population density. NUREG-1738 also references seismic fragility of the Vermont |

Yankee spent fuel pool specifically. It also admits that BWR Mark 1 containments would |

present no substantial obstacle to aircraft penetration. |

|

Further, it admits that it is impossible to assign probability to acts of terror. This is new |

information and has yet not been considered for its VY site-specific references and implications. |

No credible assessment of potential accident consequences or mitigation at Vermont Yankee |

can be undertaken without including consideration of the information in NUREG-1738. |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-270 August 2007

KK-1

KK-2

| And last, New England Coalition's preceding comments, as presented during the June, 2006

| scoping meeting, are site-specific and present new and significant considerations. Although we

| can find no place in the regulations that specifies how comments taken on the draft part shall be

| considered and incorporated, New England Coalition now respectfully requests that the NRC

| staff give these comments individual evaluation for potential environmental impact before the

| license renewal process goes forward.

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you for putting that on the record, thank you for putting that on the

| record for us. 

|

| And this is Nina, Nina Keller.

|

| MS. KELLER: I'm Nina Keller and I live about 14 miles from the Vermont reactor. 

|

| I've been to many hearings before and usually the NRC is seated where we can see them, and

| tonight they are kind of dispersed into the crowd, and it makes me feel like some of our words

| are melting into a shroud of dark mist. I don't know exactly who I'm talking to, I didn't really

| come to talk to an audience. 

|

| So the NRC said, and it was on the slide show, that they really wanted to hear us, that that's

| part of their job, to listen to us responsibly, and yet, if the NRC is not listening to the Supreme

| Court of this nation, then how are we to believe that we are being respected? That we are

| being heard? I don't quite get it.

|

| The Supreme Court recently ruled, they ruled --. Are they not the highest court in the land? 

| They ruled that relicensing must include the consideration of terrorism, period, not for the NRC

| to then say, no. The Supreme Court ruled it so it must be included in the relicensing 

| consideration of Vermont Yankee, period. I also was somewhat stunned, actually disgusted to

| see a slide up there that said it would have a large impact to go alternative. Well they are

| comparing all kinds of interesting little financial tidbits but, if you read the papers, if you

| understand more about the reactor sitting right over there and it not creating greenhouse

| gasses, then you are forgetting the entire, the entirety of the nuclear process, the mining, the

| milling, the tailing, the reprocessing, the storage, the transportation, the transmission, the

| decommission and so on, and all the multi megawatts that are consumed in those processes,

| so don't tell me that nuclear is green.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-271 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

KK-3

KK-4

KK-5

LL-1

People think they are talking to idiots when they say things like that and we are no longer |

stupid, we are educated, we are reading more than what the NRC is professing, and it's an |

insult to talk to us like that. I proposed this before and someone mentioned it this evening, that |

the workers who are keeping us safe right now and doing as good a job as can be done at the |

reactor, that you be retrained as part of the shutting down of Vermont Yankee because I know |

it's going to be shut down, it's not going to be relicensed. |

|

So wake up all you people who came up here tonight and said you work at Vermont Yankee |

and you have masters degrees and whatever, the wonderful education and training you've had, |

wake up because you should not be put out of a job, you should be retrained, and you should |

start being your own advocates right now and make sure that Entergy, your bosses, your |

company who you are so loyal to, that they are going to retrain you and they are starting to look |

at that immediately. And it shouldn't be up to the alternative energy people to come up with jobs |

for you, we are going to work with you, but we need to hear that you are thinking about the |

future too because some people need it the way they want it. |

|

Well we have, the environmentalists haven't had it the way we want it, and the tide is turning |

and it's going to happen, and Vermont Yankee is shutting down. So terrorism must be included |

in the environmental impact statement and in relicensing, and there must be an independent |

safety assessment, there must be. |

|

Thanks. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Nina. |

|

We are going to go to Norm Redemacher, Clay Turnbull, Chuck Edwards, and then we are |

going to go to Gary Sachs and Sally Shaw. |

|

And this is Norm? All right. |

|

MR. REDEMACHER: Good evening. My name is Norm Redemacher, I'm an Entergy employee |

and we are here to talk about the environmental impact of Vermont Yankee. |

|

On balance, over the last 35 years, if you look at the current proposed environmental impact, it |

provides a strong report card for Vermont Yankee relative to being an environmental and |

economically sound unit. What other kind of facility operates for almost 35 years and still is |

considered by experts, both within the federal government, and local and state government, as |

an economically sound, safe and environmentally friendly source of electric power? In my |

opinion, we should renew the license for Vermont Yankee. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-272 August 2007

MM-1

MM-2

MM-3

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Norman. 

|

| And Clay? Clay Turnbull? 

|

| How about Chuck Edwards?

|

| MR. TURNBULL: Good evening. This is a great document, I wish I had time to read all of it

| front to back twice, but I've only had a chance to browse through it. I refuse to believe that we 

| can't do better, I refuse to believe that we have to stay on this same course that we've been on. 

| I'm still seeing way more lights on than we need and I see it in every aspect of our society, we

| are gluttonous consumers of energy in all of its different forms. Before any discussion of a

| license extension or relicensing, is it, can someone clarify is it relicense or license extension? Is

| it a whole new license or is it an extension?

|

| Well, whatever it is, before we have any additional discussion on that, I believe it's imperative

| that we have an independent safety assessment, just like they had in Maine. I'm very pleased

| to see that there are some senators in New York that are moving in that direction on the national

| level and I would think that any employee at Entergy would be pleased to see an independent

| safety assessment as well. 

|

| One concern I have is that, as I've heard employees speaking, there is a gentleman that spoke

| earlier who said he will be retiring in two years and two months, and that he thinks of Vermont 

| Yankee as his nuclear power plant. My concern is how many guys like him are retiring that are

| familiar with the idiosyncracies of that facility? I know how to drive my car, I know it might pull a

| little bit to the left because of the brakes up front, I know what to expect in operating that

| vehicle. The retiring folks are the ones that have that ingrained knowledge and they are

| leaving, and they are replaced by someone else who has been here for, you know, the fellow

| from Maine who has been here for I think 12 years, and that's a drop in the bucket.

|

| I would like to follow the course of Maine Yankee in several respects, one of having an

| independent safety assessment. The State of Maine right now is contemplating withdrawing

| from the ISO New England because they, I believe, considered, I believe the reason that they

| are considering withdrawing is they have their energy needs met in the state. We've heard

| some scare tactics about what's happening in Maine, perhaps the gentleman that spoke should

| buy his electricity from a renewable energy source, clean, safe, reliable, conservation, solar,

| wind, biomass.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-273 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

MM-4

NN-1

And I really would like to see some additional radiation monitoring. There was an incorrect, |

some discussion between the state, and Entergy and the NRC about whose numbers were |

accurate, and they haven't gone into, followed that in depth. I would like to see radiation |

monitors in a grid pattern throughout a ten mile radius of Vermont Yankee. |

|

That concludes my comments. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, thank you very much. |

|

Gary, Gary Sachs? |

|

MR. SACHS: My opinion, I'm Gary Sachs, a resident of Brattleboro, not affiliated, opposing |

Entergy and opposing relicensing, opposing Vermont Yankee. |

|

Hi, Dave. Your EIS is flawed and inadequate, I say that for starters. Vermont is the only state |

where there have been interveners both in the uprate case and the dry cask case, and I believe |

now in the license, relicensing case as well. |

|

Now I've got some concerns I want to raise here, I have a concern that the NRC accepted |

Entergy's recommendation that the spent fuel canisters be stored outside along the Connecticut |

River. A concern there has to do with I have a concern with the NRC's awareness that the |

proposed location is in a flood plain. I'm not sure how long the flood plain is, there is some |

variation there. I have concern regarding that such a location means that at least one every few |

hundred, five hundred, thousand more years, a flood is going to occur high enough to wash |

those 90 ton casks directly into the Connecticut River. Mathematically speaking, I have a |

concern whether or not the NRC has evaluated the fact that if those canisters stay there in the |

flood plain for 20 years, 50 years, there is a higher increased chance of that flood occurring |

and/or washing those casks into the Connecticut River. I'm certain the NRC is aware that that |

flood plain designation is based on historical meteorological data. |

|

I have a great concern that world renowned and credentialed meteorologists and environmental |

experts are now stating that global warming will undoubtedly change historical weather data, |

bigger storms occurring far more frequently than charted or anticipated. I certainly hope the |

NRC has done its due diligence and research to make sure that 1, 5, 10 casks, 90 tons a piece, |

50 feet away from the banks of the river, who knows when that next flood is coming? So the |

historical weather data is likely no longer accurate. |

|

I have a concern regarding the steps the NRC has taken to reevaluate the critical environmental |

data and its impact on the storage of the spent fuel at Vermont Yankee. I also question what |

environmental modeling data the NRC has used and is available for these utilities to use to |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-274 August 2007

NN-2

NN-3

NN-4

NN-5

NN-6

NN-7

| evaluate these upcoming environmental changes. I would love to know what regulations the

| NRC has put in place to ensure that all utilities are considering the new environmental issues of

| significant climate change in their evaluations and permits for long-term waste storage.

|

| What steps will the NRC take to assure that the new environmental modeling will be used to

| assure Vermont's citizens of protection from exposure to this new risk to this long-term storage

| which, since the beginning of the reactor has been temporary of course, the pool, the dry casks

| or "interim spent fuel storage installation"? What steps has the NRC taken to review these new

| hazardous waste measures with the States of Mass. and Connecticut, each of which would be

| severely impacted by the release of radioactive spent fuel into the Connecticut River?

|

| I have a concern regarding the terrorist issue regarding these spent fuel casks. I have 

| concerns for the lack of thermal syphoning ability when a 90 ton cask slides or turns over into 

| muddy, silty water, and I also have a great concern regarding the back 40 that was mentioned

| earlier, that low-level waste dump allowed once on the south side by the cooling towers, and

| how close it is to the water, given the potential for being near the flood plain. 

|

| So, in regard to the license extension, much of the recent talk of renaissance, rebirth, relapse, if

| you will, of the nuclear industry is based on the 2003 study by Moniz and Deutsch, MIT

| professors and former government people, Department of Energy was one of them, one of 

| them was the Director of Intelligence. And Moniz and Deutsch are these professors from MIT,

| were the professors who were the cosponsors of the 2003 future of nuclear power MIT white

| paper. They also, however, in the September, `06 edition of Scientific American, which was the

| future of nuclear, the future of energy, they stated in the Scientific American, September `06

| edition, that the current generation of nuclear reactors have a safe life span of 50 years. 

| Correct me if I'm wrong but Vermont Yankee Entergy is currently seeking a 60-year life span.

|

| No one in this room has a clue what the price of electricity will be if this license is renewed, so

| any talk of how great our electric rates have been, we have the cheapest electricity in the New

| England Region, I know that's been big news for Entergy this year or last year, excuse me. 

| None of us have a clue what we are going to get charged after 2012, if the license is allowed to

| be renewed or extended, and the same is true for who knows what the cost to the State of

| Vermont would be if the hydro energy, by the way, when the talk has been so great tonight on

| how we have the cleanest portfolio, I have heard nothing of the fact that one third of our energy

| comes from hydro electric.

|

| And I guess, to finish up, I would state that the public comment form provided for tonight's

| meeting by the NRC expired on 6/30/06 and, if you don't mind my saying, so too did Vermont's

| desire for nuclear power, it expired years ago. 

|

| Thank you.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-275 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

OO-1

OO-2

OO-3

OO-4

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Gary, thank you. Yeah, that's a good suggestion, thank you. |

Sally, do you have a --. |

|

MS. SHAW: I did speak earlier today, but I had to leave before I got to hear a lot of the other |

comments because I had to meet a school bus, so I am going to pick up where I left off. My |

comments are directly pertaining to the environmental impact statement, as that's what I thought |

this hearing was supposed to be about, and I talked earlier about new and significant |

information regarding epidemiological statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics at |

the CDC that indicate that death rates in Windham County are higher than they are in the other |

counties in the state during the period that Vermont Yankee has been operating. There are |

some questions about that, I'm not going to read the whole thing again. |

|

My second concern with the inadequacy and incompleteness of the supplemental environmental |

impact statement is the NRC's refusal to consider the environmental effects of an act of |

terrorism upon the spent fuel pool. I think this stance that the NRC is taking is not only |

tantamount to criminal negligence, it's silly, they know that it's only a matter of time before the |

Supreme Court or Congress catches up with them on this issue. Saying it's up to the military to |

protect nuclear facilities, which I read in the paper just a couple of days ago, that was |

supposedly a decision on the part of the Commissioners themselves, is irresponsible when |

there are technologies readily available today that could make these predeployed weapons of |

mass destruction, the vulnerable spent fuel pools, much safer, hardened on-site storage, for |

one. |

|

It's not clear to me why the nuclear industry, in fact that amounts to just five companies |

nationwide, there is no free market competition here. Why can't the nuclear industry use a little |

bit of the $12 billion corporate welfare package they were given in the Energy Act of 2005 to |

show us that they are responsible corporate citizens by stopping the overfilling of spent fuel |

pools and putting the fuel in hardened storage casks in bounds, far enough apart that they are |

not likely to bonk into each other in a terrorist attack, tip over and cause a cladding fire? Can't |

the NRC show some backbone and require the nuclear industry to use this money and do this? |

We have all said it before, it's really puzzling to understand who the NRC is really working for. |

|

I'm concerned also about the NRC's inability to grasp that the use of open cooling or once- |

through cooling is a violation of the Clean Water Act. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in |

Manhattan ruled Thursday, I think it was last week, that it was improper for the EPA to let power |

plants circumvent environmental laws. This decision was a rejection of EPA's refusal to adopt |

closed-cycle cooling as the best technology available. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-276 August 2007

OO-5

OO-6

OO-7

OO-8

| About half of the nation's power plants, these are both nuclear and fossil fuel plants, use the

| closed-cycle method which operates like a car radiator, reusing the same water and only

| requiring small amounts of new water to replace what is lost to evaporation. The system uses

| at least 95 percent less water than once-through systems, these systems draw from waterways

| and expel warmed water back into these waterways. It's only common sense that if a

| technology exists to minimize or mitigate the impacts on the natural environment that a

| responsible corporation would want to use them and a responsible regulatory agency would

| want to require that they use them. This may, again, be up to the courts to enforce and that's

| really sad, that's really sad because we are paying the salaries of these people who are refusing

| to regulate.

|

| A few more specific criticisms, you claim in the EIS that Vermont Yankee releases nearly no

| liquid effluents. In section 2.2.31, you reveal that Vermont Yankee has 11, and they are asking

| for a 12th, outfall pipes that release directly into the Connecticut River, one for cooling water

| and the others apparently from storm drains, but it's also apparent in your table in that section

| that there are no radiation limits and no monitoring requirements at most of the 11 outfalls. I

| think 9 of the 11 have no limits set and no monitoring.

|

| Just preceding the uprate application, Entergy was given permission to stockpile 150 cubic

| yards of radioactive soil per year on-site, that's about eight large dump truck loads per year

| dumped apparently in an unlined and uncovered location near the Connecticut River. These

| piles of radioactive dirt will be subject to erosion and over land flow, rain and snow melt tend to

| wash into the river. The storm drains are designed to collect over land flow but no monitoring is

| done on the storm drains, so how do we know that the effluent that discharges from these storm

| drains is within regulatory limits or that there is no environmental impact from it? That's one.

|

| Number two, septic sludge too hot to send to commercial septic haulers is also surface spread

| in three or four locations on the site. This is a site, by the way, that was deemed unsuitable for

| a low-level waste dump by an independent environmental review a number of years back, I

| think it was in the `80s. If you don't monitor the outflow pipes that collect storm drain run off

| from the site, how can the NRC claim in this supplemental environmental impact statement that

| there are no radioactive liquid effluents? They don't know.

|

| However, I did hear, in talking to Larry Krist and Carla White at the Vermont Department of

| Health, that Cobalt-60 and other radioisotopes have been found in Connecticut River sediments. 

| How do we know, if no monitoring is occurring, whether these effluents are from Vermont

| Yankee? On the section that talks about radiological impacts, section 2.2.7, the NRC says that

| the radiological monitoring plan, which they abbreviate as RUMP, REMP, for the last five years,

| indicates that radiation and radioactivity in the environmental medium monitored around the

| plant have been "well within regulatory limits" and the citation is an Entergy report.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-277 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

OO-9

PP-1

This is all that's really said here about this environmental monitoring and I just want to submit |

that Entergy is not independent and should be backed up by more credible independent |

sources. In addition, the regulatory limits are called into question by the biological effects of |

ionizing radiation BEIR 7 report and a number of other recent scientific studies, they are called |

into question because they are based on standard man and not the more vulnerable child, |

woman or fetus who are 30 to 50 percent more sensitive to the cancers and other biological |

effects of ionizing radiation. |

|

These regs are called into question because the risk factor for these carcinogens, both toxic |

and radioactive, which are emitted by nuclear power stations is far more lenient than for all other |

chemical carcinogens. Perhaps your review of radiation standards will finally change all that but |

I think, until the review is done, the environmental impact statement is incomplete and it is not |

investigating health impacts based on the numbers that it should be. Yeah, I can submit the |

rest in writing, it goes on for pages and pages. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. CAMERON: And how about Mr. Akin and then Howard Shaffer? |

|

MR. AKIN: I didn't plan to speak tonight, but I am Len Akin, a native Vermonter for 53 years, a |

licensed electrician by trade. I've worked up and down the Connecticut River Valley most of my |

working life, the last seven years have been at Entergy. |

|

Like I said, I am a licensed electrician, I don't need Entergy, I work there because I want to. |

And be assured of the point tonight what environmental impact means to me, over my life, back |

in the early `60s, `70s, a lot of talk about losing a national treasure, the bald eagle, to DDT, and |

I'd never seen one until I worked at Vermont Yankee. |

|

And my point tonight is every time I see a bald eagle flying over an intake structure, or cruising |

over our buildings or up the river fishing, I look around and I am proud to work at a company |

that I feel is green and that proves it by the wildlife around there. That's the only place in |

Vermont I have seen a bald eagle, and that's all I've got to say. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. SHAFFER: Thank you. |

|

Howard Shaffer from Enfield, New Hampshire, a retired nuclear engineer, I've consulted for the |

Brattleboro Select Board, and I am licensed in Vermont, and New Hampshire, and |

Massachusetts in Illinois in nuclear engineering as a professional engineer. We are here |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 A-278 August 2007

QQ-1

RR-1

| tonight as creatures of our congress, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, before them the 

| Atomic Energy Commission, all the environmental regulations. In 1954, Congress decided they

| were the decider, along with the president, that we ought to have nuclear power as part of

| national energy policy, before there was a Department of Energy.

|

| That has continued through every Congress, they have not changed the national policy, and it is

| the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's job to make sure that we carry out that policy in a safe

| fashion, it is not their job to decide we should not have nuclear power and to shut it down. If

| you want to do that, which is something that citizens can do and have had that kind of effect in

| the past, you need to convince a majority of congress and a super majority in the senate to

| block a filibuster and whoever is in the White House to change national energy policy.

|

| In that debate in Congress, should it take place, and I don't think that it will because there would

| be too many hard questions that would be asked about how can you guarantee that the

| alternative scenarios which are presented are going to take place? And what shall we do if

| these rosy alternatives which are presented don't take place on the schedule you have

| recommended? And why is it that you think that radiation from nuclear power plants is unsafe

| when it's a small part of the natural exposure we get from the environment and have before

| there ever was nuclear power?

|

| So, if you don't want nuclear power, start with Senator Sanders and just convince a majority of

| Congress and the White House to change national energy policy. 

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Howard. Is Harvey Schaktman still here? 

|

| Well then let's go to Claire, Claire Chang. Did you want to speak again, Claire? And Claire is

| our final speaker. You want one minute? Okay. Come on up and get on the mic so we can get

| you on the transcript, okay?

|

| MR. SHADIS: I've heard a lot of questionable facts and figures here tonight and they will 

| continue to be questionable, no doubt. Be that as it may, I took the opportunity to travel to the

| Ukraine and went on a tour of the now infamous exclusion zone. So, if any of you would care to

| get the full sensation of what the environmental impact of nuclear power is, take a little waltz

| around there, it's huge, it's global, it's absolutely terrifying. These people, it's not only the land

| that's been corrupted, they have been corrupted. They're entire genetic heritage has been

| given the short end of the stick, their children are deformed and will continue to be so.

|
Appendix A

August 2007 A-279 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

RR-1

(contd)

This is the risk, it's that simple. Yes, things are profitable, things are leaning this way or that |

way for where the energy is coming from and how comfortable you can live, but the true |

environmental impact inevitably and invariably is what you are seeing over there in Belarus and |

it in cities like Gomol in Pripyat, which is eerie. It was a, the people there too, the workers there, |

that was the flagship plant for them, that was the a number one, biggest, safest producer for the |

Soviets, and it ruined their empire and that's what you are flirting with here. |

|

So enjoy it while you can because, one of these days, you are all going to be regretting your |

adamancy for your position that it is safe, clean and reliable, it ain't. And some of that fall out |

came all the way around and dropped over here, more of it dropped in Western Europe than in |

Eastern Europe, that's why the European Union is so hot to get the thing wrapped up again |

before it blows again because it is going to. Once one of these puppies burns down, it doesn't |

stop burning down for a very long time. |

|

And I'm really happy to hear all the employees going on about how safe they are, that's good |

because that's your job and, God damn it, you'd better be safe because, without all that, you are |

risking hell on Earth. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause) |

|

MR. SHADIS: My name is John Shadis, I live in Westminster. Thank you. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, John. |

|

Thank you all for comments, and for courtesy and following ground rules. |

|

And I'm going to turn it over to Rani Franovich who is the chief of the environmental section to |

close the meeting out for us. |

|

[Presentation by Ms. Franovich] |
 
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

August 2007 B-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The supplement

was prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from

other NRC organizations and Argonne National Laboratory and Information Systems

Laboratories, Inc. |

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Rani Franovich Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief

Richard Emch Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

Jason Flemming Nuclear Reactor Regulation Hydrology

Nathan Goodman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ecology

Sam Hernandez Nuclear Reactor Regulation Cultural Resources; Alternatives |

Andrew Luu Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiation Protection

Michael Masnik Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ecology

Jessie Muir Nuclear Reactor Regulation Principal Project Support

Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Robert Schaaf Nuclear Reactor Regulation Socioeconomics

Andrew Stuyvenberg Nuclear Reactor Regulation Alternatives |

Scott Werts Nuclear Reactor Regulation Hydrology

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY(a)

David Miller Team Leader

Halil Avci Deputy Team Leader; Health Physics

Timothy Allison Socioeconomics

Vic Comello Technical Editor

Ronald Kolpa Meteorology; Air Quality

Kirk LaGory Terrestrial Ecology

William Metz Land Use

Ellen Moret Administrative Support

Daniel O’Rourke Cultural Resources; Alternatives

Terri Patton Hydrology

William Vinikour Aquatic Ecology

Patricia Weikersheimer Technical Editor

Konstance Wescott Cultural Resources; Alternatives

INFORMATION SYSTEMS LABORATORIES, INC.

Lauren Fleishman Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Robert Schmidt Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(a) Argonne National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by UChicago Argonne, LLC.

Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to the Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Application for License Renewal of

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

August 2007 C-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to the Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC 

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Application for License Renewal of 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy

Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), and other correspondence related to the NRC staff’s

environmental review, under Title 10, Part 51, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part

51), of Entergy’s application for renewal of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

(VYNPS) operating license. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary

information, have been placed in the Commission’s Public Document Room, at One White Flint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and are available electronically

from the Public Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following web address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC’s

Agencywide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides text and

image files of NRC’s public documents in the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of

ADAMS. The ADAMS accession numbers for each document are included below.

January 25, 2006 Letter from Entergy to NRC, forwarding the application for renewal of

the operating license for VYNPS, requesting an extension of the

operating license for an additional 20 years 

(Accession No. ML060300082).

January 31, 2006 Letter from NRC to Entergy, “Receipt and Availability of the License

Renewal Application for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station” 

(Accession No. ML060310684).

March 21, 2006 Letter from NRC to Entergy, transmitting “Determination of

Acceptability and Sufficiency for Docketing, Proposed Review

Schedule, and Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding the Application

from Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear

Operations, Inc. for Renewal of the Operating License for the Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Station” 

(Accession No. ML060800664).
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 C-2 August 2007

April 12, 2006 Letter from NRC to Entergy, forwarding the Federal Register “Notice

of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct

Scoping Process for License Renewal for the Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Station” (Accession No. ML061040142).

| May 5, 2006 Letter from NRC to Ms. Patricia A. Kurkul, National Marine Fisheries

| Service (NMFS), Northeast Regional Office, “Request for List of

Protected Species and Essential Fish Habitat Within the Area Under

Evaluation for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License

Renewal Application Review” (Accession No. ML061280184).

