 Welcome viewers to our ongoing program nuclear free future coming to you from Burlington, Vermont from Channel 17 town meeting TV Center for media and democracy. I am your host Margaret Harrington, and please welcome via zoom during this COVID time are very West Kevin camps are beyond nuclear welcome Kevin. Hi Margaret, good to be here. Yes, it's so good to see you and I see the map of Vermont right behind your, your right shoulder there. Yes, and I know you've been very active throughout this the time of of the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee and the topic that we have chosen to do is climate change and the hazards of nuclear transport. So, Kevin, to launch us into our 2021 year. Could you tell us what are the main things that are on your mind as a as an anti nuclear activist and relevant in particular to our our situation here in Vermont. Sure. Well it's interesting that at 12 noon on January 20 2021 Vice President Harris and President Biden took their old sub office. So it's a new era in major ways, soon to be confirmed as budget committee chairman in the US Senate is Bernie Sanders. And interestingly, ironically, also that same evening, the Vermont Endicap nuclear decommissioning citizens advisory board subcommittee on national policy also had a meeting, and what's been really kind of simmering at the end of all last year, and even before that was a position that the Endicap took in 2015 at the behest of Yankee atomic the original owner of Vermont Yankee, but also the owner of such other New England atomic reactors as Yankee row in Massachusetts and Yankee and others, the advocacy in support of consolidated interim storage facilities. And so it's really been sticking out like a sore thumb for many years, and there's been pushback including by certain members of the endicap panel. And last night the subcommittee met to really establish a new pathway going forward to reconsider the position, reevaluate their position, decide what their position is. So it's very relevant to Vermont. It's a really untenable position that they've taken and not fixed in all these five, six years since I mean just on the face of it, the environmental injustice of simply moving Vermont Yankees waste out to Texas and or New Mexico into majority communities, specifically now Latino communities that live right there that have already born a tremendous burden of not only fossil fuel pollution from the Permian Basin, the most active oil and gas fields on the planet, unfortunately, worse than Saudi Arabia and worse than Alberta Canada, but also, in a sense, they have born the brunt of the worst of the atomic age thus far from Los Alamos beginning in 1943 to uranium mining in northwest New Mexico, early on in the 1950s to the waste isolation pilot plant, which is military plutonium waste being dumped permanently underground. That is 16 miles away from the whole tech New Mexico site. Now, whole tech New Mexico and North Star waste control specialists in Texas, wanting to add high level radioactive waste to the environmental justice burdens out there. And of course you can't just magically teleport the wastes out there. They would have to travel through most states in the lower 48. And that includes Vermont. It's not just a question of Vermont exporting its own waste elsewhere. But if you look at the details of the maps for the transportation routes other New England atomic reactors would have to ship their wastes through Vermont to get out west. And while the industry as is its way would like to downplay the risks of high level nuclear waste transportation that nothing possibly could go wrong. A lot could go wrong, and hence our slogans for the risks mobile Chernobyl in terms of the road and rail shipments, floating Fukushima's in terms of the barge shipments that are possible. Dirty bombs on wheels in terms of the security risks of attackers actually attempting to blow up the shipments in strategic locations like major urban centers that they would pass through. Because they're going to pass through 100 of the biggest cities in the United States on their way out west. And even mobile x-ray machines that can't be turned off in terms of the inevitable gamma and neutron radiation doses that will be inflicted on people who live along these transportation routes because these containers are not designed to contain all of the radiation some is streaming out, even under routine shipment conditions without an accident without an attack. So all of that is in play with this subcommittee and then the committee of the end of cap and that's why Vermonters and residents of Massachusetts and residents of New Hampshire because that is the composition of the end of cap. There's represent representation from all three states given Vermont Yankees location should all be engaged in trying to get the end of cap to take a better position on consolidated interim storage facilities. So, Kevin, the good news is that this is not a done deal. It is not has not been decided or set in stone that there will be a transport of nuclear waste of high level nuclear waste out out to whole tech, which would be an intermediate storage, interim storage facility. And according to what what I have learned from you and other advocates over the years is that it's actually illegal to put this waste into an interim storage until there is a permanent storage site. Right. Yeah. In addition to being an environmental injustice and not consent based because there is not consent from New Mexico or