Видео : https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ZjBc7t8oWYs

I am Commissioner of the public service department for the State of Vermont. We cover all energy issues, as well as telecommunication issues, for the State.

Oleg: What is your vision for the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee? What is the main problem now?

Chris: Since we are in the final stages of operation, we are interested in making sure the plant is decommissioned as quickly as possible. But safely, obviously. But also to make sure that we make that site available for reuse for any purpose, unrestricted, as soon as possible.

Oleg: We know from the New York Times, last week you made a presentation in Congress. May I ask you to describe briefly what your main message was?

Chris: The main message was that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that oversees nuclear safety and security issues at all our power plants around the country, really doesn't have a process by which states can actively engage in decommissioning. And have a meaningful role. And so several of the senators had introduced bills to enable that. And we were there testifying in support of that process to give states a greater voice in decommissioning. There were two other components that are important. I don't know if this is true in Russia or not, but we, the United States government, has taken responsibility for the spent fuel. And it did so without a plan. They really don't know what they're going to do with it. So in the meantime, we have fuel that are in the spent fuel pools, that has been accumulating for 20-40 years the plant has been operating, and we want to get that out of the pool and into dry cask storage as quickly as we can. The problem is it looks like the fuel will be remaining on site for quite a time. Right now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not require that the fuel be moved from the pool expeditiously. It can stay there for 50 years. And that's not acceptable to Vermont. So were looking for ways to move that more quickly into dry cask storage.

Oleg: A second question about the role of the regional authorities. What kind of power do you want to have?

Chris: Vermont has made a choice to go in a very different direction than nuclear. We have a plan that we established in 2011. What we call our comprehensive energy plan, that requires 90% of our energy be provided by renewable resources by 2050. It covers not only electricity, but thermal applications as well as transportation. And so our plan is very different than the past in terms of instead of big centralized power producers for electricity, we are looking at decentralized solutions with solar, wind, hydro, and biomass and to make use of those resources on a sustainable basis. So in our minds, nuclear has no future in Vermont's energy future. And I would dare say, unless the nuclear waste issue is resolved, it has no future in the United States as well.

Oleg: who are the stakeholders for the decommissioning planning? Do you have effective cooperation with the stakeholders? What is the model of the cooperation?

Chris: That gets really at my testimony before Congress last week. The model right now, is the nuclear regulatory commission and the plant owner are, work on that. And the plants owner must follow certain rules that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has established. They can request exemptions from those rules and they have. And the nuclear regulatory commission is solely responsible for making the decisions associated with that. So there is no stakeholder involvement. There are some public hearings that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has to hold. But they do not need to respond to the comments that they receive. So, in essence, we can talk, but we are not sure that anyone is listening on the other end. One of the key documents that a plant has to do after closure is a post shutdown commissioning activities report or PSDAR. And that report guides the plant's planning for all decommissioning going forward. It's another example where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission receives that plan but doesn't have to act on it. They don't approve it, they do review it, one presumes, but they don't necessarily provide comment on it. That's an area where the state would very much like to have an influence over how that works. Now in Vermont, because we had the disagreement with Vermont Yankee, we actually negotiated a settlement agreement with the plants owners and that is our vehicle to help influence that this process.

In that agreement which we are very proud of, and support, Vermont Yankee has agreed to work with us on site restoration standards. They have agreed to work with us on moving the spent fuel from the pool into dry cask sooner than otherwise they would have to. They have agreed to decommission, actually start dismantlement and decontamination, sooner than the NRC would require them to, as soon as funds are available to do that. So there are things we got through that agreement that would not have been able to achieve through working straight with the nuclear regulatory commission or under any legal structure we have.

Oleg: What is your vision, is it better to provide new legislation in order to increase the role of the region?

Chris: I wish it weren't necessarily but I think it might be. It shouldn't be necessary. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has within its authority the ability to make it a broader stakeholder activity where they establish a real forum by which the public could generally comment. They've chosen not to do that, so the only way to make them do that would be to have Congress pass additional laws. What I'll say about Vermont, in terms of stakeholders we have, we did have, a state legislated nuclear advisory panel that was made up of me, and some other state agencies and some experts that were meeting three or four times here to talk about nuclear issues in general. The legislature this year has modified that legislation to make it a citizens advisory panel. I'm still on it and other state agencies are still on it, but it got considerably expanded from seven members to twenty-one members. Most of the additional members are just general citizenry and public appointments.We plan on using that body as an advisory panel going forward that would receive information about decommissioning and be able to share it with the communities.That's our effort at trying to ensure that stakeholders have a voice and understanding of what's going.But at the end of the day, the reality is you really it really is between the plant and the nuclear regulatory commission where all the obligations and authority live.

Oleg: We visited last week the Texas repository and as I understood Vermont wants to move its radioactive waste to this repository.