May 5, 2006 Letter from NRC to Mr. Marvin Moriarty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS), Northeast Regional Office, “Request for List of Protected

Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for the Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Review”

(Accession No. ML061280128).

May 8, 2006 Letter from NRC to Mr. Don L. Klima, Director, Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

License Renewal Application Review” (Accession No. ML061290255).

May 8, 2006 Letter from NRC to Ms. Jane Lendway, Vermont Historic Preservation

Officer, “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Renewal

Application Review” (Accession No. ML061300034).

May 10, 2006 Letter to The Honorable April St. Francis-Rushlow, Chief, Abenaki

Nation of Missisquoi, St. Francis/Sokoki Band, inviting participation in

the scoping process related to NRC’s environmental review of the

license renewal application for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Station (Accession No. ML061300680).

May 10, 2006 Letter to The Honorable Nelson Bolding, Chief, Boldwing Clan, inviting

participation in the scoping process related to NRC’s environmental

review of the license renewal application for Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Station (Accession No. ML061310133).

May 10, 2006 Letter to The Honorable Tom Eagle Rising Libby, Chief, Greater

Lowell Indian Cultural Association, inviting participation in the scoping

process related to NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal

application for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

(Accession No. ML061300677).
Appendix C

August 2007 C-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

May 10, 2006 Letter to The Honorable Paul Pouliot, Council Chief, Cowasuck

Band-Pennacook Abenaki People, inviting participation in the scoping

process related to NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal

application for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

(Accession No. ML061310144).

May 10, 2006 Letter to The Honorable Peter Newell, Council Chief, NH Intertribal

Native American Council, inviting participation in the scoping process

related to NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal

application for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

(Accession No. ML061310108).

May 10, 2006 Letter to The Honorable Charles True, Chief, Abenaki Nation of New

Hampshire, inviting participation in the scoping process related to

NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal application for

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

(Accession No. ML061300684).

May 10, 2006 Letter to Ms. Nancy Lyons, Ambassador, First Nation of New

Hampshire, inviting participation in the scoping process related to

NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal application for

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

(Accession No. ML061300480).

May 10, 2006 Letter to Mr. Steven Montembeault, President, Laconia Indian

Historical Association, inviting participation in the scoping process

related to NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal

application for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

(Accession No. ML061300282).

June 1, 2006 Letter to Entergy from NRC, “Request for Additional Information (RAI)

Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station” 

(Accession No. ML061520506).

July 11, 2006 “Summary of Public Scoping Meetings Conducted Related to the

Review of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Renewal

Application” (Accession No. ML061920495).
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 C-4 August 2007

| July 21, 2006 Letter from NRC to Mr. Marvin Moriarty, FWS, Northeast Regional

Office, “Amended Request for List of Protected Species Within the

Area Under Evaluation for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

| Station License Renewal Application Review” (Accession No.

ML062020755).

August 1, 2006 Letter from Entergy to NRC, “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) License Renewal

| Application, Amendment 7” (Accession No. ML062160079).

| August 10, 2006 Letter from FWS to Rani Franovich, NRC, regarding threatened and

| endangered species (Accession No. ML062370102).

| August 25, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC,

| “Appendix 3 to 316a Demonstration” (Accession No. ML062920340).

| September 15, 2006 Letter from NMFS to Rani Franovich, NRC, “Vermont Yankee Nuclear

| Power Station Renewal Application Review”

| (Accession No. ML063260338).

| September 18, 2006 E-mail from Bob West, FTN Associates, to Richard Emch, NRC,

“VYNPS ER - Supplemental Information Chestnut Hill 115-kV

| Transmission Line” (Accession No. ML062850144).

| September 18, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “Air

| Emissions Inventory Report for 2005 and MSDS for Nalco H-550”

| (Accession No. ML062850148).

September 19, 2006 Letter from Entergy to NRC, “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) License Renewal

| Application, Amendment 13” (Accession No. ML062680034).

| September 27, 2006 E-mail from Richard L. Emch, Jr., NRC to Michael Hamer, Entergy,

“Request for Clarification Regarding Responses to RAIs for Severe

Accident Mitigation Alternatives for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear

| Power Station (TAC No. MC9670)” (Accession No. ML062920434).

| September 30, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “VY 2005

| DMR’s” (Accession No. ML062910400).
Appendix C

August 2007 C-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

September 30, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “VY 2006 |

DMR’s to date” (Accession No. ML062920270). |

October 3, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “Waste |

Minimization Plan” (Accession No. ML062920265). |

October 3, 2006 E-mail from Jill Brochu, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “Figures 3-2 |

and 3-3 ER” (Accession No. ML062920352). |

October 3, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “Current |

Air Certification and Fishway Temperature Table form 2003 Annual

Report” (Accession No. ML062920385417). |

October 3, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “Cooling |

Tower Report for VY” (Accession No. ML062920423). |

October 3, 2006 E-mail from Rick Buckley, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, |

“Thermophilic Microorganisms” (Accession No. ML062920358). |

October 5, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “VY |

Cooling Tower Operation” (Accession No. ML062920372). |

October 5, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “VY Drift” |

(Accession No. ML062920377). |

October 5, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “Current |

IDP Permit” (Accession No. ML062920385). |

October 12, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, |

“Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River Vernon/Vermont

Report X” (Accession No. ML062920069). |

October 12, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “VY |

Annual Ecological reports from 1980's” (Accession No. |

ML062980249). |

October 12, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, |

“Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River Vernon,Vermont

Report 31” (Accession No. ML062920329). |
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 C-6 August 2007

| October 17, 2006 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC,

“Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River Vernon/Vermont

| Report XIV” (Accession No. ML062920075).

October 20, 2006 Letter from Entergy to NRC, “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) License Renewal

| Application, Amendment 18” (Accession No. ML062990155).

October 30, 2006 Letter from NRC to Entergy, “Issuance of Environmental Scoping

Summary Report Associated with the Staff’s Review of the Application

by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. For Renewal of the Operating

License for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (TAC NO.

| MC9670)” (Accession No. ML063030576).

October 30, 2006 Letter from NRC to Mr. John Fisk, Vermont Electric Power Company,

“Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application

| Review” (Accession No. ML062970318).

November 6, 2006 Letter from Entergy to NRC, “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) License Renewal

| Application, Amendment 21” (Accession No. ML063170080).

| December 5, 2006 E-mail from Mike Hamer, Entergy, to Johnathan Rowley and Richard

| Emch, NRC, “VY License Renewal Application Amendment 22”

| (Accession No. ML063420178).

| December 12, 2006 Letter from NRC to Ms. Patricia Kurkul, NMFS, Northeast Regional

| Office, “Request Initiation of an Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

| Regarding License Renewal of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

| Station (TAC No. MC9670)” (Accession No. ML063120067).

|

| December 13, 2006 Letter from NRC to Entergy, “Notice of Availability of the Draft Plant-

| Specific Supplement 30 to the Generic Environmental Impact

| Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Vermont

| Yankee Nuclear Power Station (TAC NO. MC9670)”

| (Accession No. ML063110007).

|

| December 13, 2006 Letter from NRC to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

| “Notice of Availability of the Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 30 to the

| Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
Appendix C

August 2007 C-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Nuclear Plants (GEIS) Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power |

Station” (Accession No. ML063120031). |

|

December 13, 2006 Letter from NRC to Ms. Jane Lendway, Vermont Historic Preservation |

Officer, “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Renewal |

Application Review (DHP NO. WD03-01)” |

(Accession No. ML063170344). |

|

January 4, 2007 Letter from Mr. Peter D. Colosi, Jr., NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, |

to Mr. P.T. Kuo, NRC, “Re: EFH Assessment for the Vermont Yankee |

Nuclear Power Station (TAC No. MC9670) License Renewal” |

(Accession No. ML070230041). |

|

January 25, 2007 E-mail from Representative Mike Mrowicki, Vermont House of |

Representatives, to Richard Emch, NRC, “NRC Mtg. In Montpelier” |

(Accession No. ML070530184). |

|

January 25, 2007 E-mail from Representative Robert Dostis, Vermont House of |

Representatives, to Richard Emch, NRC, “NRC Visit to Brattleboro” |

(Accession No. ML070530145). |

|

January 26, 2007 Letter from Senators Bernard Sanders and Patrick Leahy and |

United States Representative Peter Welch to NRC, requesting a |

public meeting on the Draft SEIS in Montpelier, VT” |

(Accession No. ML070310283). |

|

February 02, 2007 E-mail from Mr. Ricky Buckley, Entergy, to Jessie Muir, NRC, |

“Vermont Yankee Hazardous Waste Generation” (Accession No. |

ML070530187). |

|

February 13, 2007 Letter from NRC to The Honorable Patrick Leahy, United States |

Senate, The Honorable Bernard Sanders, United States Senate, and |

The Honorable Peter Welch, U.S. House of Representatives, |

responding to their request for a public briefing of the Vermont |

Legislature” (Accession No. ML 070400085). |

|

February 15, 2007 Letter from NRC to Ms. Emma Stamas, “Response to E-mail in |

Regards to the License Renewal Review of the Vermont Yankee |

Nuclear Power Station” (Accession No. ML070100108). |

|
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 C-8 August 2007

| February 27, 2007 NRC presentation for the Vermont Legislature. “Preliminary Results

| of Environmental Review, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station”

| (Accession No. ML070700003).

|

| March 2, 2007 Letter from Robert W. Varney, EPA, to NRC, “Generic Environmental

| Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,

| Supplement 30 Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,

| Draft Report for Comment, CEQ #20060521”

| (Accession No. ML070670187).

|

| March 05, 2007 E-mail from Richard Emch, NRC, to Senator Jeanette White

| “Information regarding SAMA Screening” (Accession No.

| ML070860297). 

|

| March 5, 2007 Letter from Senators Bernard Sanders and Patrick Leahy, and

| United States Representative Peter Welch to NRC, requesting a

| 30-day extension for public comment on the Draft SEIS”

| (Accession No. ML070650306).

|

| March 6, 2007 Letter from Andrew L. Raddant, U.S. Department of the Interior, to

| NRC, “NUREG 1437, Supplement 30, draft, Vermont Yankee Nuclear

| Power Station, Comments” (Accession No. ML070730154).

|

| March 7, 2007 Letter from Lee Perry, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department,

| “NUREG 1437, Supplement 30, draft, Vermont Yankee Nuclear

| Power Station, Comments” (Accession No. ML071130166).

|

| March 8, 2007 Letter from NRC to The Honorable Bernard Sanders, United States

| Senate, The Honorable Patrick Leahy, United States Senate, and The

| Honorable Peter Welch, U.S. House of Representatives, responding

| to their request for a 30-day extension for public comment on the Draft

| SEIS” (Accession No. ML 070660313).

|

| March 9, 2007 Letter from Catherine Gjessing, Vermont Agency of Natural

| Resources, to NRC, “Comments on the Draft GEIS for Vermont

| Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Renewal”

| (Accession No. ML070730207).

|

| March 16, 2007 Letter from Richard L. Emch, Jr., NRC, “Summary of Public Meetings

| on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

| Regarding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License
Appendix C

August 2007 C-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Renewal Review (TAC NO. MC9670)” |

(Accession No. ML070660383). |

|

March 22, 2007 Letter from Richard L. Emch, Jr., NRC, “Summary of Meeting with |

Members of Vermont State Legislature on the Draft Supplemental |

Environmental Impact Statement Regarding the Vermont Yankee |

Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Review (TAC NO. MC9670)” |

(Accession No. ML070720607). |

|

April 02, 2007 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, |

“Correspondence that you requested” (Accession Nos. ML070950498, |

ML070950500). |

|

April 06, 2007 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “FW: |

response” (Accession Nos. ML070990386, ML070990397). |

|

April 06, 2007 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “Vermont |

Yankee Question (cooling tower drift)” (Accession No. ML070990410). |

|

April 24, 2007 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “Current |

NPDES permit and fact sheet” (Accession No. ML071450108). |

|

May 1, 2007 Memorandum from Nathan Goodman, NRC, to Eric Benner, NRC, |

and Richard Emch, NRC, “Trip Report for Travel to Vermont, |

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire” (Accession No. ML070610180). |

|

May 07, 2007 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, |

“Additional Information as requested (salmon, shad impingement)” |

(Accession No. ML071500153). |

|

May 21, 2007 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “Nalco |

H550" (Accession No. ML071500496). |

|

May 24, 2007 Email from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “VY |

Proposal for Information Collection” (Accession No. ML071500503). |

|

July 10, 2007 Memorandum from Nathan Goodman, NRC, to Eric Benner, NRC, |

and Richard Emch, NRC, “Trip Report Summarizing May 29, 2007 |

Visit to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Regarding the |

License Renewal Environmental Review” |

(Accession No. ML071630370). |
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 C-10 August 2007

| July 10, 2007 E-mail from Lynn DeWald, Entergy, to Richard Emch, NRC, “2007 Air

| Emissions Certificate for VY” (Accession No. ML071920453)

|
Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

August 2007 D-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

During the course of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff’s independent review of

environmental impacts from operations during the renewal term, the following Federal, State,

regional, local, and Native American Tribal agencies were contacted:

Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi, St. Francis/Sokoki Band, Swanton, Vermont

Abenaki Nation of New Hampshire, Whitefield, New Hampshire

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Boldwing Clan, Goffstown, New Hampshire

Cheshire County, Keene, New Hampshire

Cowasuck Band-Pennacook Abenaki People, Forestdale, Massachusetts

First Nation of New Hampshire, Franconia, New Hampshire

Franklin Council of Governments, Greenfield, Massachusetts

Greater Lowell Indian Cultural Association, Lowell, Massachusetts

Laconia Indian Historical Association, Laconia, New Hampshire

National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, New Hampshire

New Hampshire Intertribal Native American Council, Laconia, New Hampshire

Town of Brattleboro, Brattleboro, Vermont

Town of Hinsdale, Hinsdale, New Hampshire

Town of Vernon, Vernon, Vermont

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts
Appendix D

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 D-2 August 2007

| U.S. Geological Survey, S.O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, Turners Falls,

| Massachusetts

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Waterbury Vermont

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Waterbury, Vermont

Vermont Department of Health, Division of Radiological Health, Burlington, Vermont

Vermont Division of Historic Preservation, Montpelier, Vermont

Vermont Fish and Wildlife Program, Waterbury, Vermont

Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Waterbury, Vermont

Vernon Schools, Brattleboro, Vermont

Windham Regional Commission, Brattleboro, Vermont
Appendix E

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy |

Nuclear Operations, Inc. Compliance Status 

and Consultation Correspondence
 
August 2007 E-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix E

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy |

Nuclear Operations, Inc. Compliance Status 

and Consultation Correspondence

Consultation correspondence related to the evaluation of the renewal of the operating license |

for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) is identified in Table E-1. Copies of the

correspondence are included at the end of this appendix.

The licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained from Federal and State |

authorities for VYNPS are listed in Table E-2.

Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence

Source Recipient Date of Letter

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (R.L. Franovich)

National Marine Fisheries Service |

(P. Kurkul)

May 5, 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (R.L. Franovich)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(M. Moriarty)

May 5, 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (R.L. Franovich)

Director, Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (D. Klima)

May 8, 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (R.L. Franovich)

Vermont State Historic Preservation Officer

(J. Lendway)

May 8, 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (R.L. Franovich)

Boldwing Clan (N. Bolding) May 10, 2006(a)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (R.L. Franovich)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(M. Moriarty)

July 21, 2006

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(M.J. Amaral)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(R.L. Franovich)

August 10,

2006

National Marine Fisheries Service |

(L.A. Chiarella)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(R.L. Franovich)

September 15,

2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission (P.T. Kuo) |

National Marine Fisheries Service (P. Kurkul) December 12,

2006 |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission (R.L. Franovich) |

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency December 13,

2006 |
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-2 August 2007

|

| Table E-1. (contd)

|

| Source Recipient Date of Letter

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

| Commission (R.L. Franovich)

Vermont State Historic Preservation Officer 

(J. Lendway)

December 13,

2006

| National Marine Fisheries Service

| (P.D. Colosi)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(P.T. Kuo)

January 4,

2007

| U.S. Environmental Protection

| Agency (R.W. Varney)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 2, 2007

| U.S. Department of the Interior

| (A.L. Raddant)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(M. Lesar)

March 6, 2007

(a) Similar letters were sent to seven other Native American Tribes listed in Appendix C.

| In the letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) dated May 5, 2006, the NRC

requested that the NMFS determine if any species needed to be evaluated under the essential

| fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

| Act for the VYNPS license renewal review. In the letter to the NRC dated September 15, 2006,

the NMFS indicated that the Connecticut River and tributaries are designated essential fish

habitat for Atlantic salmon; therefore, the NMFS instructed the NRC to evaluate the impact of

the operation of VYNPS on the essential fish habitat of the Atlantic salmon. The NRC staff’s

| assessment of impacts to essential fish habitat for the Atlantic salmon is included in this

| appendix for review by the NMFS. The draft SEIS, which included the EFH assessment, was

| submitted to the NMFS by letter dated December 12, 2006, requesting concurrence on the

| determination. The NMFS stated in a letter dated January 4, 2007, that it would be unable to

| undertake an EFH consultation for the VYNPS license renewal review.
Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other

Approvals for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiration

Date Remarks

NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license,

Vermont YankeeNuclear Power Station

DPR-28 04/09/72 03/21/12 Authorizes operation of the

VYNPS.

FWS Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act (16 USC 1536)

Consultation NA NA NA Requires a Federal agency to

consult with the FWS regardingwhether a proposed action willaffect endangered or threatenedspecies.

NMFS | Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act and EssentialFish Habitat

Consultation NA NA NA Requires a Federal agency to

consult with the NOAA fisheriesregarding whether a proposedaction will affect endangered orthreatened species and essentialfish habitat.

VermontDivision ofHistoricPreservation

Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act

Consultation NA NA NA The National Historic

Preservation Act requiresFederal agencies to take intoaccount the effect of anyundertaking on any district, site,building, structure, or object thatis included in or eligible forinclusion in the National Registerof Historic Places.

VDEC Section 112 of the Clean Air

Act

Air ContaminantSource RegistrationCertificate

WM2335 03/08/07 | 06/30/08 Operation of air emission

sources (diesel generators,boilers, and oil burners).

VDEC Section 402 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act

NPDES Permit VT0000264

(VDEC #3-1199)

09/28/04 | 03/31/06(a) Plant wastewater discharges to

Connecticut River.

 Appendix E

August 2007 E-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Table E-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiration

Date Remarks

VDEC Subtitle C of the Resource

Conservation and RecoveryAct

Hazardous WasteGenerator

VTR000504167 NA NA Hazardous waste generation.

VDEC Title 10 V.S.A., §1259 and

§1263

Indirect DischargePermit

ID-9-0036-2 12/14/05 09/30/10 Indirectly discharge treated

domestic sewage and otherwastes to the groundwater andindirectly into the ConnecticutRiver.

VDEC Title 10 V.S.A., §1671 and

§1675(b)

Public Water SystemPermit to Operate(Construction OfficeBuilding WaterSystem)

20559 05/21/02 05/21/08 Withdrawal of groundwater for

drinking and plant purposes.

VDEC Title 10 V.S.A., §1671 and

§1675(b)

Public Water SystemPermit to Operate(Main Plant WaterSystem)

8332 05/21/02 05/21/08 Withdrawal of groundwater for

drinking and plant purposes.

VDEC Title 10 V.S.A., §1671 and

§1263

Public Water SystemPermit to Operate(New EngineeringOffice Building WaterSystem)

20738 05/21/02 05/21/08 Withdrawal of groundwater for

drinking and plant purposes.

USACE Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act

Dredging Permit 200302129 10/15/02 10/15/07 Fill in of the Connecticut River in

conjunction with the maintenanceof security wires at the intakestructure.

VDEC RCRA-Subtitle 1 Underground Storage

Permit

806 10/01/04 10/01/09 Underground diesel and gasoline

storage.

VDEC Section 405 (d) and 40 CFR

503 of the Clean Water Act

Solid WasteManagement FacilityCertification

F9906-A1 12/03/04 09/30/09 Land application of septage.

DOT 49 CFR 107, Subpart G Hazardous Materials

Certificate ofRegistration

063003 006013LN

03/21/72 03/21/12 Radioactive and hazardous

materials shipments.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-4 August 2007

Appendix E
Table E-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiration

Date Remarks

CVDEM Title 44, Code of Virginia,

Chapter 3.3, Section 44-146.30

Application forRegistration toTransport HazardousRadioactive Materials

VY-S-123107 12/27/05 12/21/07 Transportation of radioactive

waste into the Commonwealth ofVirginia.

SCDHEC Act No. 429 of 1980, South

Carolina Radioactive WasteTransportation and DisposalAct

South CarolinaRadioactive WasteTransport Permit

0002-44-04-07 | 01/01/07 12/31/07 Transportation of radioactive

waste into the State of SouthCarolina.

TDEC Tennessee Department of

Environment andConservation Regulations

TennesseeRadioactive WasteLicense-for-Delivery

T-VT001-L07 | 11/20/06 12/31/07 Shipment of radioactive material

into Tennessee to adisposal/processing facility.

(a) Application pending.CFR = Code of Federal RegulationsCVDEM = Code of Virginia, Department of Emergency ManagementDOT = U.S. Department of TransportationFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNA = not applicableNMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service |

NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionRCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery ActSCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental ControlTDEC = Tennessee Department of Environment and ConservationUSACE = U.S. Army Corps of EngineersUSC = United States CodeVDEC = Vermont Department of Environmental ConservationVNNHP = Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage ProgramVYNPS = Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

August 2007 E-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 |

 Appendix E
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-6 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-8 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-10 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-12 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-14 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-16 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-18 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-20 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

 
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-22 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-24 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-26 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-28 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-30 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-32 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-34 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-36 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-38 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-40 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-42 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-44 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-46 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-48 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-50 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-52 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-54 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-56 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-58 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-60 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-62 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-64 August 2007
Appendix E

August 2007 E-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30
 
Appendix E

August 2007 E-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT

FOR PROPOSED RENEWAL OF THE 

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER

STATION OPERATING LICENSE
 
Appendix E

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

August 2007 E-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), which was

reauthorized and amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, sets forth the essential

fish habitat (EFH) provisions designed to protect important habitats of Federally managed

marine and anadromous species. The Act requires the eight regional fishery management

councils to describe and identify EFH, and to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH. 

Pursuant to the Act, Congress has defined EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to

fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” Federal agencies that fund, permit,

or undertake activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and

respond in writing to NMFS’s conservation recommendations. For the purpose of consultation,

an adverse effect includes any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. The

consultation document must include the following information:

C A description of the proposed action;

C An analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH and the managed

species;

C The Federal agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and

C Proposed mitigation, if applicable.

On January 25, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,

Inc. (Entergy), submitted an application for renewal of the operating license (OL) of the Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

(Energy 2006a). The current OL expires at midnight on March 21, 2012. As part of the

application, Entergy submitted an Environmental Report (ER) (Entergy 2006b) prepared in

accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Part 51, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10

CFR Part 51).

On April 21, 2006, the NRC staff published a Notice of Intent (NRC 2006a) to prepare a plantspecific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996,1999).(a) During the development of the Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the NRC staff visited the site, visited the Conte

Anadromous Fish Lab, met with members of Federal and State regulatory agencies, spoke to

local citizens, interviewed individuals who had conducted environmental research in the
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-70 August 2007

Connecticut River, and reviewed a variety of technical reports, journal articles, and other

relevant information to determine whether renewal would result in adverse environmental

impacts. This information and other sources relevant to EFH issues were consulted during the

development of this document. This EFH assessment has been developed to fulfill the NRC

requirement under the MSFCMA for the VYNPS license renewal review.

2.0 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OL for VYNPS, a nuclear power plant that is

located in southeastern Vermont in the town of Vernon, Windham County, on the western shore

of the Connecticut River at River Mile (RM) 142. VYNPS is a single-unit plant with a boiling

water reactor manufactured by General Electric. The unit was originally licensed for a reactor

core power of 1593 megawatts-thermal (MW[t]), with a net electrical capacity of 540 megawattselectric (MW[e]). VYNPS submitted, and the NRC approved, a power uprate to increase the

maximum core power level to 1912 MW(t) on March 2, 2006. The gross electrical output at this

core power level would be approximately 650 MW(e). The Connecticut River is the source for

cooling water for the main condensers at the VYNPS. Cooling river water can be circulated

through the system in one of three modes of operation: closed-cycle, open-cycle (also referred

to as once-through cooling), or hybrid-cycle. Cooling towers are used when the plant operates

in closed- or hybrid-cycle modes. The current OL for VYNPS expires on March 21, 2012. On

January 25, 2006, Entergy submitted an application (Entergy 2006a) to the NRC to renew the

OL for an additional 20 years of operation (i.e., until March 21, 2032). 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

VYNPS is located in southeastern Vermont, approximately 5 mi southeast of Brattleboro,

Vermont and 28 mi north of Amherst, Massachusetts (Figure 1). The plant site is located on the

western shore of the Connecticut River (Figure 2). VYNPS is located 0.75 mi upstream of the

Vernon Dam, which is located at RM 142 (Figure 3). Two other dams, Turners Falls (RM 123)

and Holyoke (RM 86) are also downstream of VYNPS on the main stem of the Connecticut

River. The area upstream of Vernon Dam is known as Vernon Pool. Vernon Pool covers 2250

acres (at full-pond elevation of 220.13 ft behind the Vernon Dam) and extends upstream to

Bellows Falls Dam at RM 174. Maximum water depth at Vernon Dam is 40 ft (Entergy 2006b). 