Texas for these proposals, just as there is no consent for the Yucca mountain dump on western Shoshone land in Nevada. They are not legally binding requirements unfortunately consent based citing and environmental justice are not legally binding. They're certainly morally binding. And maybe we can get them to become legally binding through congressional legislation at some point. But what is legally binding and we are supposed to be a nation of laws rule of law is a law like the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 as amended, which has its flaws believe you me like singling out Yucca mountain Nevada against the will of the people of Nevada and the western But there is a legal prohibition as you mentioned against consolidated interim storage at least if the US Department of Energy is going to be involved in the absence of a permanent repository. There is no permanent repository in the United States Yucca mountain has been canceled and may become even more canceled now that Biden is president because it was under the Obama administration. It's been said by the Vice President that Yucca mountain was canceled. There have been attempts to resurrect it by especially congressional Republicans since now that Biden is president I hope that his administration will simply put the final nail in the coffin of the Yucca mountain dump and get it off the table. Since there is no permanent repository and the Department of Energy has estimated it will take until at least the year 2048 and and likely now further beyond that to open the first repository. Before the Department of Energy can't be involved in consolidated interim storage at New Mexico or Texas, specifically in the ways of taking title, taking ownership to the commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, paying for the interim storage costs and that would include transportation that would include building the facilities in Texas and New Mexico operating the facilities there. There are multi billion dollar schemes, and the companies involved like Coltec and New Mexico, like a Rano of France and waste control specialists of Texas in Texas. They don't want to spend the money. They want the Department of Energy that is the taxpayers to spend the money, which is, as you said Margaret illegal. And it's not a done deal. I mean we have a coalition that includes beyond nuclear. It includes Sierra Club nationally. It includes grassroots coalition of groups that is called don't waste Michigan and others it's seven grassroots groups from across the country. We are all in federal court we are in the second highest court in the land, the DC court of appeals, just under the Supreme Court with our cases against Coltec and New Mexico and waste control specialists in Texas. Finally the court has ruled that we have to wait until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a record of decision granting the licenses to those facilities. Something that could happen this year they are finalizing the paperwork, things like the final environmental impact statement, and the final safety evaluation report at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the staff level, which then tease it up for commissioners to simply rubber stamp the construction and operating licenses which they seem keen to do. Although we'll see what the change in leadership under the Obama administration. If things change, but it is not a done deal. Those are just the formal official proceedings then you've got the court of public opinion. You've got grassroots resistance, not just in the southwest but nationwide. So, it is not a done deal the fight is on and that's why I mentioned and the cap in Vermont because that hard one subcommittee formation to get that official endorsement of consolidated interim storage removed at the end of cap would be a huge victory for environmental justice. How do you see it unfolding, I mean, given their track record they've been, they were formed in 2014 or 15 right, and they've been discussing this for for seven six or seven years. So how, and where does, where does their decision fit into the Department of Energy's overall judgment on this and decisions. Um, you know, thank you to groups like Vermont Yankee decommissioning Alliance and Vermont citizens awareness network for winning this movement at the end of cap to form this subcommittee to reevaluate its position. The position that the end of cap took in 2015 at the behest of the nuclear industry was really rushed. And in fact, most panelists didn't even know the decision was going to happen before it happened. So it was a very bad process. They simply endorsed the position of Yankee atomic and in the meetings during 2020 and the end of cap meets about once a season once every three months the full committee, the full panel. And then the subcommittee now is going to meet in between. There were indications from panelists that they didn't know about the previous position they didn't agree with the previous position. Some are opposed to the previous position. So hopefully this bad position that was taken in a great big hurry with no due process in 2015. And by the the chair of the end of cap at the time can be reevaluated and a much more responsible position can be taken. In terms of the relevance at the national level it is very important I mean you've got us representative Peter Welsh, who has kind of depended on not the end of caps irresponsible position but other pressures from the likes of energy in Vermont, and even now