Chris: Right.

Oleg: Is it reasonable to have a discussion or any consultation between Vermont and Texas. It's strange when one state wants to move problems to another states. Is it only business? Or is it more?

Chris: There is some more there. Vermont early on when the Texas facility was being contemplated, we entered into an interstate compact, with Texas, that secured Vermont's ability to go and bring its low-level radioactive waste to that site. So it's an interstate compact that, it's rare and unusual and I think we're the only state that joined in that so that we have the ability to bring the waste from Vermont Yankee, as it's decommissioned, to that site. This is what we call class A, B, and C waste which is fairly low-level radioactive waste. It is not the fuel rods, and not the core of the reactor that would need to be treated as high-level radioactive waste. So I feel like we do have, we have the contract role agreement in place with Texas to be able to continue that process. We have members on the Texas Compact Commission dealing with that. So I feel very good about that agreement between us and Texas, although you are right, we are moving that material to another location. But Texas is pretty suited environmentally and geologically to support that type of facility, and that's one of only two facilities in the country that can do that.

Oleg: We participated on May 15 in the Commissions' discussions and for me, it was a surprise, it was only officials from but it was a public meeting, correct? It looked like there were only two stakeholders business and authorities have a relationship, but without public, without real participation of the public. They have no voice. Is that okay, what is your view?

Chris: I think in those types of cases, the state government Texas and Vermont have a responsibility to be representing their citizenry in that process, and on a commission, or a board, it's not unusual to have the state playing that role. There are, and need to be in my view, other activities that inform the states representatives on that commission about what everyone else is thinking. So public meetings, or other fora, where citizens can participate in and inform the state as to where they think the state's position should be, so that when the state goes to those commission and board meetings, they are representing a broader constituency. But I see your point, you could have members on the Commission itself, that were just general public. But Texas chose to establish this commission to review the permitting and operation of the sites and keep oversight of that site and Vermont is participating by virtue of this agreement. So we really don't have the ability to restructure that commission structure.

Oleg: We have plans in November to organize a discussion about the role of the regional authorities. We have plans to invite the representatives of the environmental commissions of St. Petersburg and the region where this nuclear power plant is located. The mission of this roundtable discussion is to increase the role of the regional authorities and to discuss the best international practices about this point. Are you interested, or maybe is Vermont interested, in participating in this roundtable?

Chris: Sure, we would love to. We are learning new things every day, about how to do this and we're just at the beginning of it. We've looked at other facilities that have decommissioned before us. There are only a handful where there's applicability to the Vermont Yankee situation. But we would be happy to offer our thoughts and learn as well about what others are doing, because we are just starting what is likely to be a several- decades process here to get the site back to useful purposes.

Oleg: Okay, thank you.

Nat: The second commercial site you may have considered?

Chris: There is a landfill in Utah that also takes low-level radioactive waste, only class A though. We have, because of pricing differences, some of the companies in Vermont have gone there. So not only Vermont Yankee needs to bring its low-level radioactive waste there, but anyone who has low-level radioactive waste by this compact is obligated to go to Texas or to get an exemption so that they can go to Utah. So are state hospitals, universities doing research, they do occasionally produce low-level radioactive waste that needs to be going to these facilities.

Oleg: I have one more question. Russia has some ideas to organize an international site for longtime storage.

Chris: I think the right answer for where this goes is one of geology, and environmental conditions. You want to find the right site, regardless of where it is. Maybe it's more than one site. Then I think the rest of it is security. It is understanding that that will be secure for millennia. And so I think we have to be cognizant of that in any solution. And you know the United States has not been very successful so far in figuring out where this material should go, or even permitting a site in the United States. So I would be concerned that we would be imposing something that we are not able to do ourselves onto a third country somewhere.

But to flip it around, if the United States had the best geology and site that was appropriate for this and we could help the international community by hosting those materials and ensure the security over the long term, which I don't believe we can do frankly, then I think an international solution might make sense. But I would hate to see this imposed on someone for economic reasons alone, where a country was interested in hosting a facility because of the economic benefit they would gain, and they didn't have the right geology or environmental conditions, or even right security to ensure that the waste was properly stored. I think this is still a really complicated, unfortunately, a problem without a solution at the moment. And I do think, frankly, whether you're pro-nuclear, or anti-nuclear, this is the problem that must be solved. And I don't see a solution on the horizon. You know, speaking personally, I know that as human beings we have trouble remembering what happened a generation ago, two generations ago. We are surprised when we do archaeological work in Egypt and find things that are 3,000 years old and we try to piece together what happened there. How are we going to manage something for 10,000 years or more? I don't understand it. And I think it's irresponsible for our generation, and the generation before us, to get 50 or 100 years of energy value and then impose that millennia problem on others.