The Connecticut River near Vernon Dam is about 0.5 mi wide (AEC 1972). The minimum

sustained flow from the Vernon Dam is 1250 cfs, or the inflow, if river flow is less than this. 

Average daily flow is about 10,500 cfs with an average annual flow of 3.3 x 1011 ft3

 (Entergy

2006b). During 2004, the lowest daily river discharge at Vernon Dam was 1757 cfs and the

highest was 50,618 cfs. Monthly flow rate averages from 6347 cfs in August to 23,570 cfs in

April (Normandeau 2005).
Appendix E

August 2007 E-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Figure 1. Location of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 50-mi Region

(Source: Entergy 2006b)
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-72 August 2007

Figure 2. Location of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 

6-mi Region (Source: Entergy 2006b)
Appendix E

August 2007 E-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Figure 3. Location of Vernon Dam and River Monitoring Stations 3 and 7

Relevant to VYNPS (Source: Entergy 2006b)
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-74 August 2007

Yearly ambient water temperatures in the vicinity of VYNPS vary from 32 to 84EF with daily

variations rarely exceeding 2EF (Entergy 2006b). During 2004, the monthly average daily river

temperature upstream of VYNPS ranged from a low of 32.5EF in February to 72.7EF in July.

The lowest daily river temperature was 32.4EF on February 22, 2004 while the highest daily

river temperature was 76.4EF on August 5, 2004 (Normandeau 2005).

A number of physical and chemical stresses have caused major changes and modifications to

the aquatic resources within the Connecticut River. The major industrial use of the river is the

12 hydroelectric dams (9 are upstream of VYNPS) and 4 storage dams (3 are upstream of

VYNPS) located on the mainstream of the river. Vernon Dam creates a lentic (lake-like)

condition above the dam and a lotic (flowing) condition below the dam. A fishway was

constructed at Vernon Dam in 1981. Prior to that time, the dam was a barrier to fish movement. 

The fishway is a concrete structure that consists of a vertical slot ladder from the tailrace to a

fish trap and viewing gallery. An Ice Harbor-style ladder provides passage from there to Vernon

Pool. The fishway is supplied with a flow of 65 cfs while it operates. An attraction flow of 40 cfs

is also discharged near the foot of the ladder (Normandeau 2004a). A downstream fish conduit

was first operated in 1991 (Normandeau 2004a). The primary downstream conduit, located in

the center of the powerhouse, has a 350-cfs bypass flow through a 9-ft by 6-ft gate and tube

that narrows to a 4-ft by 5-ft opening at its discharge end. An alternative or supplemental pipe

that supplies the 40 cfs attraction flow at the foot of the fishway was converted to a “fish pipe” in

1994 for additional downstream passage of fish (Normandeau 2004a). Both warmwater and

coolwater fish exist upstream and downstream of Vernon Dam. Fish are routinely sampled

upstream and downstream of Vernon Dam as part of the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit monitoring requirements (VANR 2006).

4.0 PLANT COOLING WATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The Connecticut River is the source for cooling water for the main condensers at the VYNPS. 

Cooling river water can be circulated through the system in one of three modes of operation:

closed-cycle, open-cycle (also referred to as once-through cooling), or hybrid-cycle. Cooling

towers are used when the plant operates in closed- or hybrid-cycle modes. Unless otherwise

noted, the discussion of the circulating-water system was obtained from the Final Environmental

Statement for VYNPS operations (AEC 1972) and the applicant’s ER (Entergy 2006b,c).

In all three modes, the circulating water exits the condenser and flows into the discharge

structure. In the open-cycle mode, after entering the discharge structure the water returns to

the river through an aerating structure. The cooling towers are not used in the open-cycle mode

of operation. In both the closed-cycle and hybrid cycle, after entering the discharge structure,

the circulating water is pumped up to the cooling towers. After being cooled, the water returns

to a weir collection chamber in the discharge structure. A gate inside this chamber allows all or

a portion of the water to return to the intake structure. In the closed-cycle mode all of the tower

cooled water is returned to the intake structure for re-use in the condenser. In the hybrid cycle
Appendix E

August 2007 E-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

mode of operation a portion of the water returns to the intake structure while the remainder is

returned to the river through the aerating structure. The exact amount of water returned to both

the intake structure and the river in hybrid mode depends on seasonal variation in

environmental parameters, particularly the temperature in the Connecticut River. Blowdown

from the circulating water system is discharged to the river through piping near the discharge

structure. Make-up water lost from blowdown and evaporation from the cooling towers is

withdrawn from the river. VYNPS has two mechanical draft cooling towers, one of which has a

deep basin holding 1.4 million gal of water for emergency cooling (VDEC 2003, VDEC 2006a,

Entergy 2004). 

The concrete intake structure has three pump bays for three circulating pumps and two service

water bays for four service water pumps and two fire water pumps. All bays are provided with

trash racks and traveling water screens to remove debris in the intake water. Water treatment

equipment at the intake structure delivers biocides to both the circulating water and service

water pump bays to minimize biofouling of the system. Corrosive control agents and chemicals

to adjust pH are also added (Entergy 2004).

Cooling water for the main condensers is drawn from the Connecticut River using three vertical

circulating water pumps, which provide a total maximum flow capacity of 360,000 gpm (802 cfs)

(during once-through operation) and a minimum of 10,000 gpm (22 cfs) (during closed-cycle

operation). Approach velocities at the intake trash racks are about 1.2 ft/s at a low water level

of 215 ft mean sea level (MSL) and 1.0 ft/s for the normal water level of 220 ft MSL, while intake

velocities at the traveling screens are 1.96 ft/s for an extreme low water level of 212 ft MSL,

1.73 ft/s for a low water level of 215 ft MSL, and 1.57 ft/s for a normal water level of 220 ft MSL. 

Water is also drawn from the river for the plant’s service water system, which provides water for

turbine and reactor auxiliary equipment cooling, reactor shutdown cooling, and miscellaneous

services. Four vertical, two-stage, turbine-like pumps, located at the north end of the intake

structure, supply water to the service water system, providing a total flow capacity of 13,400

gpm. Additionally, two pumps with a total flow capacity of 5000 gpm, which are operated

infrequently, are located at the north end of the intake structure to withdraw water from the river

for fire protection (Entergy 2006b).

Cooling water discharge to the Connecticut River flows through an aerating discharge structure

located near the riverbank. The structure is about 199 ft long by 108 ft wide by 46 ft deep. An

aerating spillway, consisting of three rows of dissipating concrete blocks with approximately

nine blocks per row, is adjacent to and downstream of the discharge structure. It provides air

entrainment, energy dissipation, and warm water dispersion of the discharged cooling water. 

Sheet piling is used to prevent scouring of the aerating apron (Entergy 2004). NPDES-permit

established limitations for circulating water discharges are 543 million gpd for open- and hybridcycle modes and 12.1 million gpd for the closed-cycle mode (NRC 2006c).
Appendix E

(a) The Environmental Advisory Committee has an advisory function that reviews and evaluates the

aquatic environmental monitoring and studies program at VYNPS. It also defines specific objective

investigations for Entergy to complete.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-76 August 2007

5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PLANT OPERATION

ON BIOTA AND HABITAT

The cooling water system associated with VYNPS utilizes water from the Connecticut River and

may potentially affect EFH in the following ways:

C Impingement of juvenile and adults life stages and/or their larger prey items;

C Entrainment of eggs and larvae and/or planktonic prey items;

C Withdrawal of water from the water column; and

C Discharge of heated cooling water.

These impacts are discussed in this section.

5.1 IMPINGEMENT

As part of its NPDES permit requirements, Entergy is required to monitor fish impingement at

VYNPS. Routine impingement sampling is conducted from April 1 through June 15 and from

August 1 through October 31. Limits are established for the number of Atlantic salmon (Salmo

salar) and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) that can be impinged. The impingement limit for

Atlantic salmon is set at 0.1 percent of the estimated smolt-equivalents (estimated number of

smolts from a population that successfully emigrate from a specified area) migrating past

VYNPS. If the limit is exceeded, the plant must run in a closed-cycle mode until June 15.

American shad impingement limit is set at one impinged shad for each adult shad that passes

the Vernon Dam fishway and/or is transported by State or Federal fisheries personnel upstream

of Vernon Dam (Aquatec 1990). Impingement numbers below those established for the two

anadromous fish species are considered by the Environmental Advisory Committee(a)

(comprised of representatives from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation,

Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, New Hampshire Department of Environmental

Services, New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) Coordinator of the Connecticut River Anadromous Fish Program) to be

impingement losses that are not adverse to the populations of these species (Entergy 2006a). 

To date, the NPDES permit limits established for these species have not been exceeded.
Appendix E

August 2007 E-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

During the initial FWPCA Section 316 Demonstration (Aquatec 1978), an average of 23 fish per

day was impinged during 685 days of once-through operation. The Turners Falls and Vernon

Dam fishways were not in place until the early 1980s therefore, no Atlantic salmon or American

shad were impinged prior to this period (Aquatec 1990). During the impingement sampling

periods of the 1980s, an average of 26 fish were impinged per day (Aquatec 1990). Over 80

percent were small sunfish, rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), minnows, and yellow perch

(Perca flavescens). During the 1980s, 59 juvenile Atlantic salmon and one American shad

were impinged (Aquatec 1990).

Table 1 presents some results of impingement collections that have been made at VYNPS since

1988. Impingement collections at VYNPS are generally made from April 1 through June 15 and

August 1 through October 31 each year, as dictated by NPDES permit stipulations. In general,

the common warmwater residents within Vernon Pool were predominant in impingement

collections. These included sunfish, rock bass, and yellow perch. The numbers of American

shad and Atlantic salmon impinged at VYNPS were lower than the yearly NPDES permit limits

set for these species. For example, the permit limits were set at 1666 American shad and 231

Atlantic salmon, but only 25 American shad and 9 Atlantic salmon were impinged in 2001

(VYNPS and Normandeau 2002). In 2003, 13 American shad and 28 Atlantic salmon were

impinged, while the permit limits for that year were set at 1140 and 364, respectively (Entergy

and Normandeau 2004). In 2004, 73 American shad and no Atlantic salmon were impinged; the

NPDES permit impingement limits for 2004 were set at 1005 American shad and 252 Atlantic

salmon (Normandeau 2005).

Based on riverine and impingement collections of resident and anadromous fish that have been

ongoing since VYNPS began withdrawing water from Vernon Pool, no observable adverse

impacts to any fish species or to the overall fish community due to the operation of VYNPS has

been demonstrated (Aquatec 1978, 1990; Normandeau 2004a, 2005; Entergy 2006b). 

5.2 ENTRAINMENT

Entrained fish eggs and larvae experience thermal stress and mechanical and hydraulic forces

during transport through a plant’s cooling system. In a study of the Haddam Neck Plant, a

nuclear plant with once-through cooling that formerly operated on the lower Connecticut River,

Marcy (2004c (1976c) and references cited therein) found mechanical damage to be the main

cause of entrainment mortality, while thermal shock was responsible for only about 20 percent 

Table 1. Percentages (and Numbers) of Fish Species

Impinged at VYNPS(a)

Collection Period

Species

1988 and

1990-1997 2001 2003 2004
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-78 August 2007

Sea lamprey

(Petromyzon marinus)

0.9 (130)(b) 34.4 (241) 0.2 (2) 0.0 (0)

American shad

(Alosa sapidissima)

2.6 (387) 3.6 (25) 1.1 (13) 30.8 (73)

Atlantic salmon

(Salmo salar)

1.4 (202) 1.3 (9) 2.5 (28) 0.0 (0)

Chain pickerel

(Esox niger)

0.2 (31) 0.4 (3) 1.0 (11) 0.8 (2)

Golden shiner

(Notemigonus crysoleucas)

1.1 (161) 2.1 (15) 0.6 (7) 0.4 (1)

Spottail shiner

(Notropis hudsonius)

7.7 (1139) 0.3 (2) 0.8 (9) 2.1 (5)

Yellow bullhead

(Ameiurus natalis)

1.5 (227) 0.0 (0) 3.4 (39) 0.4 (1)

Rock bass

(Ambloplites rupestris)

10.8 (1599) 4.7 (33) 9.5 (108) 9.7 (23)

Pumpkinseed

(Lepomis gibbosus)

5.8 (853) 1.7 (12) 14.2 (162) 2.5 (6)

Bluegill

(Lepomis macrochirus)

19.9 (2937) 28.7 (201) 32.6 (372) 28.3 (67)

Unidentified sunfish

(Lepomis spp.)

20.1 (2967) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)

Smallmouth bass

(Micropterus dolomieu)

1.9 (279) 1.0 (7) 2.4 (27) 3.8 (9)

Largemouth bass

(Micropterus salmoides)

0.9 (134) 0.6 (4) 5.1 (58) 1.3 (3)

Black crappie

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus)

0.01 (1) 1.7 (12) 11.0 (126) 4.2 (10)

Yellow perch

(Perca flavescens)

15.2 (2247) 18.3 (128) 15.0 (171) 8.4 (20)

Other species

(including unidentifiable fishes)

28.3 (4184) 1.1 (8) 0.8 (9) 7.2 (17)

Totals 100 (14,778) 100 (700) 100 (1142) 100 (237)

(a) Data presented represent a portion of the impingement data collected at this facility.

(b) The percent of the total number of fish followed by the total number of fish impinged in parantheses 

 for each species during the collection period. 

Sources: Normandeau 1999; VYNPS and Normandeau 2002; Entergy and Normandeau 2004;

Normandeau 2005.

of the mortality. While some entrainment survival occurs, 100 percent mortality is normally

assumed as a conservative estimate of entrainment losses for all operational modes. When

ichthyoplankton are at their peak in the Connecticut River (e.g., late spring through early

summer), VYNPS is generally operating in an open-cycle or hybrid mode. The NPDES permit

requires larval fish sampling to be done weekly during this period (Normandeau 2005).
Appendix E

August 2007 E-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

The portion of Vernon Pool near VYNPS was found not to be a good fish spawning area due to

daily water level fluctuations, a steep shoreline, and a silty sand substrate. Therefore, the

amount of ichthyoplankton entrained in the area would be expected to be limited. Overall,

densities of ichthyoplankton near the VYNPS intake were <1 fish/m3

, which were much lower

than densities in littoral areas estimated by Aquatec (1990). For example, minnow densities

near the VYNPS intake were <0.6 larvae/m3

, whereas densities in shallow, slow-moving

nearshore areas were as high as 3000/m3

 (Aquatec 1990). Monitoring results indicate that

larval fish densities are low in the VYNPS area and the impact of entrainment has been minimal

(Entergy 2006a).

Table 2 presents some of the results of entrainment collections that have been made in the

Connecticut River in the vicinity of the VYNPS intake since 1988. Entrainment collections at

VYNPS are generally made from early May through early to mid July each year, as dictated by

the NPDES permit. In general, the common warmwater species that are resident within Vernon

Pool were predominant in entrainment collections. These included the spottail shiner (Notropis

hudsonius), white perch (Morone americana), and centrarchids. No Atlantic salmon has been

collected in entrainment samples, and one American shad has been collected in entrainment

samples. 

5.3 THERMAL RELEASES

The discharge of heated water from VYNPS creates elevated temperatures in the Connecticut

River and produces a thermal plume that varies in extent and magnitude based on operational

characteristics of the plant, ambient air and water temperatures, and hydrodynamic

characteristics of the river. The maximum discharge flow temperature for VYNPS is 100EF,

although this seldom occurs (Normadeau 2004a). Thermal discharges have the potential to

affect food web dynamics, alter fish behavior, or produce acute or chronic impacts on

temperature-sensitive species.

5.3.1 Temperature Requirements under the Current NPDES Permit 

The current NPDES permit (VDEC 2003) defines two seasonal periods (winter, from October 15

through May 15; and summer, from May 16 through October 14) and sets limits for the increase

in temperatures at River Monitoring Station 3, less than a mile downstream of Vernon Dam

(Figure 3). These are presented in detail in Table 3.

Table 2. Percentages (and Numbers) of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Species 

 Entrained at VYNPS
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-80 August 2007

Species

Collection Period

1988 and

1990-1997 2001 2003 2004

Common carp

(Cyprinus carpio)

0.3(a) (18) 0.2 (3) 2.2 (27) 0.5 (5)

Spottail shiner

(Notropis hudsonius)

0.03 (2) 57.9 (978) 71.6 (875) 25.4 (269)

Notropis spp. 49.6(b) (2850) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)

Cyprinidae 13.7(b) (788) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)

White sucker

(Catostomus commersoni)

0.02 (1) 37.9 (640) 0.2 (2) 1.0 (11)

White perch

(Morone americana)

20.7 (1191) 1.8 (31) 14.6 (178) 3.4 (36)

Sunfish

(Lepomis spp.)

10.9 (628) 1.8(c) (31) 8.2(c) (100) 68.7 (726)

Largemouth bass

(Micropterus salmoides)

0.07 (4) 0.0(d) (0) 0.0(d) (0) 0.0 (0)

Yellow perch

(Perca flavescens)

4.2 (244) 0.1 (2) 3.2 (39) 0.5 (5)

Walleye

(Sander vitreus)

0.14 (8) 0.1 (2) 0.1 (1) 0.2 (2)

Other species

(including unidentifiable fishes)

0.1(e) (2) 0.0 (0) 0.3(e) (3)

Total 100 (5747) 100 (1690) 100 (1222) 100 (1057)

(a) The percent of the total number collected followed by the total number of entrained in 

 parentheses for each species during the collection period. 

(b) Based on entrainment sample identifications done in the subsequent years and fish species 

known from lower Vernon Pool, most individuals identified as only Notropis spp. or Cyprinidae 

were probably spottail shiners.

(c) Listed as Centrarchidae and therefore may also include some largemouth bass.

(d) See footnote (c) - likely that some largemouth bass eggs and larvae were entrained.

(e) The Other species category is almost entirely the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi).

Sources: Normandeau 1999; VYNPS and Normandeau 2002; Entergy and Normandeau 2004;

Normandeau 2005
Table 3. Discharge Temperature Requirements under the Current and Amended NPDES Permits for VYNPS

Currently Enforced NPDES Permit (June 9, 2003) March 30, 2006 Amendment Request to NPDES Permit 

Winter (October 15 through May 15) at downstream Station 3(a):

• Temperature shall not exceed 65EF;

• The rate of change of temperature (i.e., the mean difference between

consecutive hourly average temperatures) shall not exceed 5EF per hour;

• The plant-induced increase in temperature above ambient water

temperature as measured at Station 7 shall not exceed 13.4EF.

Summer (May 16 through October 14):

• The increase in river water temperature at Station 3 above ambient water

temperature as measured at Station 7 shall not exceed the following:

Temperature increase 

Upstream Station 7 temperatures above Station 7 measured at Station 3

shall not exceed

Above 63EF 2EF

>59EF, #63EF 3EF

$55EF, #59EF 4EF

Below 55EF 5EF

Winter (October 15 through May 15) at downstream Station 3(a):

• Temperature shall not exceed 65EF;

• The rate of change of temperature (i.e., the mean difference between

consecutive hourly average temperatures) shall not exceed 5EF per hour;

• The plant-induced increase in temperature above ambient shall not

exceed 13.4EF.

Early Summer (May 16 through June 15):

• The increase in river water temperature at Station 3 above ambient water

temperature as measured at Station 7 shall not exceed the following:

Temperature increase

Upstream Station 7 temperatures above Station 7 measured at Station 3

shall not exceed 

Above 63EF 2EF

>59EF, #63EF 3EF

$55EF, #59EF 4EF

Below 55EF 5EF

Summer (June 16 through October 14):

• The increase in river water temperature at Station 3 above ambient water

temperature as measured at Station 7 shall not exceed the following:

Temperature increase

Station 7 temperatures above Station 7 measured at Station 3

Above 78EF 2EF

>63EF, #78EF 3EF

>59EF, #63EF 4EF

#59EF 5EF

• When the average hourly temperature at Station 3 equals or exceeds

85EF, the thermal output of the discharge must be reduced to the extentthat the average hourly temperature at Station 3 does not exceed 85EF.

(a) Station 3 is located 1.4 mi downstream of VYNPS.(b) Station 7 is located 3.7 mi upstream of VYNPS.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-81 December 2006

Plant and the Environment
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-82 August 2007

NPDES permits are issued for five years at a time. On July 11, 2001, VDEC issued a renewed

permit for VYNPS with an expiration date of March 31, 2006, and the permit was amended on

June 9, 2003 (VDEC 2003). On February 20, 2003, Entergy applied to the VDEC to amend the

permit for VYNPS to increase the temperature of the Connecticut River by 1EF as determined at

River Monitoring Station 3 (downstream monitoring station) during the NPDES summer period

(May 16 through October 14). On March 30, 2006, VDEC issued an amendment to the permit

for VYNPS; however, the amended permit only authorized the requested temperature increase

for the period from June 16 through October 14 (VDEC 2006a). VDEC concluded that

additional information was needed to evaluate the impacts of the temperature increase on

migrating salmon smolt during the May 16 through June 15 portion of the NPDES summer

period, since it marks the end of the smolt outmigration period. The permit would have expired

on March 31, 2006; however, Entergy submitted an application for a renewed permit on

September 29, 2005 (Entergy 2005e). By letter dated September 30, 2005, VDEC informed

Entergy that the renewal application was timely and that the permit would remain valid under an

administrative extension until VDEC completes the review of the permit renewal application

(VDEC 2005a).

In May 2006, the New England Coalition (NEC) appealed the NPDES permit amendment that

was issued on March 30, 2006. The amendment was stayed by the State of Vermont

Environmental Court on August 28, 2006. At the time this SEIS was published, VYNPS was

operating under the NPDES permit as issued on June 9, 2003 (VDEC 2003). The future status

of the permit depends on the outcome of the NEC appeal. If the appeal is upheld, an increase

in thermal discharge will not be granted and the discharge requirements in the current permit

(issued June 9, 2003) will continue until a new permit is issued. If the appeal is denied, the

NPDES permit as amended March 30, 2006, will be reinstated and remain in effect until a new

permit is issued by VDEC (NRC 2006d). The temperature requirements of the current and

amended NPDES permits are presented in Table 3.

The NRC staff’s evaluation of the environmental impact in the SEIS and this assessment of

essential fish habitat considered the 1EF increase for the time period May 16 through October

14. This evaluation would be bounding if the VDEC grants Entergy the 1EF increase in the May

16 through June 14 time period or the NEC appeal is denied or the NEC appeal is upheld.

5.3.2 Methods of Demonstrating Compliance

The NPDES permit requirements, as of the date of this SEIS, are described below. The permit

requires that during the winter period (October 15 through May 15), the plant-induced

temperature at downstream River Monitoring Station 3 shall not exceed 65EF (Table 3). The

plant-induced temperature increase is calculated using the equation published in the executive

summary of the 1978 demonstration report (Aquatec 1978). The equation is based on the

principle of energy conservation and takes into account the heat content of the plant’s
Appendix E

(a) The heat content of the circulating water system and cooling towers is calculated on the basis of the

change in condenser inlet temperatures over a specified time interval. The heat content of the cooling

water discharge is calculated on the basis of the number and pumping capacity of circulating water

intake pumps, the difference between condenser inlet and outlet temperatures, the number of

circulating intake and cooling tower booster pumps, and the cooling tower outlet temperatures all over

a specified time interval (Normandeau 2005).

August 2007 E-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

circulating water system and cooling towers, the heat content of the plant’s cooling water

discharge to the river, and the average discharge (flow) of the Connecticut River as measured 

at Vernon Dam.(a) Measurement and cooling system data are linked to a process computer that

allows plant personnel to adjust operations on the basis of continual real-time data to meet the

thermal requirements of the permit (Normandeau 2005).