North Star which owns the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to simply get the waste out of Vermont. And he's still thought as to how it's going to leave, how it's going to travel and where it's going to go. And he has voted that way for years now, irresponsibly. And so, perhaps with a change at the end of cap that will create some momentum. And certainly viewers should be contacting us representative Welsh to change his position on the Yucca mountain dump in Nevada on consolidated interim storage in New Mexico and Texas. The environmental injustice alone is reason enough for him to be voting against these proposals. And then, as mentioned, Bernie Sanders being you know a top contender in the Democratic primary for president, and now being a powerful committee chair in the US Senate has a lot of sway at the federal level. And hopefully with his good position, because he has come out against consolidated interim storage. He has come out against the Biden administration. One thing I should mention is, you know, climate is a part of our conversation today the Biden administration has come out swinging on climate, just in the last couple days of being in office. And the one thing to keep in mind though is that this whole issue of consolidated interim storage. This boost unfortunately from the Obama administration blue ribbon Commission on America's nuclear future, which issued its final report in January of 2012 after a two year public engagement process where people spoke out strongly against consolidated interim storage they did not the blue ribbon Commission did not listen to us. So that you know Biden had a hand in that in that he was Vice President of that Obama presidency. And I wanted to get Biden to reconsider that previous position from eight years ago about consolidated interim storage. Another top recommendation of the blue ribbon Commission was consent based citing. And they certainly do not have that in New Mexico in Texas in Nevada. So that is grounds for reconsidering the current proposals for dumps in those three states. And I feel that that the Biden administration now can be moved to reconsider the current plans for consolidated interim storage because they are faulty. They are not based on consent based citing. Kevin, could you, could you show, could you tell us what, how, how is the federal government sitting at what level to the states decisions, for instance, if the Vermont legislature decided that no there would be no transport of nuclear waste from Vermont from North Star Vermont Yankee right now, or at any time out to interim storage. How would, how would that and the federal government, the Department of Energy Department of Defense, whoever is involved they, and they decided that, yes, we're going to have interim storage of high level nuclear waste. How would that be a fight between states and federal federal government. It's all in the mix. It's a great big tug of war. I mean, one, one thing that's going on is, you know that Peter Welsh, now that the Democrats are back in control of the House. He is a senior Democrat in the US House. So he has a date of the Senate. Yeah. Well, Peter Welsh in the US House, Bernie Sanders in the US Senate. Have big sway because of their seniority in each chamber. And you know Peter Welsh is on the powerful energy and commerce committee. That's where he's been making these votes in favor of consolidated interim storage in favor of the Aka Mountain dump. And we're hopeful that given his political power. He can change his bad position into a better position. Something we've been calling for. We called for it for all two years of the Blue Ribbon Commission it fell on deaf ears is the need for hardened on site storage, or in places that may be unsuitable for on site storage as due to climate change for example hardened near site storage and Vermont Yankee being on the banks of the Connecticut River. Climate change is a real issue. Also reactors on the on the shores of the Great Lakes. Also reactors on the seacoast I mean with rising sea level with historic flooding on rivers with historic high waters in the Great Lakes, we have to consider moving the wastes from where they are right now, further inland to higher ground, but a thousand or 2000 miles across the country to the border of Texas and New Mexico, but rather miles inland, perhaps, or not even that just to higher ground to get them out of the floodplain that is getting worse because of climate change. So those are the kind of positions we we need leadership on from folks like Welsh and Sanders, and I'm hopeful that with a Biden administration speaking so strongly and taking action on climate, I mean, Biden on day one rejoined the climate agreement internationally. So there is hope. His nominee for energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm a former governor of Michigan is also speaking strongly on climate she's had good renewable energy policy. For example, offshore wind in the Great Lakes was a very responsible careful policy that she had as a governor of Michigan. Unfortunately, and I'm a member of the board of don't waste Michigan, still 2030 years in now. Her position on nuclear power was less responsible, it was neutral at best and actually simply in in alliance with the nuclear utilities of Michigan. I think we have work to do, even on President Biden, even on an energy secretary Jennifer Granholm if she's confirmed. Even Biden's choice for climate czar domestically, which is not needing Senate