The Vernon Dam regulates the river discharge to maintain a minimum sustained flow of

1250 cfs. At 1250 cfs, the permitted theoretical maximum increase in temperature at River

Monitoring Station 3 due to the plant’s thermal discharge is 12.9EF. In effect, the plant can

operate in an open-cycle cooling mode (without cooling tower operation) when ambient river

temperatures as measured at the upstream River Monitoring Station 7 are less than 52.1EF (i.e.,

65EF minus 12.9EF) during the winter period. At ambient temperatures equal to or greater than

52.1EF, the plant’s heat discharge can be reduced by using the cooling towers to dissipate heat

to the atmosphere (especially during periods of low river flow) (Normandeau 2005). The

NPDES permit requires that the plant-induced increase in temperature never exceeds 13.4EF

and that the rate of increase never exceeds 5EF per hour. 

Table 4 summarizes the maximum simulated river temperature increases at River Monitoring

Station 3 and the flows at which they occurred during the winter period (October 15 through

May 15) for the years 2000 through August 2006. 

Table 5 summarizes the maximum simulated river temperature increases at the station and the

flows at which they occurred during the summer period for the years 2000 through 2006. 

Exceedences occurred in each of the years between 2000 and 2004, but in each case were

less than 1 hr in duration:

C On July 16 and 21, 2000, two 59-minute exceedences occurred (2.74EF and 0.03EF,

respectively) when Vernon Dam went to minimum flow as a result of a loss of offsite

power caused by a lightning strike (Normandeau 2001). 

C On July 5, 2001, a 59-minute exceedence of 0.12EF occurred because plant

operators did not shift to closed-cycle mode quickly enough to respond to changing

river conditions.
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-84 August 2007

 Table 4. Maximum Simulated River Temperature Increase at River

Monitoring Station 3 during the NPDES Winter Period (October 15

through May 15)

Year Day

Maximum

Temperature Increase

Permit

Limit

River Flow

(cfs)

Exceeded

5EF/hour?

2006(a) March 12 6.03EF 13.4EF 2958 No

2005 February 10 12.91EF 13.4EF 1285 No

2004 February 2 12.90EF 13.4EF 1331 No

2003 January 25 13.16EF 13.4EF 1308 No

2002 January 23 12.70EF 13.4EF 1367 No

2001 December 21 12.67EF 13.4EF 1250 No

2000 November 26 12.60EF 13.4EF 1275 No

(a) Data through August 2006.

Source: Normandeau 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005; DeWald 2005a, 2006b

Table 5. Maximum Simulated River Temperature Increase at River

Monitoring Station 3 during the NPDES Summer Period (May 16

through October 14)

Year Day

Maximum

Temperature Increase

(Permit Limit)

Permit

limit

River Flow

(cfs)

Exceeded

5EF/hour?

2006(a) August 15 2.94EF 3.0EF 3168 No

2005 July 1 1.97EF 2.0EF 6760 No

2004 July 6 2.06EF 2.0EF 3483 No

2003 September 19 2.16EF 2.0EF 2802 No

2002 October 5 2.05EF 2.0EF 1697 No

2001 July 5 2.12EF 2.0EF 3923 No

2000 July 16 2.74EF 2.0EF 6571 No

(a) Data through August 2006.

(b) There was an exceedence on July 21, 2000, but it was not the maximum for the year 2000.

Source: Normandeau 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005; DeWald 2005b, 2006c
Appendix E

August 2007 E-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

C On October 5, 2002, a 60-minute exceedence of 0.05EF occurred because of

unreliable automated input associated with new equipment (Normandeau 2003).

C On September 19, 2003, an 11-minute exceedence of 0.16EF occurred because

plant operators shifted operating parameters in anticipation of an increase in river

flow (reported by the Wilder Hydroelectric Dam). The increase in river flow

occurred, but not to the degree anticipated (Normandeau 2004b).

C On July 6, 2004, a 45-minute exceedence of 0.06EF occurred when the plant

was brought back on-line after an outage caused by a transformer fire

(Normandeau 2005).

There were no exceedences in 2005 or 2006 through August.

5.3.3 Temperatures in the Connecticut River

The monthly variation in river temperatures as measured at River Monitoring Stations 3

(downstream) and 7 (upstream) over a 5-year period (2000 to 2004) are shown in Figures 4 and

5, respectively. Over this period, monthly averages ranged from 34.5EF in January to 75.5EF in

July at River Monitoring Station 3 and from 33.4EF in February to 73.3EF in August at River

Monitoring Station 7.

Figure 6 is a plot of the difference in average monthly temperatures between River Monitoring

Stations 3 and 7 (i.e., Station 3 temperature minus Station 7 temperature) in 2000 through 2004. 

There is an increasing trend throughout the spring, peaking in May, with Station 3 having an

average temperature that was 5.9EF higher than that at Station 7, with a decreasing trend

throughout the summer. In most months during this summer period, the average monthly

temperatures at the downstream station were greater than those at the upstream station. 

However, in September and December, the average monthly temperatures at River Monitoring 

Station 7 were higher than River Monitoring Station 3 (1.4EF and 0.4EF, respectively). The

average temperature difference between the stations was less than 1EF in January and March

(Normandeau 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005).

In June, July, and August of 2002, temperature measurements were taken from thermistor

stations along three bank-to-bank transects across Vernon Pool perpendicular to the river flow,

as part of a study to characterize the circulation and distribution of heated water in the area

between the VYNPS discharge structure and Vernon Dam (Figure 7; ASA 2004). Temperatures

were measured at three depths at each of the three stations along each transect (Figure 7;

Table 6). The June-July sampling period was chosen to represent expected conditions; August

was chosen to represent low-flow, high-temperature conditions, usually considered the worstcase for potential impacts to aquatic biota.
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-86 August 2007

Figure 4. Seasonal Variation in Temperature at River Monitoring Station 3, 

Located about 0.65 miles Downstream of Vernon Dam (2000-2004)

(Source: Normandeau 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005)

Figure 5. Seasonal Variation in Temperature at River Monitoring Station 7,

Located 4 Miles Upstream of VYNPS (2000-2004) (Source:

Normandeau 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005)
Appendix E

August 2007 E-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Figure 6. Difference in Average Monthly Temperatures 

between River Monitoring Stations 3 (downstream) and 7 (upstream)

(Source: Normandeau 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004b, 2005)

Table 6. Total Water Depth and Temperature Sampling Depths

 in Vernon Pool

Station Total 

Water Depth

(ft)

Surface

Depth (ft)

Middle Depth

(ft)

Bottom Depth

(ft)

C1/C2 17 1 8.5 16

C3/C4 17 1 8.5 16

C5/C6 14 1 7 13

D1/D2 20 1 10 19

D3/D4 14.1 1 7 13

D5/D6 23 1 11.5 22

E1/E2 39 1 19.5 38

E3/E4 13 1 6.5 12

E5/E6 5 1 2.5 4

F1/F2 13 1 6.5 12

F3/F4 21 1 10.5 20

Source: ASA 2004
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-88 August 2007

Figure 7. Locations of Thermistor Stations at Vernon Pool (Source: ASA 2004)
Appendix E

August 2007 E-89 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

The June-July measurements showed that temperature ranges were fairly similar along each

transect between the VYNPS discharge structure and Vernon Dam: 67.1EF to 81.5EF at C

stations, 67.3EF to 82.9EF at D stations, and 66.7EF to 81.9EF at E stations (Figure 7).

Temperatures were generally lower at the F stations (67.1EF to 77.0EF), located upgradient of

the VYNPS intake structure, during the same sampling period (Figure 7).

In the June-July sampling period, thermal stratification of the water column was greatest (up to a

6.3EF difference across the thermocline) near the VYNPS intake structure and had a decreasing

trend toward the dam. Measurements at the E stations near Vernon Dam showed little

stratification of the water column; however, the diurnal variation in surface temperature, due to

fluctuations in river flow and the effects of solar heating, was as high as 1.8EF. 

Significant spatial gradients in the surface water temperature of Vernon Pool were also detected

in the June-July sampling period. Temperatures across the transects varied as much as 5.4EF

to 7.2EF, with the higher temperatures recorded near the west bank. Temperature variations

were least pronounced during periods of high river flow. The average temperature difference

between the upstream River Monitoring Station 7 and the downstream River Monitoring Station

3 during the June-July sampling period was 4.3EF.

The August temperature measurements also showed similarities along each transect between

the VYNPS discharge structure and Vernon Dam: 75.2EF to 85.1EF at C stations, 75.2EF to

84.7EF at D stations, and 75.9EF to 86.6EF at E stations. Temperatures were generally lower at

the F station (74.8EF to 83.8EF), located upgradient of the VYNPS intake structure, during the

same sampling period.

The August diurnal variation in temperature due to fluctuations in river flow and the effects of

solar heating was most pronounced at the surface (upper 1 ft) in Vernon Pool, with the highest 

variation (3.6EF) occurring near the VYNPS discharge structure (Station C1/C2); diurnal

variation was less pronounced at the upstream location (Transect F), with a variation of about

1.5EF at the surface.

There was little spatial variation in temperature across the bank-to-bank transects in Vernon

Pool during the August sampling period. Although temperatures were slightly higher near the

VYNPS discharge structure, thermistor temperatures were within about 1.8EF of each other

across a single transect at any given time. The average temperature difference between the

upstream River Monitoring Station 7 and the downstream River Monitoring Station 3 during the

August sampling period was 2.9EF (ASA 2004).

No fish mortalities or delays in fish migration have been observed due to the VYNPS thermal

discharge. VYNPS operations have not been observed to have caused fish mortality or been a 

barrier to fish migration due to thermal releases or delays in the movement of migratory fish

species due to the thermal plume (Aquatec 1990; Normandeau 2004b).
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-90 August 2007

6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

ON DESIGNATED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

6.1 EVALUATION OF SPECIES REQUIRING EFH CONSULTATION

During the development of this EFH assessment, NMFS websites (NMFS 2006a,b) were

consulted to develop an initial list of candidate fish species that would be considered for EFH

consultation. On May 5, 2006, the NRC contacted the NMFS and requested information on

EFH under the MSFCMA (NRC 2006d). In NMFS’s response on September 15, 2006, NMFS

stated that the Connecticut River and tributaries are designated EFH for Atlantic salmon and

that the potential impacts from VYNPS operation on Atlantic salmon and their habitat should be

fully evaluated in the SEIS (NMFS 2006c). This EFH Assessment is in support of the NRC’s

initiation of an EFH consultation with NMFS regarding the potential license renewal of VYNPS. 

6.2 ATLANTIC SALMON

6.2.1 Life History of Atlantic Salmon

Atlantic salmon are anadromous and have a complex life history that includes spawning in

freshwater rivers and feeding migrations in the Atlantic Ocean. Most Atlantic salmon of United

States origin spend two years (ranging from one to three or more years) in the ocean before

returning to their natal rivers to spawn. Spawning of Atlantic salmon in New England typically

occurs in late October and November. Eggs are deposited by the females in nests constructed

out of river rocks; the nests are referred to as redds. A typical female lays about 7000 eggs,

which are then fertilized by the males. Although some adults survive to spawn in subsequent

years, most die following spawning. Those that do return to sea, do so either immediately after

spawning or during the following spring (FWS 2002). Few Atlantic salmon live to be more than

eight or nine years old (Bigelow and Schroeder 2002). The eggs overwinter in the gravel and

hatch the following spring, usually in March and April. Newly hatched sac fry (alevins, the

beginning of larval stage) remain in the gravel and use the energy reserves in their yolk sacs to

continue development. Once the yolk sacs become depleted the fry emerge from the gravel

and begin feeding on plankton and small invertebrates. Fry emergence generally occurs from

March through June (FWS 2002). They inhabit shallow riffles with moderate currents

(McCormick et al. 1998)

About early December, the fry disperse into riffles with faster currents and coarse substrates

(McCormick et al. 1998). The fry develop markings along their sides; at this point, the young

Atlantic salmon are called parr (beginning of juvenile stage). Parr inhabit cool, swift-flowing

streams with riffles and gravel-cobble substrates. As they mature, they will also inhabit slowermoving waters with pools and vegetation (Kart et al. 2004; NHFGD 2005). They may also move

into small tributaries during their first summer as parr and remain there until they leave as

smolts (McCormick et al. 1998). Parr are opportunistic feeders, feeding mostly on aquatic
Appendix E

August 2007 E-91 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

insects; they in turn fall prey to fish and bird species (FWS 2002). The parr stage lasts for one

to three years. During this period, they reach a length of about 4 in. (10 cm). After reaching this

size, most parr undergo a developmental change during the spring (smoltification) to become

smolts; however, some parr will become sexually mature before smoltification and are capable

of fertilizing the eggs of returning females (Henry and Cragg-Hine 2003). Some of these mature

parr can undergo smoltification in the following spring (McCormick et al. 1998). As smolts, the

juvenile Atlantic salmon begin migrating toward the ocean. During their migration, they begin

schooling and develop a tolerance to salt water necessary before they enter the ocean. 

Once in the ocean, they eventually migrate toward their major feeding grounds in the North

Atlantic near Greenland and Iceland. While in the ocean, Atlantic salmon prey upon various fish

species and large zooplankton and are preyed upon by seals, sharks, tuna, striped bass

(Morone saxatilis), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), and other predators (FWS 2002). After

spending one to three or more years at sea, adult salmon migrate back to their natal streams to

spawn. In New England, the migration generally occurs from May through October with May

through July being the primary time period. Spawning normally occurs from late October

through November in New England (FWS 2002). Once they enter freshwater, adult Atlantic

salmon cease feeding and will not feed again until they re-enter the ocean some six months to a

year later (FWS 2002). Adults that do not die after spawning will overwinter in the river before

migrating back to sea. 

6.2.2 EFH for Atlantic Salmon

EFH for Atlantic salmon is described as all waters currently or historically accessible to Atlantic

salmon within Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut

(NMFS 1998). The Connecticut River and its tributaries are considered EFH for all life stages of

the Atlantic salmon (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults [those that are in-migrating to spawning

sites, overwintering, or out-migrating to the sea], and spawning adults). The following EFH

requirements are applicable for the specific life stages of the Atlantic salmon (NMFS 1998):

C Eggs. Substrates within a gravel or cobble riffle above or below a pool in rivers and

streams. Generally, the water temperature in the excavations that Atlantic salmon

construct for egg-laying (i.e., redds) is below 50EF and consists of clean, welloxygenated freshwater. Atlantic salmon eggs are most frequently present in redds

between October and April.

C Larvae. Substrates within a gravel or cobble riffle above or below a pool in rivers and

streams. Generally, Atlantic salmon larvae ( i.e., alevins and fry) occur in locations with

clean, well-oxygenated freshwater and water temperatures below 50EF. Atlantic salmon

alevins and fry occur most frequently observed between March and June.
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-92 August 2007

C Juveniles. Shallow gravel or cobble riffles interspersed with deeper riffles and pools of

rivers and estuaries. Generally, Atlantic salmon juveniles (e.g., parr) are found in areas

with clean, well-oxygenated freshwater; water temperatures below 77EF, water depths of

4 to 24 in.; and water flows of 12 to 36 in./s. As they grow, parr transform into smolts. 

Atlantic salmon smolts require downstream access to make their way to the ocean. 

Upon entering the sea, “post-smolts” become pelagic and range from Long Island Sound

north to the Labrador Sea.

C Adults. For adult Atlantic salmon returning to spawn, EFH includes habitats with resting

and holding pools in rivers and estuaries. Returning Atlantic salmon require access to

their natal streams and access to the spawning grounds. Generally, conditions where

returning Atlantic salmon adults are found migrating to the spawning grounds include

water temperatures below 73EF and dissolved oxygen levels above 5 parts per million

(ppm). Oceanic adult Atlantic salmon are primarily pelagic and range from the waters of

the continental shelf off southern New England north throughout the Gulf of Maine.

C Spawning adults. EFH for spawning adults includes gravel or cobble substrates of riffles

above or below a pool of specific rivers and streams that currently support or historically

supported Atlantic salmon spawning. Generally, conditions where spawning Atlantic

salmon are found include water temperatures below 50EF; water depths of 12 to 24 in.;

water flows around 24 in./s; and clean, well-oxygenated freshwater. Spawning Atlantic

salmon adults are most frequently observed during October and November.

EFH regulations also direct the fishery management councils to consider a second, more limited

habitat designation for each species in addition to EFH. Habitat areas of particular concern

(HAPCs) are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH that are rare, particularly

susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an

environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPCs are not afforded any additional regulatory

protection under the MSFCMA. However, Federal projects with potential adverse impacts on

HAPCs are more carefully scrutinized. In addition to identifying general EFH for Atlantic

salmon, the New England Fishery Management Council also identified HAPC for adult Atlantic

salmon in 11 coastal watersheds in Maine that support unique and important populations of

Atlantic salmon. Thus, those HAPCs would not be affected by VYNPS operations.

6.2.3 Atlantic Salmon in the Connecticut River

Prior to damming of the Connecticut River watershed, Atlantic salmon spawning runs occurred

as far upstream as Beecher Falls (near the Vermont-Canadian border, about RM 370) (NHFGD

2005). Spawning runs mostly occurred in the spring, but a small number of Atlantic salmon also

migrate upriver in the early fall. Those that return in the spring spend the summer in deep, cold

pools of their natural streams before spawning in fall (Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon

Commission 1998). The optimal temperature range for migratory adults is 57.2 to 68EF
Appendix E

August 2007 E-93 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

(Krisweb.com undated). Since the installation of fishways on the Connecticut River, Atlantic

salmon have reached as far upstream as the Ammonoosuc River, downstream of the Ryegate

Dam (RM 273) (FWS undated). Historically, little of the mainstem of the Connecticut River

downstream of the present-day site of the Ryegate Dam supported Atlantic salmon rearing

habitat (Gephard and McMenemy 2004). Spawning habitat primarily occurs in the Connecticut

River tributaries (Gephard and McMenemy 2004). Artificial barriers (e.g., dams and faulty

culverts) and natural barriers (e.g., waterfalls > 10 ft high) pose problems for adults migrating to

their spawning areas (Kart et al. 2004). Most returning Atlantic salmon are captured for

broodstock, although about 10 percent are released upstream of Holyoke Dam to spawn

naturally (Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission 1998). In 2004, nearly 7.8 million fry,

parr, and smolts were stocked in the Connecticut River watershed (U.S. Atlantic Salmon

Assessment Committee 2005).

In 2004, it was estimated that 183,000 smolts were produced above Holyoke Dam (RM 87)

(U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee 2005). Smolt passage efficiency at Bellows

Falls, Vernon, Turners Falls, and Holyoke Dams has been estimated at 80 percent at each dam

(Boubee and Haro 2003).

Optimal spawning temperature is 41 to 46.4EF (Krisweb.com undated). Spawning habitat

consists of coarse, clean gravel stretches that are at least 3 to 10 ft long and 3 ft wide with

water depths 1 to 2 ft. Self-sustaining populations of Atlantic salmon do not currently occur

within the Connecticut River watershed are therefore, dependent on a multi-state stocking effort

(Kart et al. 2004). Juvenile Atlantic salmon have been stocked in streams as far north as the

Nulhegan River, Vermont, about 350 mi upstream on the Connecticut River (FWS undated).

Annual spawning runs in the Connecticut River have numbered in the hundreds but more

recently have declined to less than one hundred. For example, in 2004 there were only 69

documented Atlantic salmon returns to the river, and only 1635 to all rivers in the United States

(U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee 2005). Spawning run declines have been

occurring throughout the range during the last 30 years (Gephard and McMenemy 2004). There

is a no-take policy for Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut River (NHFGD 2005). The Connecticut

River Atlantic Salmon Commission establishes annual schedules for the passage of migratory

fish species for a number of dams on the Connecticut River (FWS 2006). The 2006 schedule

for upstream passage operations at Vernon Dam was May 15 through July 15 and September

15 through November 15 for Atlantic salmon; the 2006 schedule for downstream Atlantic salmon

passage was April 1 through June 15 for smolts and October 15 through December 31 for

adults (FWS 2006). The number of Atlantic salmon that have annually passed upstream of

Vernon Dam from 1981 to 2006 has ranged from 0 to 13. Four passed the dam in 2006 (FWS

2006).

A variety of factors, including stream hydrology, water temperatures, pH, dissolved oxygen,

streambed characteristics, availability of food, competition, predation, pollution, and recreational

and commercial fishing, interact to affect the survival of the various life stages of Atlantic salmon
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-94 August 2007

in rivers and streams (Maine Atlantic Salmon Task Force 1997). In addition to turbine mortality

and other passage issues at dams, dams and their impoundments can delay migration of

Atlantic salmon smolts and increase water temperature, which can lead to a loss of smolt

characteristics. This can have a negative impact on the capacity of smolts to survive in

seawater and return as adults (McCormick et al. 1999). Extended residency in impoundments

can also increase predatory pressure to smolts. Low pH due to acid deposition appears to be

detrimental to outmigrating smolts. Water temperature fluctuations in the Atlantic Ocean over

the past ten years may be contributing to reduced adult salmon returns throughout much of their

range (Kart et al. 2004). Atlantic salmon recovery is also hindered by degraded water quality

parameters, siltation in tributary streams, and predation of early life history stages by a variety of

species including the striped bass.

The results of studies conducted at VYNPS suggest that no eggs and larvae or any life stage of

Atlantic salmon are entrained. There are no records of adults being impinged. Each year low

numbers of smolts are impinged at VYNPS. These losses are inconsequential when compared

to the total number of smolts in the river. The number of smolts impinged has been a small 

portion of the applicant’s NPDES permit limit for Atlantic salmon (Aquatec 1978, 1990; Entergy

2006a; Entergy and Normandeau 2004; Normandeau 1999, 2004a, 2005; VYNPS and

Normandeau 2002). 

The only life stages of the Atlantic salmon exposed to the VYNPS thermal plume are smolts

(during spring) and migrating adults (during spring and fall). The schedule for upstream fish

passage operations at Vernon Dam is from mid May to mid July and from mid September to mid

November for adult salmon. The downstream fish passage operations are from about April 1

through mid June for smolts and mid October to the end of December for adults (FWS 2006). 

Few adults pass by VYNPS as adult spawning runs in the Connecticut River are small and 90

percent of the adults that reach Holyoke Dam are captured for broodstock. Adult Atlantic

salmon passage at Vernon Dam occurs during mid June (VFWD 2006). 

The optimum temperature range for adult Atlantic salmon migration is 57.2 to 68E

F with the

highest temperature for normal upstream migration being about 80.6E

F, depending upon

acclimation and duration of exposure (Fay et al. 2006). The optimum temperature range for

smolt migration is 44.6 to 57.7E

F with the highest temperature being about 66.2EF (Fay et al.

2006). 

In 2004, river temperatures of VYNPS averaged about 42.9EF in April, 57.3EF in May, and

65.7EF in June, while at the downstream monitoring Station 3 they averaged about 43.3EF in

April, 59.5EF in May, and 67.5EF in June. Average daily temperatures at the Vernon Dam

fishway from mid May through the end of June ranged from 55.5EF(May 27) to 70.6EF (June 15)

(Normandeau 2005). Thus, river temperatures near the VYNPS are within the tolerance limits

of migrating adult Atlantic salmon and, most often, for migrating smolts. June appears to be the

only month during which water temperatures exceed tolerance limits for outmigrating smolts;
Appendix E

August 2007 E-95 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

therefore smolt migration could potentially be affected during June. No blockages of adult

Atlantic salmon past Vernon Dam due to VYNPS operations were observed during Project

SAVE (Save Available Vermont Energy) (Aquatec 1990). Seventy-five percent of the adult

Atlantic salmon that passed Turners Falls Dam passed the Vernon Dam fishway, while

radiotelemetry studies of smolts revealed that downstream movement into and through the

VYNPS thermal plume occurred without any observed delays (Aquatec 1990). Most Atlantic

salmon smolt migrate past VYNPS before the upper limit for survival of 82EF is exceeded

(Normandeau 2004a). Atlantic salmon smolts migrating past VYNPS would not be subjected to

elevated temperatures for more than 12 hr, and could avoid the warmest waters by swimming

around or under the plume (Normandeau 2004a). Therefore, there may be a slight habitat

squeeze in the migration corridor in the vicinity of VYNPS, but studies indicate that most smolts

successfully complete their downstream migration. 

Although prey items for Atlantic salmon are entrained or impinged in the VYNPS cooling

system, there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably affected and that

prey populations near VYNPS are not limited by station operation. The NRC staff concludes 

VYNPS operations would likely have a minimal adverse effect on Atlantic salmon EFH (See

Table 7 for a summary of potential adverse effects).

7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

Four categories of impacts related to VYNPS operations that could influence EFH for the

Atlantic salmon are: (1) entrainment of Atlantic salmon early life stages; (2) impingement of

juvenile or adult Atlantic salmon; (3) discharge of heated cooling water; and (4) mortality of

Atlantic salmon prey species due to impingement, entrainment, or thermal effects. The

applicant’s NPDES permit contains operational and temperature limits to protect water quality

and minimize impacts to aquatic biota. The State of Vermont has established limits on the

increase in water temperature above ambient in the Connecticut River due to station operations. 

These limits were established, in part, to minimize impacts to Atlantic salmon during the

spawning migration and outmigration of smolts. Additionally, the VYNPS intake is located in an

area devoid of unique spawning habitat for Atlantic salmon so entrainment of eggs and larvae

are not a concern. Should impingement of smolts prove to be a problem in the future,

particularly if the Connecticut River salmon population increases substantially, the licensee

could install a fish return system or operate the station in the closed-cycle cooling mode during

the period of time the smolts are outmigrating.
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-96 August 2007

Table 7. Impacts of VYNPS Operations on EFH of the Atlantic Salmon

Life

Stage EFH Description

Expected Effect

of VYNPS Operations on EFH

Eggs Bottom habitats with gravel or cobble

riffles above or below a pool in rivers;

clean, well-oxygenated water with

water temperatures <50EF and water

depths of 30 to 61 cm (1 to 2 ft); occur

most frequently between October and

April.

No Adverse Effect. No spawning habitat near

plant. Additionally, eggs incubate in gravel and are,

therefore, not subject to entrainment. Spawning

areas not affected by thermal discharges.

Larvae Bottom habitats with gravel or cobble

riffles above or below a pool in rivers;

clean, well-oxygenated water with

water temperatures <50EF; occur most

frequently between March and June for

alevins/fry.

No Adverse Effect. No spawning habitat near the

plant so no thermal effects. Additionally, alevins

remain buried in gravel and once fry emerge from

the redd they tend to remain in their natal stream.

Therefore, larvae are not subject to entrainment.

Juveniles Shallow gravel/cobble habitats

interspersed with deeper riffles and

pools in rivers and estuaries; clean,

well-oxygenated water with water

temperatures 77EF; prefers water

depths of 10 to 61 cm (0.3 to 2 ft) and

water velocities of 30 to 92 cm/s (1 to 3

ft/s).

Minimal Adverse Effect. Parr habitat no present in

immediate area of VYNPS therefore no thermal

effects. Smolts not commonly impinged;

impingement numbers well below yearly NPDES

permit limits. Prey items are entrained or impinged

at VYNPS, but prey population size not affected.

Smolts move into and through the VYNPS thermal

plume without observed delays. 

Adults Areas with resting and holding pools in

rivers and estuaries for adults returning

to spawn; water temperatures <73EF

and with dissolved oxygen levels >5

ppm; oceanic adults are mainly pelagic

and range from the continental shelf off

southern New England north

throughout the Gulf of Maine.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Very few returning

Atlantic salmon allowed to continue upstream

spawning migrations past Holyoke Dam. Generally,

those that pass Turners Falls Dam also pass Vernon

Dam, and most of those subsequently pass Bellows

Falls Dam. Few post-spawning adults expected to

pass the VYNPS area. Generally, impingement of

adults would be unlikely. Adults do not feed while in

freshwater; thus, other fish species impinged at

VYNPS do not comprise a loss of prey items for

adult Atlantic salmon. Thermal effects on adults not

observed and unlikely.

Spawning

Adults

Bottom habitats with gravel or cobble

riffles above or below a pool in rivers;

clean, well-oxygenated water with

temperatures <50EF, depths of 30 to

61 cm (1 to 2 ft), and velocities about

61 cm/s (2 ft/s); spawning most

frequently occurs in October and

November.

No Adverse Effect. No spawning habitat near the

plant so no adverse effect due to thermal discharges

or impingement. 

Sources: Maine Atlantic Salmon Task Force 1997; NMFS 1998, 2006a; Scott and Crossman 1973
Appendix E

August 2007 E-97 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

8.0 CONCLUSION

For each life stage, VYNPS operations were evaluated to determine whether they resulted in

(1) no adverse impact, (2) minimal adverse impacts, or (3) substantial adverse impact on

Atlantic salmon EFH. These impact categories follow the standards used by the Northeast

Regional Office of the NMFS. The expected impacts of VYNPS operations on EFH for the

Atlantic salmon are summarized in Table 7. Because VYNPS operates for a portion of the year

in a once-through mode, it has the potential to have an adverse impact on EFH for the Atlantic

salmon due to withdrawal from the Connecticut River. However, the low level of interactions

between the Atlantic salmon and the facility, as well as current mitigation measures in place at

VYNPS, reduce the potential adverse effect on the various life stages of the Atlantic salmon and

their respective EFHs. The 316(a) and (b) Demonstration that has been conducted at VYNPS,

coupled with results of annual impingement, entrainment, and riverine sampling of fish required

by NPDES permit stipulations, have demonstrated that VYNPS operations do not have an

adverse effect on the aquatic biota in the Connecticut River, including the movement of

migrating Atlantic salmon smolts and adults (Aquatec 1978, 1990; Entergy 2006a; Entergy and

Normandeau 2004; Normandeau 1999, 2004a, 2005; VYNPS and Normandeau 2002). The

affected area from VYNPS operations would not affect any habitats in or near bays, estuaries,

or offshore areas. Accordingly, there would be no adverse effects on EFH or Federally 

managed species in such areas. The NRC staff concludes that license renewal of VYNPS for

an additional 20 years of operation would result in a minimal adverse effect on EFH of the

Atlantic salmon.

9.0 REFERENCES

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

Applied Science Associates, Inc. (ASA). 2004. Hydrothermal Modeling of the Cooling water

Discharge from the Vermont Yankee Power Plant to the Connecticut River. ASA Report 

02-088. (April 2004).

Aquatec Inc. (Aquatec). 1978. Executive Summary 316 Demonstration Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Station - Biological, Hydrological & Engineering Information. Aquatec Inc.,

South Burlington, Vermont. (March 1978).

Aquatec Inc. (Aquatec). 1990. 316 Demonstration Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont - Biological, Hydrological & Engineering Information. 

Aquatec Inc., South Burlington, Vermont. (June 1990).
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-98 August 2007

Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 2002. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin 74,

Revision 1.1. Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Available URL:

http://www.gma.org/fogm/Default.htm (Accessed September 22, 2006).

Boubee, J., and A. Haro. 2003. “Downstream Migration and Passage Technologies for

Diadromous Fishes in the United States and New Zealand: Tales from Two Hemispheres.” 

Downstream Movement of Fish in the Murray-Darling Basin - Canberra Workshop. June. 

Available URL: http://www.mdbc.gov.au/data/pages/509/Jacques_Boubee_&_Alex_Haro.pdf

(Accessed July 26, 2006).

Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission. 1998. “Strategic Plan for the Restoration of

Atlantic Salmon to the Connecticut River.” Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission,

Sunderland, Massachusetts. July 1998. Available URL:

http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/documents.strplan.pdf (Accessed April 6, 2006).

Dewald, L. 2005a. Letter from L. DeWald, Entergy, to Theresa Tanner, VDEC. Subject:

“Monthly NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for February 2005.” (March 7, 2005). 

Dewald, L. 2005b. Letter from L. DeWald, Entergy, to Theresa Tanner, VDEC. Subject:

“Monthly NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for July 2005.” (August 12, 2005). 

Dewald, L. 2006a. Letter from L. DeWald, Entergy, to Theresa Tanner, VDEC. Subject:

“Monthly NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for March 2006.” (April 11, 2006). 

Dewald, L. 2006b. Letter from L. DeWald, Entergy, to Theresa Tanner, VDEC. Subject:

“Monthly NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for August 2006.” (September 11, 2006). 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2004. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 19. 

Docket No. 50-271. Brattleboro, Vermont. (November 1, 2004).

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006a.

 License Renewal Application, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Operating License No.

DPR-28. Docket No. 50-271. Brattleboro, Vermont. (January 25, 2006).

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.(Entergy). 2006b. 

Applicant’s Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage, Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Station. Docket No. 50-271. Brattleboro, Vermont. (January 25, 2006).

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006c. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) License

Renewal Application, Amendment 6. Brattleboro, Vermont. (July 2006).
Appendix E

August 2007 E-99 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Entergy and

Normandeau). 2004. Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont. Report

33. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, Vernon, Vermont by Entergy Nuclear

Vermont Yankee, LLC and Normandeau Associates, Inc., Bedford, New Hampshire. (May

2004).

Fay, C. et al. 2006. Status Review of Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United

States, Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/statusreview.htmr. (Accessed November 13,

2006).

Gephard. S. and J. McMenemy. 2004. “An Overview of the Program to Restore Atlantic

Salmon and Other Diadromous Fishes to the Connecticut River with Notes on the Current

Status of These Species in the River.” Pages 287-317 in Jacobson, P.M., D.A. Dixon, W.C.

Leggett, B.C. Marcy, Jr., and R.R. Massengill (eds.). The Connecticut River Ecological Study

(1965-1973) Revisited: Ecology of the Lower Connecticut River 1973-2003. American Fisheries

Society, Monograph 9. Bethesda, Maryland.

Henry, K. and D. Cragg-Hine. 2003. “Ecology of the Atlantic Salmon.” Conserving Natura

2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 7. English Nature, Peterborough. Available URL:

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/LIFEinUKRivers/publications/Salmon.pdf (Accessed August

23, 2006).

Kart, J., R. Regan, S.R. Darling, C. Alexander, K. Cox, M. Ferguson, S. Parren, K. Royar, and

B. Popp (eds.). 2004. “Vermont’s Wildlife Action Plan.” Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department,

Waterbury, Vermont. Available URL: http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/swg_cwcs_report.cfm

(Accessed August 22, 2006).

Krisweb.com. Undated. “Water Temperature and Gulf of Maine Atlantic Salmon.” Klamath

Resource Information System. Available URL:

http;//www.krisweb.com/krissheepscot/krisdb/html/krisweb/stream/temperature_sheepscot.htm

(Accessed July 31, 2006).

Maine Atlantic Salmon Task Force. 1997. “Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine

Rivers.” Maine Atlantic Salmon Task Force, Augusta, Maine. Available URL: http://mainegovimages.informe.org/asc/archive/Atlantic%20Salmon%20Conservation%20Plan1.pdf (Accessed

June 2, 2005).

McCormick, S.D., L.P. Hansen, T.P. Quinn, and R.L. Saunders. 1998. “Movement, Migration,

and Smolting of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar).“ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences, Vol. 55 (Suppl. 1): 77-92.
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-100 August 2007

McCormick, S.D., R.A. Cunjak, B. Dempson, M.F. O’Dea, and J.B. Carey. 1999. “TemperatureRelated Loss of Smolt Characteristics in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the Wild.” Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 56, pp. 1649-1658.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. “Essential Fish Habitat Description Atlantic

Salmon (Salmo salar).” Available URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/salmon.pdf (Accessed

September 19, 2006).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006a. “Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

and General Habitat Parameters for Federally Managed Species.” Available URL:

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/efhtables.pdf (Accessed September 21, 2006).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006b. “Guide to EFH Consultations.” Available

URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/appguide1.html (Accessed September 21, 2006).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006c. Letter from L.A. Chiarella, National Marine

Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts, to R. Franovich, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. (September 15, 2006).

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFGD). 2005. “New Hampshire Wildlife Action

Plan,” New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, New Hampshire. Available URL:

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/wildlife_plan.htm (Accessed August 22, 2006).

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 1999. Summary Report on the 1986-1997

Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont. Prepared for Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Corporation, Vernon, Vermont by Normandeau Associates, Inc., Drumore,

Pennsylvania. (April 22, 1999).

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2001. “Ecological Studies of the Connecticut

River, Vernon, Vermont.” Report 30 (January-December 2000). (April 2001). 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2002. “Ecological Studies of the Connecticut

River, Vernon, Vermont.” Report 31 (January-December 2001). (April 2002). 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2003. “Ecological Studies of the Connecticut

River, Vernon, Vermont.” Report 32 (January-December 2002). (May 2003). 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2004a. §316(a) Demonstration in Support of a

Request for Increased Discharge Temperature Limits at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Station during May through October. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, Vernon,

Vermont, by Normandeau Associates, Inc., Bedford, New Hampshire. (April 2004).
Appendix E

August 2007 E-101 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2004b. “Ecological Studies of the Connecticut

River, Vernon, Vermont.” Report 33 (January-December 2003). (May 2004). 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2005. “Ecological Studies of the Connecticut

River, Vernon, Vermont.” Report 34 (January-December 2004). (May 2005).

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. “Freshwater Fishes of Canada.” Bulletin 184. Fisheries

Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 2005. “Annual report of the U.S. Atlantic Salmon

Assessment Committee.” Report No. 17 - 2004 Activities. Annual Report 2005/17. U.S.

Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Available URL:

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/USASAC/2005%20USASAC%20Report/USASAC%2017%20report

%20final.pdf (Accessed April 12, 2006).

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Corporation. Docket No. 50-271. Directorate of Licensing. Washington, D.C. (July 1972).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. “The Natural History of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo

salar).” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Central New England Fishery Resources Office,

Nashua, New Hampshire. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/r5cneafp/salmon.htm (Accessed

April 7, 2006).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. “Fish Passage Schedule.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Connecticut River Coordinator’s Office, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Available URL:

http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/Habitat/fish_passage_schedule.htm (Accessed April 6, 2006).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Undated. “Fish Facts.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Connecticut River Coordinator’s Office, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Available URL:

http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/Fish/facts.html (Accessed April 6, 2006).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, “Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1.

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station -

License Renewal Application. Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/

renewal/applications/vermont-yankee.html (Accessed September 22, 2006).
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 E-102 August 2007

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. “Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 77, pp. 20733-20735. 

Washington, D.C. (April 21, 2006).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station -

Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed

License Amendment to Increase the Maximum Power Level. Docket No. 50-271. Washington,

D.C. (January 20, 2006).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006d. Letter from R. Franovich, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., to P. Kurkul, National Marine Fisheries Service,

Gloucester, Massachusetts. (May 5, 2006).

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VANR). 2006. Final Amended Discharge Permit #3-

1199. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation,

Wastewater Management Division, Waterbury, Vermont. (March 2006).

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VDEC). 2003. National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System Permit Number VT0000264 (VDEC Permit No. 3-1199). 

Wastewater Management Division. (June 9, 2003). 

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VDEC). 2005. Renewal of Permit No. 

3-1199. Permit renewal with letter from C. Fowler, VDEC, to L. DeWald, Entergy. (September

30, 2005). 

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VDEC). 2006a. Final Amended

Discharge Permit No. 3-1199. Amended permit with letter from B.D. Kooiker, VDEC, to L.

DeWald, Entergy. (March 30, 2006). 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station and Normandeau Associates, Inc. (VYNPS and

Normandeau). 2002. Ecological Studies of the Connecticut River, Vernon, Vermont. Report

31, January-December 2001. Prepared for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation,

Brattleboro, Vermont, by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Brattleboro, Vermont, and

Normandeau Associates, Inc., Bedford, New Hampshire. (April 2002).
Appendix F

Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

Environmental Issues Not Applicable to

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

August 2007 F-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix F

Generic Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Issues Not Applicable to

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Table F-1 lists those environmental issues listed in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) and Title 10,

Part 51, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), Subpart A, Appendix B,

Table B-1, that are not applicable to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) because

of plant or site characteristics.

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to VYNPS

ISSUE–10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered salinity gradients 1 4.2.1.2.2 VYNPS does not discharge to |

an estuary.

Altered thermal stratification of lakes 1 4.2.1.2.2;

4.4.2.2

VYNPS does not use surface

water from lakes.

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and

service water, and dewatering; plants that

use >100 gpm)

2 4.8.1.1;

4.8.2.1

VYNPS does not use

>100 gpm of groundwater. 

Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney wells) 2 4.8.1.4 VYNPS does not use Ranney

wells.

Groundwater-quality degradation (Ranney

wells)

1 4.8.2.2 VYNPS does not use Ranney

wells.

Groundwater-quality degradation

(saltwater intrusion)

1 4.8.2.1 VYNPS uses <100 gpm of

groundwater and is not

located near a saltwater

body.

Groundwater-quality degradation (cooling

ponds in salt marshes)

1 4.8.3 VYNPS does not use a

cooling pond.
Appendix F

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 F-2 August 2007

Table F-1. (contd)

ISSUE–10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

Groundwater-quality degradation (cooling

ponds at inland sites)

2 4.8.3 VYNPS does not use a

cooling pond.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 4.3.5.2 VYNPS does not use natural

draft towers.

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial

resources

1 4.4.4 VYNPS does not use a

cooling pond.

F.1 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report, ?Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(SAMAs) for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station |

August 2007 G-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(SAMAs) for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station |

G.1 Introduction

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy)

submitted an assessment of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) as part of the environmental report (ER) (Entergy

2006a). This assessment was based on the most recent VYNPS probabilistic safety

assessment (PSA) available at that time (Model VY04R1), a plant-specific offsite consequence

analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2)

computer code, and insights from the VYNPS individual plant examination (IPE) (VYNPC 1993)

and individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) (VYNPC 1998). In identifying and

evaluating potential SAMAs, Entergy considered SAMAs that addressed the major contributors

to core damage frequency (CDF) and population dose at VYNPS, as well as SAMA candidates

for other operating plants which have submitted license renewal applications. Entergy identified

302 potential SAMA candidates. This list was reduced to 66 unique SAMA candidates by

eliminating SAMAs that: are not applicable to VYNPS due to design differences, have already

been implemented at VYNPS, or are similar in nature and could be combined with another

SAMA candidate. Entergy assessed the costs and benefits associated with each of the

potential SAMAs and concluded in the ER that several of the candidate SAMAs evaluated are

potentially cost-beneficial.

Based on a review of the SAMA assessment, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

issued a request for additional information (RAI) to Entergy by letter dated June 1, 2006

(NRC 2006a). Key questions concerned: findings of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group

(BWROG) and the independent assessment team reviews of the VYNPS PSA; the approach

used to assign source terms for each release category as a part of the Level 2 analysis;

justification for the multiplier used for external events; further information on several specific

candidate SAMAs and low cost alternatives; and details for several of the cost estimates

provided. Entergy submitted additional information by letters dated August 1, 2006,

September 19, 2006, October 20, 2006 and November 6, 2006 (Entergy 2006b, Entergy 2006c,

Entergy 2006d, Entergy 2006e). In response to the RAIs, Entergy provided: information

regarding the findings of the BWROG peer review; a discussion of the process for assigning

severe accident source terms for the Level 2 analysis; additional information regarding several

specific SAMAs; and additional information pertaining to the cost estimates. Additionally,

Entergy provided two attachments to the RAI responses, containing information on a later

version of the PSA (version VY05R0) and a revised assessment of the SAMA benefits based on

this later version of the PSA. This revised assessment utilizes a modified multiplier to
Appendix G

| (a) In the ER, Entergy bounded the combined impact of external events and uncertainties by applying a

multiplier of 10 to the estimated SAMA benefits for internal events. In response to an RAI, Entergy

revised the analysis to include a multiplier of 3.33 to account for potential SAMA benefits in both

internal and external events, and provided a separate accounting of uncertainties. 

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-2 August 2007

account for external events exclusive of uncertainties, and a modified core inventory to account

for plant-specific burn-up and enrichment. Entergy’s responses addressed the NRC staff’s

concerns.

An assessment of SAMAs for VYNPS is presented below.

G.2 Estimate of Risk for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Station

Entergy's estimates of offsite risk at the VYNPS are summarized in Section G.2.1. The

summary is followed by the NRC staff's review of Entergy's risk estimates in Section G.2.2.

G.2.1 Entergy’s Risk Estimates

Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA

analysis: (1) the VYNPS Level 1 and 2 PSA model, which is an updated version of the IPE

(VYNPC 1993) that accounts for the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) conditions, and (2) a

supplemental analysis of offsite consequences and economic impacts (essentially a Level 3

PSA model) developed specifically for the SAMA analysis. The ER (Entergy 2006a) included a

SAMA analysis based on PSA version VY04R1. Subsequently, the SAMA analysis was revised

based on PSA version VY05R0, and submitted as part of Entergy’s RAI response (Entergy

2006c). The scope of the VYNPS PSA does not include external events.

The baseline CDF for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is approximately 8.0 x 10-6 per year. 

The CDF is based on version VY05R0 of the PSA for internally-initiated events. Entergy did not

include the contribution from external events within the VYNPS risk estimates; however, it did

account for the potential risk reduction benefits associated with external events by effectively

multiplying the estimated benefits for internal events by a factor of 3.33(a) | . This is discussed

further in Sections G.2.2 and G.6.2.

The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table G-1. The results from the earlier

PSA model (VY04R1) are also provided for information. As shown in this table, events initiated

by loss of offsite power, internal flooding, transients without the power conversion system, and

loss of an AC bus are the dominant contributors to CDF. Although not separately reported,

station blackout (SBO) sequences contribute 2.3 x 10-6 per year (about 29 percent of the total 
Appendix G

August 2007 G-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table G-1. VYNPS Core Damage Frequency

PSA Model VY04R1 VY05R0

Initiating Event

CDF*

(Per Year)

%

Contribution

to CDF

CDF(a) |

(Per Year) |

%

Contribution

to CDF

Loss of offsite power 7.2 x 10-7 14 2.8 x 10-6 35

Internal Flooding 1.5 X 10-6 29 1.4 x 10-6 17

Transients without power conversion

system

8.2 x 10-7 16 8.4 x 10-7 11

Loss of AC Bus 3 4.0 x 10-7 8 7.9 x 10-7 10

Loss of AC Bus 4 3.5 x 10-7 7 7.3 x 10-7 9

Loss of DC Bus 2 2.5 x 10-7 5 2.8 x 10-7 4

Loss of DC Bus 1 2.6 x 10-7 5 2.8 x 10-7 3

Inadvertently opened relief valve 2.7 x 10-7 5 2.7 x 10-7 3

Reactor trip 1.4 x 10-7 3 1.7 x 10-7 2

Anticipated Transient Without Scram 1.4 x 10-7 3 1.5 x 10-7 2

Loss of Coolant Accidents 3.7 x 10-8 1 7.3 x 10-8 1

Stuck-open relief valve 6.9 x 10-8 1 6.5 x 10-8 1

Total loss of service water 5.0 x 10-8 1 5.2 x 10-8 1

Interfacing System LOCA 1.6 x 10-8 <1 3.9 x 10-8 <1

LOCA outside containment 3.7 x 10-8 1 3.4 x 10-8 <1

Total CDF 5.0 x 10-6 100 8.0 x 10-6 100

(a) Point Estimate. |

internal events CDF) (Entergy 2006c), while anticipated transient without scram (ATWS)

sequences contribute 1.5 x 10-7 per year to CDF (about 2 percent of the total internal events

CDF). With the Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) initiating event contributing 2.8 x 10-6 per year to

the CDF, the percentage of LOOP events resulting in SBO is high. This is because the

dominant LOOP initiator involves a regional blackout due to severe weather conditions

(Entergy 2006d).

The Level 2 VYNPS PSA model that forms the basis for the SAMA evaluation represents an

updated version of the original IPE Level 2 model. The current Level 2 model utilizes a single

containment event tree (CET), containing both phenomenological and systemic events, that is

directly linked with the Level 1 models. CET nodes are evaluated using supporting fault trees 
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-4 August 2007

and logic rules. Plant Damage States (also called core damage sequence functional classes)

were defined for the purposes of summarizing and reporting the results of the Level 1 and

Level 2 analyses.

The result of the Level 2 PSA is a set of 14 release categories with their respective frequency

and release characteristics. The results of this analysis for VYNPS are provided in

Table RAI.2.b of the RAI responses (Entergy 2006c). The frequency of each release category

was obtained from the quantification of the linked Level 1 - Level 2 models and is the sum of the

frequency of the individual accident progression CET endpoints binned into the release

category. The release characteristics for each release category were obtained by

frequency-weighting the release characteristics for each CET endpoint contributing to the

release category (Entergy 2006c).

The offsite consequences and economic impact analyses use the MACCS2 code to determine

the offsite risk impacts on the surrounding environment and public. Inputs for these analyses

include plant-specific and site-specific input values for core radionuclide inventory, source term

and release characteristics, site meteorological data, projected population distribution (within an

80-kilometer (50-mile) radius) for the year 2032, emergency response evacuation modeling, and

economic data. The core radionuclide inventory is derived from an ORIGEN calculation

assuming a 4.65 percent enrichment and average burn-up (Entergy 2006b). The magnitude of

the onsite impacts (in terms of clean-up and decontamination costs and occupational dose) is

based on information provided in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b).

In the revised SAMA analysis (Entergy 2006c), Entergy estimated the dose to the population

within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the VYNPS site to be approximately 0.151 person-sievert (Sv)

(15.1 person-rem) per year. The breakdown of the total population dose by containment

release mode is summarized in Table G-2. Containment failures within the early time frame

(less than 6 hours following accident initiation) dominate the contributions to the population

dose risk at VYNPS.

G.2.2 Review of Entergy’s Risk Estimates

Entergy’s determination of offsite risk at VYNPS is based on the following three major elements

of analysis:

C The Level 1 and Level 2 risk models of the 1993 IPE submittal (VYNPC 1993), and the

external events analyses of the 1998 IPEEE submittal (VYNPC 1998),

C The major modifications to the IPE model that have been incorporated in the VYNPS

PSA, and
Appendix G

August 2007 G-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table G-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode

Containment Release Mode

Population Dose

(Person-Rem(a) Per Year) % Contribution

Early Containment Failure 12.8 85

Late Containment Failure 2.1 14

Containment Bypass 0.2 1

Intermediate Containment Failure < 0.1 < 1

Intact Containment negligible negligible

Total 15.1 100

(a) One person-Rem = 0.01 person-Sv. |

C The MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product source terms and release

frequencies from the Level 2 PSA model into offsite consequence measures.

Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of Entergy’s risk estimates

for the SAMA analysis, as summarized below. 

The NRC staff's review of the VYNPS IPE is described in an NRC report dated

February 9, 1996 (NRC 1996). Based on a review of the IPE submittal, the NRC staff

concluded that the IPE submittal met the intent of Generic Letter (GL) 88-20; that is, the

licensee’s IPE process is capable of identifying the most likely severe accidents and severe

accident vulnerabilities. It was noted that internal flooding and weather related LOOP initiators |

were included in the IPEEE, but not in the IPE. The current internal-event PSA, however, |

includes both internal flooding and weather-related LOOP initiators. No severe accident

vulnerabilities associated with either core damage or poor containment performance were

identified in the IPE. 

While no vulnerabilities were identified in the IPE and no hardware modifications were proposed

as a result of the IPE, several plant improvements were identified and implemented prior to and

in conjunction with the IPE. These improvements included: replacement of uninterrupted power

supply for the low pressure coolant injection system injection valves, improvement of the safety

relief valve and main steam isolation valve (MSIV) pneumatic components, replacement of

instrument air compressors and upgrade of the residual heat removal service water (RHRSW)

system (NRC 1996).

The VYNPS IPEEE analysis of internal flooding yielded a CDF of 9.0 x 10-6 per year. The NRC

staff IPEEE SER (NRC 2001) concluded, with respect to the internal flooding, that while the

analysis process is capable of identifying the most likely severe accidents, insufficient

information was provided and that this weakness may inhibit its use in other regulatory
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-6 August 2007

applications. The internal flooding analysis has been subsequently updated, and the current

CDF is 1.4 x 10-6 per year. The model has also been incorporated within the scope of the

internal-events PSA. The internal flooding model is discussed further in Section G.3.2.

The VYNPS IPEEE listed 14 opportunities for improvements with respect to internal flooding. In

| response to an RAI, Entergy provided the status of these 14 improvements (Entergy 2006b). 

| Ten have been implemented and credited in the current flooding risk analysis or were shown by

| analysis not to be required. The remaining four were judged to mitigate non-credible events or

not have a significant impact on risk. In response to a staff RAI, Entergy described a review of

the revised flooding risk analysis performed in 2002 to identify modifications that would further

reduce the flooding risk (Entergy 2006e). A modification to provide spray shielding in two areas

was identified and included in the current analysis as a candidate SAMA. No other

modifications, short of major structural or relocation changes were identified. The NRC staff

concludes that the opportunity for internal flood-related SAMAs has been adequately explored

and that it is unlikely that there are any additional potentially cost-beneficial, internal floodrelated SAMA candidates.

There have been numerous revisions to the IPE model since the 1993 IPE submittal. A

comparison of internal events CDF between the 1993 IPE and the current PSA model (version

VY05R0) indicates an increase of approximately 3.7 x 10-6 per year (from 4.3 x 10-6 per year to

8.0 x 10-6 per year). However, as indicated above, the 1993 IPE did not include internal

flooding, which originally had an estimated CDF of 9.0 x 10-6 per year. If this is added to the

1993 IPE value for internal events, the resulting CDF is 1.3 x 10-5 per year. This indicates a

reduction in the CDF between the 1993 IPE and the current PSA model of 5 x 10-6 per year

(from 1.3 x 10-5 per year to 8.0 x 10-6 per year). 

A comparison of the contributors to the total CDF indicates that some have increased while

others have decreased from the IPE. The most notable changes are in the LOOP, which has

increased from approximately 8.6 x 10-7 per year to 2.8 x 10-6 per year, internal flooding, which

decreased from approximately 9.0 x 10-6 per year (from the IPEEE) to 1.4 x 10-6 per year and

ATWS, which decreased from approximately 8 x 10-7 per year to 1.5 x 10-7 per year. A summary

listing of those changes that resulted in the greatest impact on the internal events CDF made in

the various revisions of the PSA was provided in response to a staff request for additional

| information and is summarized in Table G-3 (Entergy 2006c). 

The CDF value from the 1993 IPE (1.3 x 10-5 per year, including the contribution from internal

flooding events) is near the average of the CDF values reported in the IPEs for boiling-water

reactor (BWR) 3/4 plants. Figure 11.2 of NUREG-1560 shows that the IPE-based total internal

events CDF for BWR 3/4 plants ranges from 9 x 10-8 to 8 x 10-5 per year, with an average CDF

for the group of 2 x 10-5 per year (NRC 1997a). It is recognized that other plants have updated

the values for CDF subsequent to the IPE submittals to reflect modeling and hardware changes. 
Appendix G

August 2007 G-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table G-3. VYNPS PSA Historical Summary

PSA

Version Summary of Changes from Prior Model(a) |

CDF

per Year

1993 IPE Submittal - no internal flooding

(With 1998 IPEEE internal flooding of 9.0 x 10-6 added)

4.3 x 10-6

(1.3 x 10-5)

1998

Model

Update

(VY118)

Reviewed by BWROG in 2000 

(With 1998 IPEEE internal flooding of 9.0 x 10-6 added)

- corrected modeling limitations found in IPE

- incorporated impact of three design changes (ATWS rule instrumentation,

normal position of LPCI/RHR minimum flow valve, and standby position of torus

vent valve)

4.9 x 10-6

(1.4 x 10-5)

VY00R0 - Integrated individual models (transients, LOCAs, internal flooding, ISLOCA,

LOCA outside containment and Level 2) into single model

- updated component failure database

1.8 x 10-5

VY02R0 - Incorporated major design changes (addition of fourth battery charger,

replacement of 24VDC batteries with 125VDC to 24VDC converter, and

containment nitrogen system model revised to reflect new piping and nitrogen

supply)

- Updated failure rate and unavailability data

- Updated initiating event frequencies

- Updated internal flooding model to include: two separate initiators for SW line

break in torus room, revised human error probabilities, and additional credit for

CRD system

4.3 x 10-6 |

VY02R6 - Revised non-recovery factors for loss of service water and loss of offsite power

- Revised model to have separate initiators for SORV and IORV

- Removed credit for use of CRD for injection early in event sequences

7.8 x 10-6

VY04R1 - Revised model to account for effects associated with Extended Power Uprate(b) | - Revised treatment of SW recovery to be based on system failure modes

- Revised flooding analysis of SW line break at elevation 280'

- Updated loss of vital DC bus initiating event frequency

- Updated reactor protection system fault tree model

5.0 x 10-6

VY05R0 - Increased mission time for emergency diesel generators from 8 to 24 hours

- Updated frequency of loss of offsite power (LOOP) initiating event

- Added LOOP due to severe weather

- Revised model to include credit for use of John Deere diesel generator as an

alternate power supply for the station battery chargers

- Reevaluated human error associated with use of diesel driven fire pump 

- Added operator action to model the potential that the operator fails to

adequately control the torus vent, leading to a net positive suction head (NPSH)

loss and ECCS pump failure

8.0 x 10-6

(a) Summary of changes includes the key changes made to previous model revisions not specifically listed in this table. |

(b) A sensitivity study associated with the EPU application indicated that the EPU increased the CDF by 3.3 x10-7 per |

year (Entergy 2003).
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-8 August 2007

The current internal events CDF results for VYNPS (8.0 x 10-6 per year) are comparable to or

somewhat lower than that for other plants of similar vintage and characteristics.

The NRC staff considered the peer reviews performed for the VYNPS PSA, and the potential

impact of the review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In the ER and in a response to a staff

RAI (Entergy 2006a, 2006b), Entergy described the peer review by the BWROG of the 1998

model (Model VY118) conducted in September of 2000. Entergy also provided a list of

strengths and weaknesses identified by the peer review, and a list of ten areas for improvement

along with their resolution. The BWROG review concluded that the VYNPS PSA can be

effectively used to support applications involving risk significance determinations supported by

deterministic analysis, once the significant Facts and Observations (F&Os) are addressed. In

response to the NRC staff’s request for additional information concerning the application for

extended power uprate (Entergy 2004), Entergy indicated that a total of 104 F&Os were

identified during the BWROG peer review, and provided a listing of the single “Category A” and

the 51 “Category B” F&Os, along with their resolutions. The NRC staff reviewed this material

and concluded that the VYNPS PSA has sufficient scope, level of detail and technical adequacy

to support the risk evaluation of the proposed EPU (NRC 2005). In the context of the SAMA

application, Entergy stated that all significant F&Os (i.e., A and B priority) have been resolved

and that appropriate modeling changes have been implemented in the PSA version used to

support SAMA analysis.

The internal flooding analysis performed for the IPEEE was included within the BWROG peer

review. Entergy indicated that internal flooding was cited in the review as a strength and that

there were no recommended areas for improvement associated with internal flooding. In

response to an RAI (Entergy 2006b), Entergy described the significant changes subsequently

made in the internal flooding analysis to support the significant reduction in CDF due to internal

flooding.

Given that the VYNPS internal events PSA model has been peer-reviewed and the peer review

findings were either addressed or judged to have no adverse impact on the SAMA evaluation,

and that Entergy has satisfactorily addressed NRC staff questions regarding the PSA, the NRC

staff concludes that the internal events Level 1 PSA model is of sufficient quality to support the

SAMA evaluation.

As indicated above, the current VYNPS PSA does not include external events. In the absence

of such an analysis, Entergy used the VYNPS IPEEE to identify the highest risk accident

sequences and the potential means of reducing the risk posed by those sequences, as

discussed below.

The VYNPS IPEEE was submitted in June 1998 (VYNPC 1998), in response to Supplement 4

of GL 88-20. This submittal included internal flooding, as well as the usual external events

(seismic, fire and other external events). While no fundamental weaknesses or vulnerabilities to
Appendix G

August 2007 G-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

severe accident risk in regard to the external events were identified, a listing of improvement

opportunities was developed. Improvements related to internal flooding were discussed above. 

Additional improvements for seismic, fire, high winds and other external events are discussed

below. In a letter dated March 22, 2001, the NRC staff concluded that the submittals met the

intent of Supplement 4 to GL 88-20, and that the licensee’s IPEEE process is capable of

identifying the most likely severe accidents and severe accident vulnerabilities (NRC 2001).

The VYNPS IPEEE uses a focused scope Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) seismic

margins analysis. This method is qualitative and does not provide numerical estimates of the

CDF contributions from seismic initiators (EPRI 1991). The seismic IPEEE identified a number

of outliers of items within the scope of the Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 program. 

Resolution of these outliers was accomplished in the context of USI A-46. Given the |

satisfactory resolution of these outliers, VYNPS found that, based on the EPRI assessment

methodology, all high confidence low probability of failure (HCLPF) values were greater than the |

0.3 g review level earthquake used in the IPEEE except for the condensate storage tank (CST)

with a HCLPF value of 0.25 g and the Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tank with a HCLPF of 0.29 g. |

The NRC review and closure of USI A-46 for VYNPS is documented in a letter dated March 20,

2000 (NRC 2000). 

The IPEEE identifies seven opportunities for improvement related to seismic events, including

improvements related to the CST and Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tank. In response to an RAI, |

Entergy confirmed that, with the exception of improvements related to the CST, all the

improvements identified in the IPEEE and in Tables 2.7 and 2.12 of NUREG-1742 (NRC 2002)

have been implemented or otherwise shown not to be required (Entergy 2006b). In response to

an RAI, Entergy evaluated a modification to raise the CST HCLPF value. This is discussed

further in Section G.3.2. Based on the information provided by the applicant, the NRC staff

finds the treatment of seismic events to be reasonable for the purposes of the SAMA analysis.

The VYNPS IPEEE fire analysis employed EPRI’s fire-induced vulnerability evaluation

methodology to perform a qualitative and quantitative screening review and then a probabilistic

risk analysis to estimate the CDF contribution for the areas that did not screen out. After |

qualitative screening, fire event initiation frequencies were determined for the unscreened areas

for use in quantitative screening along with the assumption that all equipment in a compartment

was damaged by the fire. Using results from the IPE, a conservative CDF for the compartment

was determined and areas with a CDF of less than 1 x 10-6 per year were screened out. Fire

propagation and suppression analysis was then conducted on the unscreened compartments. 

Fire induced CDFs were determined by propagating the fire initiating events and associated

equipment failures determined by the fire propagation and suppression analysis through event

trees similar to those in the IPE. The potential impact on containment performance and

isolation was evaluated following the core damage evaluation. The VYNPS fire CDF results,

after updating in response to IPEEE RAIs, are presented in Table E.1-11 of the ER. The total

fire CDF, found by summing the values for all compartments is 5.6 x 10-5 per year.
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-10 August 2007

In the IPEEE, four opportunities for improvements with respect to fire events were identified. 

These improvements were all credited in the IPEEE fire CDF. Three of the four improvements

involved improvements in the fire prevention inspection and barrier inspection and maintenance

programs. The fourth improvement involved relocating or protecting certain control cables for

offsite power breakers. In the ER, Entergy indicates that these improvements have been

implemented. 

The NRC staff inquired about additional steps taken to reduce fire risk and the possibility of

additional SAMAs that might be feasible to reduce the fire risk. Entergy provided a listing of fire

related Phase I SAMAs that have been implemented. Most of these SAMAs are improvements

in the fire protection program, that while they would decrease the fire risk, are not explicitly

credited in the fire risk analysis. Entergy further argued that a number of the SAMAs, identified

based on internal events analysis, would also mitigate the fire risk and identified these SAMAs

and the affected fire zones (Entergy 2006c). In addition, all of the dominant fire zones are

equipped with fire detection systems and all but two of the zones have fire suppression systems

(Entergy 2006e). Each of the dominant contributors to the total fire CDF and the associated fire

| detection and suppression system for those fire zones are shown in Table G-4.

The feasibility of adding fire suppression to the two remaining fire zones was examined and it

was concluded that this was inappropriate to do so because of inherent complexity and

competing risks associated with possible fire suppression designs. Based on the above,

Entergy concluded that no additional cost effective fire related SAMAs would be expected

(Entergy 2006e). The NRC staff concludes that the opportunity for fire-related SAMAs has been

adequately explored and that it is unlikely that there are any potentially cost-beneficial, firerelated SAMA candidates.

In the ER, Entergy states that the above CDF values are screening values and that a more

realistic fire CDF may be about a factor of three lower (or 1.86 x 10-5 per year) based on the

NRC staff estimate for another license renewal application. In response to an NRC staff RAI to

justify the factor of three reduction for VYNPS, Entergy identified seven general conservative

assumptions applied to the fire analysis and eight conservatisms specific to fires scenarios in

the control room or cable vault that are significant contributors to fire risk (Entergy 2006b). Of

the fire scenario-specific conservatisms, most can be characterized by: (1) use of conservative

fire frequency and severity factors, (2) no credit taken for certain plant operating procedures

during fire events, and (3) use of a simple fire suppression analysis. Based on the existence of

numerous conservatisms, the NRC staff finds the use of a fire CDF of 1.86 x 10-5 per year to be

reasonable for the purposes of the SAMA analysis.

The IPEEE analysis of high winds, external floods and other external events followed the

screening and evaluation approaches specified in Supplement 4 to GL 88-20 (NRC 1991) and 
Appendix G

August 2007 G-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Table G-4. Dominant Contributors to Total Fire CDF at VYNPS |

Fire

Compartment Description

CDF

(per year)

Fire

Detection

Fire Suppression

Type

CV Cable Vault, El. 262' 1.5 x 10-5 Yes CO2

SGW West Switchgear Room, El. 248' 9.0 x 10-6 Yes CO2

SGE East Switchgear Room, El. 248' 7.0 x 10-6 Yes CO2

CR Control Room, El. 272' 5.7 x 10-6 Yes None

RB3 Reactor Building, El. 252', Zone

RB3 (north)

5.1 x 10-6 Yes Pre-action water

RB4 Reactor Building, El. 252', Zone

RB4 (south)

3.3 x 10-6 Yes None

CVBT Cable Vault Battery Room, El. 262' 3.2 x 10-6 Yes CO2

TURB Turbine Building, All General Areas 1.1 x 10-6 Yes Pre-action water

did not identify any significant sequences or vulnerabilities (VYNPC 1998). Based on this 

result, Entergy concluded that these other external hazards would not be expected to impact the

conclusions of the SAMA analysis and did not consider them further.

Based on the aforementioned results, the external events CDF is approximately 2.33 times the

internal events CDF (based on a negligible seismic CDF, a fire CDF of 1.86 x 10-5 per year, and

an internal events CDF of 8.0 x 10-6 per year). Accordingly, the total CDF from internal and

external events would be approximately 3.33 times the internal events CDF. In the revised

SAMA analyses submitted in response to an RAI, Entergy multiplied the benefit that was

derived from the internal events model by a factor of 3.33 to account for the combined

contribution from internal and external events. The NRC staff agrees with the applicant’s overall

conclusion concerning the multiplier used to represent the impact of external events and

concludes that the applicant’s use of a multiplier of 3.33 to account for external events is

reasonable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

The NRC staff reviewed the general process used by Entergy to translate the results of the

Level 1 PSA into containment releases, as well as the results of the Level 2 analysis, as

described in the ER and in response to NRC staff requests for additional information (Entergy

2006a, 2006b, and 2006c). The current Level 2 model utilizes a single CET, containing both

phenomenological and systemic events, which is linked directly to the Level 1 event trees.

Entergy characterized the releases for the spectrum of possible radionuclide release scenarios

using a set of 14 release categories, defined based on the timing and magnitude of the release
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-12 August 2007

and whether the containment remains intact or is bypassed. The frequency of each release

category was obtained from the quantification of a linked Level 1 - Level 2 model which

effectively evaluates a CET for each Level 1 accident sequence. Each CET accident

progression end state was assigned to one of the 14 release categories. The release

characteristics for each release category were obtained by frequency weighting the release

characteristics for each CET end state contributing to the release category. The source term

release fractions for the CET endstates were estimated based on the results of plant-specific

analyses of the dominant CET scenarios using the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP,

Version 4.04) computer program. The release categories, their frequencies and release

characteristics are presented in Table RAI.2.b of Entergy’s RAI responses (Entergy 2006c).

The NRC staff’s review of the Level 2 IPE concluded that it addressed the most important

severe accident phenomena normally associated with the Mark I containment type, and

identified no significant problems or errors (NRC 1996). Based on the NRC staff’s review of the

Level 2 methodology, and the fact that the Level 2 model was reviewed in more detail as part of

the BWROG peer review, the NRC staff concludes that the Level 2 PSA provides an acceptable

basis for evaluating the benefits associated with various SAMAs.

Even though Entergy used the MACCS2 code and scaled the reference BWR core inventory for

VYNPS plant-specific power level (1912 MWt), the NRC staff requested that Entergy evaluate

the impact on population dose if the core inventory were based on the plant-specific burn-up

and enrichment (NRC 2006a). In response to the NRC staff’s request, Entergy derived a best

estimate inventory of long-lived isotopes (such as Sr-90, Cs-134 and Cs-137) from an ORIGEN

calculation assuming 4.65 percent enrichment and average burn-up based on expected fuel

management practices. This resulted in an increase of approximately 25 percent in the

inventories of the aforementioned radionuclides relative to those considered in the ER (Entergy

2006b). The increase in the inventories, combined with the increase in CDF in version VY05R0

of the PSA, resulted in an increase in total population dose from 9.2 to 15.1 person-rem per

year, and an increase in the annual offsite economic risk monetary equivalent (discussed later)

from $21,000 to $36,600 (Entergy 2006c). As part of their response, Entergy provided revised

benefit estimates for each SAMA based on the revised core inventory values and the revised

PSA model. The revised benefit estimates are presented and discussed in Section G.6.

The NRC staff reviewed the process used by Entergy to extend the containment performance

(Level 2) portion of the PSA to an assessment of offsite consequences (essentially a Level 3

PSA). This included consideration of the source terms used to characterize fission product

releases for the applicable containment release categories and the major input assumptions

used in the offsite consequence analyses. The MACCS2 code was utilized to estimate offsite

consequences. Plant-specific input to the code includes the source terms for each release

category and the reactor core radionuclide inventory (both discussed above), site-specific

meteorological data, projected population distribution within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius for 
Appendix G

August 2007 G-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

the year 2032, emergency evacuation modeling, and economic data. This information is

provided in Attachment E of the ER (Entergy 2006a) and Attachment B of the RAI responses

(Entergy 2006c).

Entergy used site-specific meteorological data for the 2002 calendar year as input to the

MACCS2 code. The hourly data were collected from the onsite meteorological tower. In

response to an RAI, Entergy stated that it considered the year 2002 data to be the most current

and complete set of data at the time of the SAMA analysis (Entergy 2006b). Missing data was

obtained from a backup meteorological system located on the VYNPS site. The NRC staff

notes that previous SAMA analyses results have shown little sensitivity to year-to-year

differences in meteorological data and concludes that the use of the 2002 meteorological data

in the SAMA analysis is reasonable. 

The population distribution the applicant used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was estimated

for the year 2032, based on the U.S. Census population data for 2000 (Entergy 2006a). The

2000 population was adjusted to account for transient population. These data were used to

project county-level resident populations to the year 2032 using a least squares fit method. The

NRC staff considers the methods and assumptions for estimating population reasonable and

acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending out 16

kilometers (10 miles) from the plant. Entergy assumed that 100 percent of the population would

move at an average speed of approximately 1.8 meters per second (4 miles per hour) with a

delayed start time of 1 hour and 20 minutes (Entergy 2006a). This assumption is similar to the

NUREG-1150 study (NRC 1990), which assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the population

within the emergency planning zone. Sensitivity analyses were performed in which the

evacuation delay time was set to 2 hours, and the evacuation speed was decreased to 1 meter

per second (2.2 miles per hour). The results of both sensitivity analyses showed that delayed

evacuation and lower evacuation speed have a small impact on the population dose. The NRC

staff concludes that the evacuation assumptions and analysis are reasonable and acceptable

for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

Site-specific economic data requiring spatial distributions as input to MACCS2 were prepared by

specifying the data for each of the 17 counties within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the plant. The

values used in each of the 240 sectors surrounding the plant corresponded to the county that

made up a majority of the land in that sector. Generic economic data that are applied to the

region as a whole were revised from the MACCS2 sample problem input when better

information was unavailable. These included fraction of farm and non-farm wealth from

improvements (e.g., buildings, equipment). The agricultural economic data were extrapolated to

2002 using average values for the 50-mile radius area from the 1987, 1992, and 1997 Census

of Agriculture (USDA 1998). The recommended MACCS2 growing seasons duration was

assumed.
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-14 August 2007

The NRC staff concludes that the methodology used by Entergy to estimate the offsite

consequences for VYNPS provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an

assessment of risk reduction potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the NRC staff based

its assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and offsite doses reported by Entergy.

G.3 Potential Plant Improvements

The process for identifying potential plant improvements, an evaluation of that process, and the

improvements evaluated in detail by Entergy are discussed in this section.

G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements

Entergy's process for identifying potential plant improvements (SAMAs) consisted of the

following elements: 

C Review of the most significant basic events from the plant-specific PSA,

C Review of potential plant improvements identified in the VYNPS IPE and IPEEE,

C Review of Phase II SAMAs from license renewal applications for six other U.S. nuclear

sites, and

C Review of other NRC and industry documentation discussing potential plant

improvements.

Based on this process, an initial set of 302 candidate SAMAs, referred to as Phase I SAMAs,

was identified. In Phase I of the evaluation, Entergy performed a qualitative screening of the

initial list of SAMAs and eliminated SAMAs from further consideration using the following

criteria: 

C The SAMA is not applicable at VYNPS due to design differences,

C The SAMA has already been implemented at VYNPS, or

C The SAMA is similar in nature and could be combined with another SAMA candidate.

| Based on this screening, 236 SAMAs were eliminated, leaving 66 for further evaluation. Of the

| SAMAs eliminated, 57 were eliminated because the SAMA is not applicable at VYNPS because

| of design differences, 175 were eliminated because the SAMA has already been implemented

| at VYNPS, and 4 were eliminated because the SAMA is similar in nature and could be

| combined with another SAMA candidate. The remaining SAMAs, referred to as Phase II

SAMAs, are listed in Table E.2-1 of the ER (Entergy 2006a) and Revised Table E.2-1 of the RAI
Appendix G

August 2007 G-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

responses (Entergy 2006c). In Phase II, a detailed evaluation was performed for each of the 66

remaining SAMA candidates, as discussed in Sections G.4 and G.6 below. To account for the

potential impact of external events, the estimated benefits based on internal events were

multiplied by a factor of 3.33, as previously discussed. 

G.3.2 Review of Entergy’s Process

Entergy’s efforts to identify potential SAMAs focused primarily on areas associated with internal

initiating events. The initial list of SAMAs generally addressed the accident sequences

considered to be important to CDF from functional, initiating event, and risk reduction worth

perspectives at VYNPS, and included selected SAMAs from prior SAMA analyses for other

plants.

In Table E.1-3 of the ER, Entergy provided a tabular listing of the risk significant terms or

functions in the PSA sorted according to their risk reduction worth (RRW) in PSA version

VY04R1 (Entergy 2006a). A revision to this table based on PSA version VY05R0 was provided

in response to an RAI (Entergy 2006d). SAMAs impacting the risk significant terms would have

the greatest potential for reducing risk. Entergy used a RRW cutoff of 1.005, which corresponds

to about a one-half percent change in CDF given 100-percent reliability of the SAMA. This

equates to a benefit (using PSA version VY05R0) of approximately $15,000 (after the benefits

have been multiplied to account for external events). Entergy correlated the terms with highest

risk importance in the Level 1 PSA with the SAMAs evaluated in Phase I or Phase II, and

showed that, with a few exceptions, all of the significant terms are addressed by one or more

SAMAs (Entergy 2006a).

The exceptions (for which Entergy did not identify any SAMAs to address risk significant terms)

are all operator action terms, in which procedure enhancements have already been

implemented and further procedural changes would be of little benefit. Consequently, the only

potential for reducing the risk would be to automate the operator action, if it has not already

been automated. For most of these operator actions, automating the operator actions raises

the potential for adverse risk impacts. For example, the operator action with the highest RRW

involves aligning the John Deere diesel generator and the firewater system to provide alternate

injection into the reactor for station blackout sequences. In response to NRC staff inquiries,

Entergy stated that if these actions were automated and spurious operation occurred, potential

serious adverse electrical and/or fluid system interaction would be possible. While it is possible

to design around these interactions, this would complicate the modification and increase its cost

(Entergy 2006e). Entergy concluded for this operator action that no Phase II SAMAs need be

considered. With one exception, the same conclusion is reached for the other significant

operator actions. The exception is automating the starting of turbine building closed cooling

water (TBCCW) pumps after a loss of offsite power. For this case, the cost-benefit of

automating this function was evaluated at the NRC staff’s request and it was found not to be

cost-beneficial (Entergy 2006c).
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-16 August 2007

For a number of the Phase II SAMAs listed in the ER, the information provided did not

sufficiently describe the proposed modification. Therefore, the NRC staff asked the applicant to

provide more detailed descriptions of the modifications for several of the Phase II SAMAs

candidates (NRC 2006a). In response to the RAI, Entergy provided the requested information

(Entergy 2006b).

The NRC staff questioned the ability of some of the candidate SAMAs to accomplish their

intended objectives (NRC 2006a). In response to the RAIs, Entergy addressed the NRC staff’s

concerns by either re-evaluating the existing SAMA using revised modeling assumptions, or by

evaluating an alternative (additional) SAMA (Entergy 2006c). This is discussed further in

Section G.6.2.

The NRC staff also questioned Entergy about lower cost alternatives to some of the SAMAs

evaluated, including revising operator procedures to provide additional space cooling to the

emergency diesel generator (EDG) room via the use of portable equipment, the use of a

portable generator to power the battery chargers, and providing an auto-start feature to start a

TBCCW pump automatically during a LOOP event (NRC 2006a). In response to the RAIs,

Entergy addressed the suggested lower cost alternatives, some of which are covered by an

existing procedure, or are addressed by a new SAMA (Entergy 2006b, 2006c, 2006d). This is

discussed further in Section G.6.2.

| Internal flooding initiators contribute more than 17 percent of the internal events CDF (Entergy

2006c). In the ER, Entergy only evaluated one SAMA candidate, SAMA 47, which would

uniquely reduce the internal flooding contribution. In response to an RAI, Entergy indicated that

a number of the SAMAs identified to mitigate non-flooding sequences would also mitigate

flooding events. Fourteen opportunities were identified in the IPEEE for improvements for

internal flooding. In response to the RAI, Entergy described each of the 14 improvements and

confirmed that they were either implemented and credited in the PSA (10 of the 14) or were not

warranted for various reasons (4 of the 14) (Entergy 2006b). In response to further NRC staff

inquiry, Entergy stated that an internal flooding assessment was conducted by Entergy in 2002,

subsequent to the IPEEE assessment. The assessment indicated SAMA 47 as a potential

improvement and concluded that all other identified improvements to further reduce the internal

flooding impact were either not feasible or excessively costly (Entergy 2006e). SAMA 47 is

discussed further is Section G.6.2. Additionally, Entergy provided a revised Table E.1-3 of risk

significant terms, which had changed based on the use of PSA version VY05R0. It indicated

that the number of internal flooding risk significant terms had dropped as a result of the PSA

revision, from 17 to nine (Entergy 2006d). 

Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the set of SAMAs evaluated in the ER,

together with those identified in response to NRC staff RAIs, addresses the major internal event

contributors to CDF (including internal flooding).
Appendix G

August 2007 G-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Entergy did not identify VYNPS-specific candidate SAMAs for seismic events. In the VYNPS

IPEEE seismic analysis, all high confidence low probability of failure (HCLPF) values were

greater than the 0.3g review level earthquake except for the CST, which had a HCLPF value of

0.25g. NRC requested that Entergy evaluate modifications that would raise the CST HCLPF to

0.3g (NRC 2006a). Entergy indicated that the combination of strengthening the lower portion of

the shell and additional anchorage would accomplish this goal. To assess the benefit, operator

failure to switch over from CST suction for high-pressure coolant injection (HPCI)/reactor core

isolation coolant (RCIC) to torus suction was eliminated. This resulted in a benefit (including the

impact of uncertainties) of $17,000. Entergy estimated the cost of implementing this SAMA to

be $1M (Entergy 2006c). This new SAMA would not be cost-beneficial at VYNPS. Therefore,

no cost-effective hardware changes were identified to address the CST. Furthermore, Entergy

states in the ER that several seismic-related enhancements beyond those identified in the

IPEEE were evaluated, and that these enhancements were included in the comprehensive list

of Phase I SAMA candidates. Entergy identified and described these SAMAs in response to an

RAI (Phase I SAMAs 205 through 210 and SAMA 212) and confirmed that all of these SAMAs |

have been implemented (Entergy 2006b). Based on the licensee’s IPEEE, the A-46 efforts to

identify and address seismic outliers, the modifications that have already been implemented,

and the expected cost associated with further seismic risk analysis and potential plant

modifications, the NRC staff concludes that the opportunity for seismic-related SAMAs has been

adequately explored and that it is unlikely that there are any cost-beneficial, seismic-related

SAMA candidates.

Entergy also did not identify VYNPS-specific candidate SAMAs for fire events. The fire risk at

VYNPS is dominated by eight fire areas, the largest contributor being the cable vault. The NRC

staff asked the applicant to explain what measures were taken to further reduce risk and why

the fire risk cannot be further reduced in a cost effective manner (NRC 2006a). In response to

this request, Entergy stated that most of the fire scenarios are mitigated by SAMAs responding

to internal risk contributors. Entergy also provided a list of fire-related Phase I SAMAs (214 |

through 224 and 282 through 284) that were previously implemented. In response to an RAI |

concerning the possibility of SAMAs to address fire events, Entergy pointed out that many of the

Phase II SAMAs identified based on internal events risk also mitigate the fire risk. Entergy also

stated that all eight dominant risk significant fire areas are equipped with a fire detection system

that alarms in the control room, and that six of the eight areas are equipped with a fire

suppression system. Of the two areas not equipped with fire suppression systems, Entergy

indicated that installation of these systems is either not feasible or would entail excessive costs

(Entergy 2006e). Therefore, no hardware changes or other modifications to further reduce the

fire CDF were found to be cost-effective (Entergy 2006b). 

In the IPEEE, five opportunities for improvements related to external flooding were identified. 

These improvements were all related to procedural enhancements to address site flooding or

the sealing of conduits or walls to prevent external flood penetration (NRC 2001). In the ER,

Entergy stated that all have been implemented and qualitatively discussed the residual risks
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-18 August 2007

from high winds, external flooding, ice, hazardous chemical transportation and nearby facility

incidents. These external hazards are below the threshold screening frequency and are not

expected to impact the conclusions of the SAMA analysis. Accordingly, Entergy considered the

potential for SAMAs to further reduce these risks, but concluded that further modifications would

not be cost-beneficial (Entergy 2006a). The NRC staff concludes that the applicant’s rationale

for eliminating these enhancements from further consideration is reasonable.

The NRC staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all inclusive, since additional,

possibly even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the NRC

staff concludes that the benefits of any additional modifications are unlikely to exceed the

benefits of the modifications evaluated and that the alternative improvements would not likely

cost less than the least expensive alternatives evaluated, when the subsidiary costs associated

with maintenance, procedures, and training are considered. 

The NRC staff concludes that Entergy used a systematic and comprehensive process for

identifying potential plant improvements for VYNPS, and that the set of potential plant

improvements identified by Entergy is reasonably comprehensive and therefore acceptable. 

This search included reviewing insights from the plant-specific risk studies, reviewing plant

improvements considered in previous SAMA analyses. While explicit treatment of external

events in the SAMA identification process was limited, it is recognized that the prior

implementation of plant modifications for seismic and fire events and the absence of external

event vulnerabilities reasonably justifies examining primarily the internal events risk results for

this purpose.

G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements

Entergy evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the 66 remaining SAMAs that were applicable

to VYNPS. The majority of the SAMA evaluations were performed in a bounding fashion in that

the SAMA was assumed to completely eliminate the risk associated with the proposed

enhancement. Such bounding calculations over-estimate the benefit and are conservative.

Entergy used model re-quantification to determine the potential benefits. The CDF and

population dose reductions were estimated using the VYNPS PSA model. The changes made

to the model to quantify the impact of the SAMAs are detailed in Section E.2.3 of Attachment E

to the ER (Entergy 2006a) and in Attachment B of the September 19, 2006 RAI responses

| (Entergy 2006c). Table G-5 lists the assumptions that were considered to estimate the risk

reduction for each of the evaluated SAMAs, the estimated risk reduction in terms of percent 
August 2007 G-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix G

Table G-5. SAMA Cost-Benefit Screening Analysis for VYNPS(a) |

SAMA Assumptions

 % Risk Reduction(b) Total Benefit Using 7%

Discount Rate

 ($)(c)

Total Benefit

Using 3%

Discount Rate

 ($)(c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

Additional Service Water Pump1 - Add a service water pump.

Eliminate CDF contribution dueto loss of service water.

<1 | <1 24,000 34,000 5,900,000

Redundant Train to EDG Building HVAC2 - Provide a redundant train/means ofEDG Room ventilation.

Eliminate CDF contribution fromEDG failures.

24 26 750,000 1,000,000 2,200,000(d)

Improvements Related to Diagnosis ofEDG Building HVAC3 - Add a diesel building hightemperature alarm, or redundant louverand thermostat.

Reduce probability of EDG runfailures by a factor of three.

18 19 560,000 760,000 1,300,000(d)

Decay Heat Removal Capability Completely eliminate loss of

torus cooling mode of the RHRand RHRSW system events.

6 8 230,000 310,000

4 - Install and independent method ofsuppression pool cooling.

5,800,000

12 - Install a passive containment spraysystem

5,800,000

17 - Add dedicated suppression poolcooling.

5,800,000

Filtered Vent Bin successful torus venting

sequences into the Low-Lowrelease category

0 ~0 400 500

5 - Install a filtered containment vent toprovide fission product scrubbing. Option1: Gravel Bed Filter. Option 2: MultipleVenturi Scrubber.

3,000,000

22 - Install a filtered vent. 3,000,000
NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-20 August 2007

Appendix G Table G-5. (contd)

SAMA Assumptions

 % Risk Reduction(b) Total Benefit Using 7%

Discount Rate

 ($)(c)

Total Benefit

Using 3%

Discount Rate

 ($)(c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

Containment Vent for ATWS DecayHeat Removal

Eliminate CDF contribution fromloss of torus cooling mode ofRHR and RHRSW in ATWSevent sequences.

~0 0 0 0

6 - Install a containment vent largeenough to remove ATWS decay heat.

>2,000,000

56 - Install an ATWS sized vent. >2,000,000Molten Core Debris Removal Completely eliminate

containment failures due tocore-concrete interaction (notincluding liner failure).

0 11 280,000 390,000

7 - Create a large concrete crucible withheat removal potential under the basemate to contain molten core debris.

>100,000,000

8 - Create a water-cooled rubble bed onthe pedestal.

19,000,000

11 - Create a core melt sourcereduction system

>1,000,000

14 - Increase the depth of the concretebase mat or use an alternative concretematerial to ensure melt-through doesnot occur.

>5,000,000

15 - Provide a reactor vessel exteriorcooling system.

2,500,000

25 - Provide a means of flooding therubble bed.

2,500,000
August 2007 G-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix G

Table G-5. (contd)

SAMA Assumptions

 % Risk Reduction(b) Total Benefit Using 7%

Discount Rate

 ($)(c)

Total Benefit

Using 3%

Discount Rate

 ($)(c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

26 - Install a reactor cavity floodingsystem.

8,750,000

Drywell Head Flooding Completely eliminate drywell

head failures due to hightemperature.

00 0 0

9 - Provide modification for flooding thedrywell head.

>1,000,000

23 - Provide a method of drywell headflooding.

>1,000,000

Reactor Building Effectiveness Bin sequences with releases

into reactor building into theLow-Low release category.

0 39 940,000 1,300,000

10 - Enhance fire protection system andstandby gas treatment system hardwareand procedures.

>2,500,000

16 - Construct a building connected toprimary containment that is maintained ata vacuum.

>2,100,000 (d)

24 - Use alternate method of reactorbuilding spray.

>>2,500,000 (f)

Strengthen Containment Eliminate CDF contribution due

to ATWS and loss ofcontainment heat removal.

6 9 240,000 330,000

13 - Strengthen primary and secondarycontainment.

12,000,000

18 - Create a larger volume incontainment.

8,000,000
 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-22 August 2007

Appendix G Table G-5. (contd)

SAMA Assumptions

 % Risk Reduction(b) Total Benefit Using 7%

Discount Rate

 ($)(c)

Total Benefit

Using 3%

Discount Rate

 ($ (c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

19 - Increase containment pressurecapability (sufficient pressure towithstand severe accidents).

12,000,000

27 - Add ribbing to the containmentshell.

12,000,000

Vacuum Breakers20 - Install improved vacuum breakers(redundant valves in each line)

Eliminate vacuum breakerfailures and suppression poolscrubbing failures.

~0 0 4000 5000 >1,000,000

Temperature Margin for Seals21 - Increase the temperature marginfor seals. 

Eliminate containment failuredue to high temperature drywellseal failure.

0 0 0 0 12,000,000

DC Power Increase time available to

recover offsite power beforeHPCI and RCIC are lost from 4to 24 hours during SBOscenarios

11 11 340,000 450,000

28 - Provide additional DC batterycapacity.

1,730,000(d)

29 - Use fuel cells instead of lead-acidbatteries.

>1,000,000(e)

33 - Provide 16 hour station blackoutinjection.

1,730,000(d)

40 - Install fuel cells. >1,000,000(e)41 - Extended station blackoutprovisions.

1,730,000(d)
August 2007 G-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Appendix G

Table G-5. (contd)

SAMA Assumptions

 % Risk Reduction(b) Total Benefit Using 7%

Discount Rate

 ($)(c)

Total Benefit

Using 3%

Discount Rate

 ($)(c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

Improved DC System30 - Provide auto-transfer of AC buscontrol power to a standby DC powersource upon loss of the normal DCsource

Completely eliminate failures ofDC bus 1.

3 3 100,000 140,000 >500,000

Dedicated DC Power and AdditionalBatteries and Divisions

Completely eliminate loss of DCbus 1 and one division of DCpower events (battery and bus).

6 6 180,000 240,000

38 - Add a dedicated DC power supply. 3,000,00039 - Install additional batteries ordivisions.

3,000,000

Turbine Generator Eliminate CDF contribution due

to failure of the Vernon Tie.

29 32 920,000 1,240,000

31 - Install a gas turbine generator. >>2,000,000(f)

34 - Install a steam driven turbinegenerator.

>>2,000,000(f)

35 - Provide an alternate pump powersource.

>5,000,000(e)

36 - Install a gas turbine. >2,000,00037 - Install a dedicated RHR (bunkered)power supply.

>2,000,000

Bypass Diesel Generator Trips32 - Change procedure to bypass dieselgenerator trips, or change trip setpoints.

Reduce probability of EDGfailing to run by a factor of three.

18 19 560,000 760,000 >1,200,000(d)
Appendix G

 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-24 August 2007 Table G-5. (contd) SAMA Assumptions % Risk Reduction(b) Total Benefit Using 7% Discount Rate ($)(c) Total Benefit Using 3% Discount Rate ($)(c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose Locate RHR Inside Containment 42 - Locate residual heat removal (RHR) inside containment. Bin ISLOCA accident sequences into the same end states as medium LOCA accident sequences. <1 <1 20,000 28,000 >500,000 ISLOCA 43 - Increase frequency of valve leak testing. Eliminate CDF contribution due to ISLOCA. <1 <1 20,000 28,000 100,000 ISLOCA Release 44 - Ensure all ISLOCA releases are scrubbed. Bin ISLOCA sequences into the Low-Low release category. 0 1 32,000 45,000 >2,500,000 Containment Isolation Valve Position Indication 45 - Add redundant and diverse limit switches to each containment isolation valve. Eliminate CDF contribution due to ISLOCA and make containment isolation successful in the level 2 model. <1 <1 20,000 28,000 >1,000,000 MSIV Design 46 - Improve MSIV design. Eliminate CDF contribution due to main steam line LOCA outside containment. ~0 0 0 0 >1,000,000(e) Shield Electrical System fro Water Spray 47 - Shield injection system electrical equipment from potential water spray. Eliminate CDF contribution due to internal flooding initiators that could impact injection system electrical equipment. 3 2 68,000 90,000 250,000 Diesel to CST Makeup Pumps 48 - Install an independent diesel for the condensate storage tank makeup pumps. Eliminate operator failure to switch over from CST to torus. 2 0 8000 9000 135,000
Appendix G

August 2007 G-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 Table G-5. (contd) SAMA Assumptions % Risk Reduction(b) Total Benefit Using 7% Discount Rate ($)(c) Total Benefit Using 3% Discount Rate ($)(c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose High Pressure Injection System Eliminate CDF contribution due to failure of the HPCI system. 28 25 740,000 1,000,000 49 - Provide an additional high pressure injection pump with independent diesel. 5,000,000(e) 50 - Install independent AC high pressure injection system. 5,000,000(e) 51 - Install a passive high pressure system. 28,000,000(e) 53 - Install an additional active high pressure system. 4,400,000(e) 54 - Add a diverse injection system. 4,000,000(e) Improve the Reliability of High Pressure Injection System 52 - Improved high pressure systems. Reduce the HPCI system failure probability by a factor of three. 19 17 500,000 670,000 4,000,000(e) SRV Reseat 55 - Increase safety relief valve (SRV) reseat reliability. Eliminate CDF contribution due to stuck open relief valves. <1 | 37 910,000 1,280,000 4,600,000(e) ATWS 57 - Improve ATWS coping capability. Eliminate CDF contribution from ATWS sequences. 2 <1 | 28,000 36,000 >500,000 Diversity of Explosive Valves 58 - Diversify explosive valve operation. Eliminate common cause failure of SLC explosive valves. 0 0 0 0 >200,000
Appendix G __ __

 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-26 August 2007 Table G-5. (contd) SAMA Assumptions % Risk Reduction(b) Total Benefit Using 7% Discount Rate ($)(c) Total Benefit Using 3% Discount Rate ($)(c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose Reliability of SRVs (g) 59 - Increase the reliability of safety relief valves by adding signals to open them automatically. Eliminate the occurrence of all RCS overpressure events. ~ 0 0 600 700 >1,500,000 Improve SRV Design 60 - Improve SRV design. Eliminate probability of SRV failure to open for vessel depressurization. 13 8 260,000 350,000 2,800,000(e) Self-Cooled ECCS Pump Seals 61 - Provide self-cooled ECCS pump seals. Eliminate CDF contribution from sequences involving RHR pump failures. <1 0 9000 12,000 >200,000 Large Break LOCA 62 - Provide digital large break LOCA protection. Eliminate CDF contribution due to large break LOCA. <1 0 9000 12,000 >100,000 Controlled Containment Venting(g) 63 - Control containment venting within a narrow band of pressure. Reduce probability of operator failing to vent by a factor of 3 and remove guaranteed failure of core spray and LPCI. 3 4 120,000 150,000 250,000 Cross-Tie of RHRSW System to RHR Loop B 64 - Provide a crosstie from the RHRSW system to RHR loop B. Eliminate CDF contribution from failure of firewater crosstie to RHRSW loop A. <1 0 10,000 13,000 >500,000
Appendix G

August 2007 G-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 Table G-5. (contd) SAMA Assumptions % Risk Reduction(b) Total Benefit Using 7% Discount Rate ($)(c) Total Benefit Using 3% Discount Rate ($)(c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose ECCS Low Pressure Interlock - Procedure Change 65 - Improve operator action: Defeat low reactor pressure interlocks to open LPCI or core spray injection valves during transients with stuck open SRVs or LOCAs in which random failures prevent all low pressure injection valves from opening. Eliminate probability of ECCS low pressure permissives failing. 16 17 500,000 670,000 50,000 ECCS Low Pressure Interlock - Hardware Modification 66 - Install a bypass switch to bypass the low reactor pressure interlocks of LPCI or core spray injection valves. Eliminate probability of ECCS low pressure permissives failing. 16 17 500,000 670,000 1,000,000 (a) SAMAs in bold are potentially cost-beneficial (b) CDF and population dose reductions taken from a revised assessment provided in Attachment B of the RAI responses (Entergy 2006c) based on a revised internal events PSA, model VY05R0 (c) Estimated benefits taken from a revised assessment provided in Attachment B of the RAI responses (Entergy 2006c). This assessment is based on: (1) internal events PSA version VY05R0, (2) a multiplier of 3.33 to account for potential risk reduction in both internal and external events, and (3) revised core inventories to reflect expected fuel management practices at VYNPS. (d) Estimated costs reflect revised values provided in Attachment B of the RAI responses (Entergy 2006c) (e) Estimated costs reflect revised values provided in response to RAI 6.b (Entergy 2006c) (f) Estimated costs reflect revised values provided in response to RAI IV.d (Entergy 2006d) (g) The assumptions, estimated benefits, CDF and population dose reductions reflect a revised analysis provided in the RAI clarifications (Entergy 2006d)
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-28 August 2007

reduction in CDF and population dose, and the estimated total benefit (present value) of the

| averted risk. The estimated benefits reported in Table G-5 reflect the combined benefit from

both internal and external events, as well as a number of changes to the analysis methodology

and revised VYNPS PSA subsequent to the ER. The determination of the benefits for the

various SAMAs is further discussed in Section G.6.

The NRC staff questioned the assumptions used in evaluating the benefits or risk reduction

estimates of certain SAMAs provided in the ER (NRC 2006a, 2006b). For SAMA 59, increase

the reliability of safety relief valves by adding signals to open them automatically, the NRC staff

questioned Entergy’s modeling assumption that only medium LOCAs would be impacted by this

modification (NRC 2006a, 2006b). In response, Entergy re-evaluated the SAMA by eliminating

the occurrence of all RCS overpressure events. This revision resulted in a negligible CDF

reduction (Entergy 2006d). The NRC staff considers the revised assumptions for this SAMA to

be reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

For Phase II SAMA 63, control containment venting within a narrow pressure band, Entergy

estimated the benefit by reducing the probability of operator failure to vent by a factor of three

(Entergy 2006a). The NRC staff noted that the benefit of controlled venting occurs for

sequences involving successful venting, and that these sequences are not affected by reducing

the operator failure to vent (NRC 2006a). In response to an RAI and a subsequent request for

clarification, Entergy revised the PSA model binning rule to remove guaranteed failure of core

spray and LPCI based upon successful venting of containment. This revision resulted in a CDF

reduction of approximately 3.2 percent, which is slightly more than the 2.8 percent CDF

reduction previously estimated, and an increase in the estimated benefit (Entergy 2006d). The

NRC staff considers the revised assumptions for this SAMA to be reasonable and acceptable

for purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

The NRC staff has reviewed Entergy’s bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various

plant improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk

reduction are reasonable and generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is higher

than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the NRC staff based its estimates of averted

risk for the various SAMAs on Entergy’s risk reduction estimates.

G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

Entergy estimated the costs of implementing the 66 candidate SAMAs through the application of

engineering judgement and use of other licensees’ estimates for similar improvements. The

cost estimates conservatively did not include the cost of replacement power during extended

outages required to implement the modifications, nor did they include contingency costs

associated with unforeseen implementation obstacles. The cost estimates provided in the ER

also did not account for inflation, which is considered another conservatism. For those SAMAs

whose implementation costs were originally developed for severe accident mitigation design
Appendix G

August 2007 G-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

alternative analyses (i.e., during the design phase of the plant), additional costs associated with

performing design modifications to the existing plant were not included (Entergy 2006a).

The NRC staff reviewed the bases for the applicant’s cost estimates (presented in Section E.2.3

of Attachment E to the ER). For certain improvements, the NRC staff also compared the cost

estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar improvements, including estimates

developed as part of other licensees’ analyses of SAMAs for operating reactors and advanced

light-water reactors. The NRC staff noted that several of the cost estimates provided by the

applicant were drawn from previous SAMA analyses for a dual-unit site. As such, the cost

estimates reflect implementation for two units. Also, some of the cost estimates provided (as

taken from other SAMA analyses) are specific to a plant’s design, such as the number of valves

or batteries that would need to be replaced. Therefore, the NRC staff asked the applicant to

provide appropriate cost estimates that are specific to VYNPS (NRC 2006a). In response to the

NRC staff’s request, Entergy provided revised cost estimates for several SAMAs (Entergy

2006c). For those cost estimates that were taken from a dual-unit SAMA analysis, Entergy

reduced the estimated costs by half. For those SAMAs that required a more plant-specific cost

estimate, Entergy provided new cost estimates along with a brief explanation of what the cost

estimates include. Additionally, Entergy provided more refined cost estimates for other SAMAs,

as a part of the revised benefit assessment. Refined cost estimates were used for SAMAs in

which the revised benefits (using PSA version VY05R0) significantly changed from that provided

in the ER. Revision of these cost estimates had no impact on the original conclusions that

these SAMAs were not cost-beneficial (Entergy 2006c). The NRC staff reviewed the costs and

subsequent cost revisions and found them to be reasonable, and generally consistent with

estimates provided in support of other plants’ analyses.

The NRC staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by Entergy are sufficient and

appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation.

G.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

Entergy's cost-benefit analysis and the NRC staff’s review are described in the following

sections.

G.6.1 Entergy’s Evaluation

The methodology used by Entergy was based primarily on NRC’s guidance for performing costbenefit analysis, i.e., NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook

(NRC 1997b). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA according to

the following formula:
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-30 August 2007

Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE where, 

APE = present value of averted public exposure ($)

AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($)

AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs ($)

AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($)

COE = cost of enhancement ($).

If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the

benefit associated with the SAMA and it is not considered cost-beneficial. Entergy’s derivation

of each of the associated costs is summarized below.

NUREG/BR-0058 has recently been revised to reflect the agency’s policy on discount rates. 

Revision 4 of NUREG/BR-0058 states that two sets of estimates should be developed: one at

three percent and one at seven percent (NRC 2004). Entergy provided both sets of estimates 

(Entergy 2006a).

Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

The APE costs were calculated using the following formula:

APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (Δperson-rem/year)

x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem)

x present value conversion factor (10.76 based on a 20-year period with a 

 7-percent discount rate).

As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b), it is important to note that the monetary value of

the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public

health risk due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential

losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. 

Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an

accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these

potential future losses to present value. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes

elimination of all severe accidents due to internal events, Entergy calculated an APE of

approximately $325,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

Averted Offsite Property Damage Costs (AOC)

The AOCs were calculated using the following formula:

AOC = Annual CDF reduction

x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event basis)

x present value conversion factor.
Appendix G

August 2007 G-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

For the purposes of initial screening which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events

are eliminated, Entergy calculated an annual offsite economic risk of about $36,600 based on

the Level 3 risk analysis. This results in a discounted value of approximately $393,000 for the

20-year license renewal period.

Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Costs

The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula:

AOE = Annual CDF reduction

x occupational exposure per core damage event

x monetary equivalent of unit dose

x present value conversion factor.

Entergy derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in

Section 5.7.3 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997b). Best estimate values provided

for immediate occupational dose (3300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose (20,000

person-rem over a 10-year cleanup period) were used. The present value of these doses was

calculated using the equations provided in the handbook in conjunction with a monetary

equivalent of unit dose of $2,000 per person-rem, a real discount rate of seven percent, and a

time period of 20 years to represent the license renewal period. For the purposes of initial

screening, which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events are eliminated, Entergy

calculated an AOE of approximately $3,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

Averted Onsite Costs

Averted onsite costs (AOSC) include averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted

power replacement costs. Repair and refurbishment costs are considered for recoverable

accidents only and not for severe accidents. Entergy derived the values for AOSC based on

information provided in Section 5.7.6 of NUREG/BR-0184, the regulatory analysis handbook

(NRC 1997b).

Entergy divided this cost element into two parts – the onsite cleanup and decontamination cost,

also commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs, and the replacement

power cost.

Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC) were calculated using the following formula:

ACC = Annual CDF reduction

x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event

x present value conversion factor.
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-32 August 2007

The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in

NUREG/BR-0184 to be $1.1 x 109

 (discounted over a 10-year cleanup period). This value is

integrated over the term of the proposed license extension. For the purposes of initial

screening, which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events are eliminated, Entergy

calculated an ACC of approximately $92,600 for the 20-year license renewal period.

Long-term replacement power costs (RPC) were calculated using the following formula: 

 

RPC = Annual CDF reduction

x present value of replacement power for a single event

x factor to account for remaining service years for which replacement power is

required

x reactor power scaling factor

For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events

are eliminated, Entergy calculated an RPC of approximately $63,000 for the 20-yr license

renewal period.

| Entergy based its calculations on the value of 910 megawatts electric, which is greater than the

current electrical output for VYNPS (after the extended power uprate). Therefore, Entergy

conservatively did not apply power scaling factors to determine the replacement power costs. 

For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated,

Entergy calculated the AOSC to be approximately $156,000 for the 20-year license renewal

period.

Using the above equations, Entergy estimated the total present dollar value equivalent

associated with completely eliminating severe accidents due to internal events at VYNPS to be 

about $878,000. Use of a multiplier of 3.33 to account for external events increases the value

to $2.9M and represents the dollar value associated with completely eliminating all internal and

external event severe accident risk at VYNPS.

Entergy’s Results

If the implementation costs for a candidate SAMA exceeded the calculated benefit, the SAMA

was considered not to be cost-beneficial. In the baseline analysis contained in the ER (using

the PSA version VY04R1, a 7-percent discount rate, and considering the combined impact of

both external events and uncertainties), Entergy identified three potentially cost-beneficial

SAMAs:

C SAMA 47 – shield injection system electrical equipment from potential water spray. This

SAMA involves installing shields in two locations to address the impacts of breaks in

| either of the two locations. At the 303-ft elevation, the shields would protect the
Appendix G

August 2007 G-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

emergency core cooling system (ECCS) 24V DC distribution panel. At the 290-ft |

elevation, the shields would protect the ECCS instrument panel 6B (S2), channels A

and C. 

C SAMA 65 – modify procedures to allow operators to defeat the low reactor pressure

interlock circuitry that inhibits opening the low-pressure coolant injection (LPCI) or core

spray injection valves following sensor or logic failures that prevent all low pressure

injection valves from opening.

C SAMA 66 – install a bypass switch to allow operators to bypass the low reactor pressure

interlock circuitry that inhibits opening the LPCI or core spray injection valves following

sensor or logic failures that prevent all low pressure injection valves from opening.

Entergy performed an additional analysis to evaluate the impact of alternative discount rates on

the results of the SAMA assessment. No additional SAMA candidates were determined to be

potentially cost-beneficial (Entergy 2006a).

In response to an RAI, Entergy provided a revised assessment based on a separate accounting

of the impacts of external events and uncertainties and the use of PSA version VY05R0

(Entergy 2006c). The revised baseline assessment resulted in identification of only one

potentially cost-beneficial SAMA (SAMA 65). However, when accounting for uncertainties,

SAMA 66 was also potentially cost-beneficial. (SAMA 47, which was marginally cost-beneficial

in Entergy’s original SAMA assessment, is not cost-beneficial in the revised assessment. This

shift is due to a reduction in the multipliers used in the revised assessment for external events

and uncertainties, which had multiple conservatisms in the ER.) However, in response to NRC

staff inquiries regarding estimated benefits for certain SAMAs and lower cost alternatives, four

additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs were identified. The potentially cost-beneficial

SAMAs, and Entergy’s plans for further evaluation of these SAMAs are discussed in more detail

in Section G.6.2.

G.6.2 Review of Entergy’s Cost-Benefit Evaluation

The cost-benefit analysis performed by Entergy was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184 

(NRC 1997b) and was executed consistent with this guidance. 

In the ER, Entergy evaluated the reduction in risk for each SAMA in the context of an upper

bound analysis which combined the impact of external events with the impact of uncertainties. 

Entergy bounded the combined impact of external events and uncertainties in the ER by

applying a multiplier of 10 to the estimated SAMA benefits in internal events.

The NRC staff requested that the baseline evaluation be revised to include only the impact of

internal and external events (without uncertainties), and that the impact of analysis uncertainties

on the SAMA evaluation results be considered separately (NRC 2006a). Given that a revised
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-34 August 2007

CDF was provided in the RAI response (using PSA version VY05R0), Entergy applied the NRC

staff request to a revised set of CDF values. The impact of external events was considered by

applying a multiplier of 3.33 to the estimated SAMA benefits in internal events (1+ [negligible

seismic CDF + fire CDF of 1.86 x 10-5 per year] / [internal events CDF of 7.98 x 10-6 per year]). 

Additionally, Entergy revised the consequence analyses on which the benefit estimates are

based to account for fuel enrichment and burn-up expected during the period of extended

operation.

As a result of the revised baseline analysis (using PSA version VY05R0, a multiplier of 3.33 and

a 7 percent real discount rate), Entergy found that only one SAMA candidate remained

potentially cost-beneficial. SAMA 65 remained cost-beneficial, while SAMAs 47 and 66 were no

longer cost-beneficial. When benefits were evaluated using a 3 percent discount rate, as

recommended in NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4 (NRC 2004), no additional SAMAs were

determined to be potentially cost-beneficial.

Entergy considered the impact that possible increases in benefits from analysis uncertainties

would have on the results of the SAMA assessment. In the revised ER, Entergy presents the

results of an uncertainty analysis of the internal events CDF which indicates that the 95

percentile value is a factor of 2.15 times the mean CDF. Information regarding the uncertainty

distribution of the internal events CDF of the revised analysis (using PSA version VY05R0) is

| summarized in Table G-6 (Entergy 2006c). Entergy re-examined the Phase II SAMAs in the

revised assessment to determine if any would be potentially cost-beneficial if the revised

baseline benefits were increased by an additional factor of 2.15. One additional potentially costbeneficial SAMA was identified (SAMA 66). SAMA 47, which was marginally cost-beneficial in

Entergy’s original SAMA assessment, is not cost-beneficial in the revised assessment. This

shift is due to a reduction in the multipliers used in the revised assessment for external events

and uncertainties, which had multiple conservatisms in the ER. 

| Table G-6. Uncertainty in the Calculated

CDF for VYNPS

Percentile CDF (per year)

5th 3.81 x 10-6

50th 6.78 x 10-6

mean 8.42 x 10-6

95th 1.81 x 10-5

Entergy has submitted the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs 65 and 66 for engineering project

cost-benefit analysis. Given that SAMA 47 was no longer found to be potentially cost-beneficial

using PSA version VY05R0, Entergy does not plan to evaluate this SAMA for implementation

(Entergy 2006d).
Appendix G

August 2007 G-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

The NRC staff questioned the ability of some of the candidate SAMAs identified in the ER to

accomplish their intended objectives (NRC 2006a). This included Phase II SAMA 46, improved

MSIV design, Phase II SAMA 47, shield injection system electrical equipment from potential

water spray, and Phase II SAMA 63, control containment venting within a narrow pressure

band. In response, Entergy provided further clarification or revised evaluations (Entergy 2006b,

2006c, 2006d). Of particular note is the revised evaluation of Phase II SAMA 63.

Phase II SAMA 63, control containment venting within a narrow pressure band, was identified

as a potential SAMA to prevent rapid containment depressurization when venting, thus avoiding

adverse impacts on the ability of low pressure injection systems to take suction from the torus. 

As described in Section G.4, Entergy revised the PSA model binning rule to remove guaranteed

failure of core spray and LPCI based upon successful venting of containment to address the

NRC staff’s concerns with the benefit assessment. This revision resulted in a CDF reduction of

approximately 3.2 percent and Entergy estimated the benefit (not including the impact of

uncertainty) to be approximately $116,000 (Entergy 2006d). The estimated cost of

implementing this SAMA is approximately $250,000 (Entergy 2006c). The NRC staff notes that

when the impact of uncertainties is included, the benefit of SAMA 63 becomes approximately

$250,000. Therefore, SAMA 63 is potentially cost-beneficial.

The NRC staff also requested that the applicant provide an evaluation of the costs and benefits

of converting the vent system to a passive design or adding redundant components. In

response, Entergy evaluated three new SAMAs. The benefit associated with conversion of the

existing torus to a passive torus vent was estimated to result in a CDF reduction of 4.5 percent,

and a benefit (including the impact of uncertainties) of $370,000. However, Entergy estimated

the cost of implementing this SAMA to be approximately $980,000 (Entergy 2006c). 

Additionally, Entergy evaluated two new SAMAs associated with adding redundant components. 

The first SAMA proposed providing an alternate power source to torus vent valve V-16-19-86. 

The second SAMA proposed providing a redundant vent path. The cost of these modifications

were estimated at $720,000 and $1.5M, respectively. In an RAI clarification, Entergy stated that

the benefit associated with converting the existing torus vent to a passive design can be used

as a bounding (conservative) estimate for the two new SAMAs. While the two new SAMAs

mitigate the failure of specific components, operator failure to implement torus venting remains

the dominant contributor to CDF. As such, implementation of either of these alternative SAMAs

would provide a benefit less than $370,000 (Entergy 2006d), and would not be cost-beneficial at

VYNPS.

The NRC staff noted that for certain SAMAs considered in the ER, there may be alternatives

that could achieve much of the risk reduction at a lower cost. The NRC staff asked the

applicant to evaluate several lower cost alternatives to the SAMAs considered in the ER,

including SAMAs that had been found to be potentially cost-beneficial at other BWR plants. 

These alternatives included: (1) revising operator procedures to provide additional space

cooling to the EDG room via the use of portable equipment, (2) using a portable generator to

power the battery chargers, (3) providing an auto-start feature to start a TBCCW pump
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-36 August 2007

automatically during a LOOP event, (4) providing alternate direct current (DC) feeds to panels

supplied only by DC bus, and several additional alternatives (NRC 2006a). Entergy provided a

further evaluation of these alternatives, as summarized below.

• Operator procedure revisions to provide additional space cooling to the EDG room via

the use of portable equipment (in lieu of a redundant train of EDG room ventilation

considered in Phase II SAMA 2) – Based on a bounding analysis in which EDG failures 

were set to zero, Entergy estimated that this SAMA would result in a CDF reduction of

about 24 percent, a population dose reduction of 26 percent and a benefit (including the

impact of uncertainties) of $1,610,000. Entergy estimated the cost of implementing this

SAMA to be approximately $50,000 (Entergy 2006c). Therefore, Entergy concluded that

this low-cost alternative is potentially cost-beneficial for VYNPS.

• Use a portable generator to power the battery chargers -- in response to the NRC staff’s

inquiry regarding use of a portable generator, Entergy stated that upon a complete SBO,

a portable generator could be used to extend the life of both 125 VDC batteries. To

assess the benefit, the time available for recovery of offsite power was increased from

4 hours to 24 hours for SBO scenarios. This resulted in a benefit (with uncertainties) of

approximately $723,000 (Entergy 2006c). Entergy estimated the cost of implementing

this SAMA to be $712,000. Therefore, Entergy concluded that this low-cost alternative is

potentially cost-beneficial for VYNPS.

• Provide an auto-start feature to start a TBCCW pump automatically during a LOOP

event – to assess the benefit, Entergy created a model with the operator action to start a

TBCCW pump set to guaranteed success. This resulted in a CDF reduction of 1.4

percent and a benefit (including the impact of uncertainties) of $49,000. (Entergy

2006c). Entergy estimated the cost of implementing this SAMA to be greater than

$100,000. Therefore, this new SAMA would not be cost-beneficial at VYNPS.

• Use a portable generator to provide power to individual 125VDC motor control centers

(MCCs) upon loss of a DC bus - To conservatively assess the benefit, Entergy set the

failure of the HPCI system to zero. This is equivalent to the benefit assessment for

SAMA 49, or approximately $1.6M (including the impact of uncertainties). Entergy

estimated the cost of implementing and using the portable generator to be $712,000

(Entergy 2006d). Therefore, Entergy concluded that this low-cost alternative is

potentially cost-beneficial for VYNPS.

• Entergy indicated that the remaining low cost alternatives identified by the NRC staff are

either already addressed by existing plant procedures, or by a Phase II SAMA.

The NRC staff notes that Entergy has submitted SAMAs 65 and 66 for engineering project costbenefit analysis. However, four additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMA were identified as a

result of the NRC staff review, i.e., (1) control containment venting within a narrow pressure
Appendix G

August 2007 G-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

band (SAMA 63), (2) operator procedure revisions to provide additional space cooling to the

EDG room via the use of portable equipment, (3) use a portable diesel generator to extend the

life of the 125 VDC batteries, and (4) use a portable generator to provide power to individual

125VDC MCCs upon loss of a DC bus. These SAMAs should also be included in the set of

SAMAs to be further evaluated by Entergy.

The NRC staff concludes that, with the exception of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs

discussed above, the costs of the SAMAs evaluated would be higher than the associated

benefits.

G.7 Conclusions

Entergy compiled a list of 302 SAMAs based on a review of the most significant basic events |

from the plant-specific PSA, insights from the plant-specific IPE and IPEEE, Phase II SAMAs

from license renewal applications for other plants, and review of other NRC and industry

documentation concerning potential plant improvements. A qualitative screening removed

SAMA candidates that (1) were not applicable at VYNPS due to design differences, (2) had

already been implemented at VYNPS, or (3) were similar and could be combined with another

SAMA. Based on this screening, 236 SAMAs were eliminated leaving 66 candidate SAMAs for

evaluation. 

For the remaining SAMA candidates, a more detailed design and cost estimate were developed

as shown in Table G-5. The cost-benefit analyses in the original ER showed that three SAMA |

candidates were potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (Phase II SAMAs 47, 65 and

66). In a revised analysis, Entergy evaluated the same SAMA candidates using a later version

of the PSA, new multipliers to account for external events and uncertainties, and core inventory

values that better reflect plant-specific fuel management practices. This showed that one SAMA

was potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (Phase II SAMA 65), and one additional

SAMA was potentially-cost beneficial when analysis uncertainties are considered (SAMA 66). 

(SAMA 47, which was marginally cost-beneficial in Entergy’s original assessment, is not costbeneficial in the revised analysis.) Entergy has indicated that Phase II SAMAs 65 and 66 have

been submitted for engineering project cost-benefit analysis. The NRC staff concurs that these

two SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial. In addition, as a result of the NRC staff review, four

additional SAMAs were also found to be potentially cost-beneficial, i.e., (1) control containment

venting within a narrow pressure band (SAMA 63), (2) operator procedure revisions to provide

additional space cooling to the EDG room via the use of portable equipment, (3) use a portable

diesel generator to extend the life of the 125 VDC batteries, and (4) use a portable generator to

provide power to individual 125VDC MCCs upon loss of a DC bus. These SAMAs should also

be included in the set of SAMAs to be further evaluated by Entergy.

The NRC staff reviewed the Entergy analysis and concludes that the methods used and the

implementation of those methods was sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-38 August 2007

support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by Entergy are reasonable

and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs for external

events was somewhat limited, the likelihood of there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this

area was minimized by improvements that have been realized as a result of the IPEEE process,

and inclusion of a multiplier to account for external events.

The NRC staff concurs with Entergy’s identification of areas in which risk can be further reduced

| in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of all or a subset of the identified,

potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction, the

NRC staff agrees that further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is warranted. However,

these SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of

extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of license renewal

pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54.

G.8 References

| 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

| Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

Electric Power Research Institute. 1991. A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power

Plant Seismic Margins, Revision 1. EPRI Report NP-6041-SL.

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) Technical

Specification Proposed Change No. 263 Extended Power Uprate. Brattleboro, Vermont. 

(September 10, 2003).

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2004. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) Technical

Specification Proposed Change No. 263, Supplement No. 5 Extended Power Uprate -

Response to Request for Additional Information. Brattleboro, Vermont. (January 31, 2004).

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006a. 

Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal Stage, Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Station. Docket No. 50-271. Brattleboro, Vermont. (January 25, 2006).

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006b. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) License

Renewal Application, Amendment 7. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Brattleboro, Vermont. 

(August 1, 2006).
Appendix G

August 2007 G-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006c. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) License

Renewal Application, Amendment 13. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Brattleboro, Vermont. 

(September 19, 2006).

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006d. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) License

Renewal Application, Amendment 18. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Brattleboro, Vermont. 

(October 20, 2006).

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006e. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) License

Renewal Application, Amendment 21. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Brattleboro, Vermont. 

(November 6, 2006).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. 1997 Census of Agriculture, National |

Agriculture Statistics Service, 1998. Available URL: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/

census97/volume1/vol1pubs.htm (Accessed September 1, 2006)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the

Individual Plant Examination of External Events for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities. 

NUREG-1407, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Letter from Daniel H. Dorman, U.S. NRC,

to Donald A. Reid, VYNPS. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Individual Plant

Examination (IPE) - Internal Events (TAC No. M74484). (February 9, 1996).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program:

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation

Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Letter from Richard P. Croteau, U.S. NRC

to Samuel L. Newton, VYNPS. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station - Safety Evaluation

Report for Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 Program Implementation (TAC No. M69490).

(March 20, 2000). 
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30 G-40 August 2007

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Letter from Robert M. Pulsifer, U.S. NRC

to Michael A. Balduzzi, VYNPS. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station - Individual Plant

Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Submittal (TAC No. M83689). (March 22, 2001).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Perspectives Gained From the IPEEE

Program, Final Report, Vols. 1 and 2, NUREG-1742, Washington, D.C.

|

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Letter from Mark P. Rubin, U.S. NRC to 

Darrell J. Roberts, U.S. NRC. Safety Evaluation Report Input Concerning the Risk Evaluation of

the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Extended Power Uprate Application (TAC No.

MC0761). (October 3, 2005). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Letter from Richard L. Emch, U.S. NRC,

to Michael Kansler, Entergy. Request for Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident

Mitigation Alternatives for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (TAC No. MC9670).

(June 1, 2006).

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. E-mail from Richard L. Emch, U.S. NRC,

to Michael Hamer, Entergy. Request for Clarification Regarding Responses to RAIs for Severe

Accident Mitigation Alternatives for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (TAC No.

MC9670). (September 27, 2006).

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (VYNPC). 1998. Letter from Don M. Leach,

VYNPS to NRC Document Control Desk. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No.

DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) Submittal of the Vermont Yankee Individual Plant Examination for

External Events (IPEEE) Report - Response to Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4. (June 30,

1998).

|
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 30

Volume 2, Appendices

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

August

YEAR

2007

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

Supplement 30

Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Final Report

Volume 2, Appendices

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix B of Volume 2 of the document

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of License Renewal

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as Block 8

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket No. 50-271

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to

the NRC by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew the operating

license for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) for an additional 20 y ears under 10 CFR Part 54. This SEIS

includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental i mpacts of the proposed action, the

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation me asures available for reducing or avoiding

adverse impacts. It also includes the staff's recommendation regarding the pro posed action.

The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the advers e environmental impacts of license renewal

for VYNPS are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for en ergy-planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental Report

submitted by Entergy; (3) consultations with Federal, State, and local agencies ; (4) the staff's own independent review; and (5)

the staff's consideration of public comments.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

VYNPS, Vermont Yankee, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

SEIS, Supplemental EIS

Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

GEIS

NEPA

Environmental

Environmental Impact Statement

License Renewal

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
Printed

on recycled

paper

Federal Recycling Program