confirmation so Gina McCarthy former EPA administrator under Obama is in at the White House has good climate policy under Obama's clean power plan, the nuclear power industry did not get the massive subsidies that it saw. That was a huge victory and you know, hats off to Tim Judson at nuclear information and resource service on that issue. He organized the coalition in DC, who met with the Obama EPA on that issue and really want a victory with the clean power plan that it did not subsidize nuclear power. So she's now in a powerful position as climate czar at the White House. She to like Jennifer Granholm has skeletons in her closet on nuclear power so for example on the very last day of the Obama administration, no exaggeration. Gina McCarthy signed an EPA policy called protective action guidelines in nuclear emergencies, increasing the allowable concentration of radioactive poisons in food in water drinking water in air in the environment during a nuclear emergency that was ill defined and without time limit. It's a huge giveaway to the nuclear lobby in this country. The George W Bush administration had tried to pass that change and did not. Again, hats off to people like Diane Derigo at nears, who have have led coalition efforts against that for years and decades. Well, under Gina McCarthy in the Obama administration on the last day in office she signed off on that horrible regulatory rollback. Today it will never be invoked but the nuclear emergency definition was so ill defined that it could be anything from a low level radioactive waste transportation accident to a major atomic reactor meltdown and anything in between. Not only did it establish bad rules for a nuclear emergency situation, it also set a bad precedent for other areas of nuclear environmental protection in terms of radioactive waste dumps leaking atomic reactors allowed to release radioactivity into the environment. If it's okay during a nuclear emergency well maybe we can consider weakening the rules elsewhere in the nuclear industry. And that was Gina McCarthy so we need my point is we need to push back on President Biden on Gina McCarthy at the White House climate czar's office. If confirmed, Grandholm as energy secretary to get them in better positions. So we have our work cut out for us not only in Vermont but across the country. Right and the issues that you bring up aren't not even about the, the people, the educators and the people in some power throughout the country who who still consider nuclear power to be a green energy. This is what we came up against here in Vermont before the decommissioning, or the closing of Vermont Yankee that there were huge advertisements and then the print papers, and all over that nuclear energy is green energy. And that that is raising its head again, as you well know, right, both in academia and in in people who are advisors to legislators. So, well now that the Trump era is thankfully over to some extent now that Trump is out of office. And I mean, during even the first days of the Trump administration was it all seems so bewildering and chaotic. But I realized that we've been facing that in the nuclear power fight for decades. The nuclear power industry is a propagandistic industry, they have bottomless coffers, often it's public money that they're subsidized with in all kinds of ways, the same as true of the nuclear weapons industry of course. They use their vast resources to try to bamboozle the public about how clean and green nuclear power is well, that's our challenge is to push back and to educate the public about the truth on these matters. You know, in terms of nuclear power being some kind of climate change solution I mean the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Dr. Bryce Smith who was chief scientist at the time in 2006, wrote the book the best book I've ever read about why nuclear power is not the solution to the climate crisis. It was entitled insurmountable risks. What they pointed out in their book was, look at how much nuclear power costs, look how long it takes to deploy. It cannot solve the climate crisis the climate crisis is too fast breaking. And if you spend that much money on nuclear you can't spend it on energy efficiency and renewables, which are the actual solutions. So you will not only not solve the problem, you will make sure that you can't solve the problem you've wasted all the money on a dead end nuclear power. The insurmountable risks part was a long list of the problems that nuclear power itself brings with it. One of the top ones for IER was nuclear weapons proliferation everywhere that nuclear power goes nuclear weapons are a half step behind if the holders of that technology, choose to use it that way. Uranium enrichment, if you enrich to weapons grade you've got weapons usable highly enriched uranium. You use reprocessing of high level radioactive waste to separate out plutonium, it is weapons usable and reactors make plutonium in the waste. So weapons proliferation. The dilemma of the radioactive waste problem that is still unsolved some 80 years into this problem, you know on Rico Fermi first split the atom fired up the first atomic reactor in the Manhattan project on December 2 1942. And we haven't solved the first cup full of high level radioactive waste that he generated, we don't know what to do with it. So that that has to start begging some questions, we can't seem to solve this high level radioactive waste problem. And then other issues that that book brought up before Fukushima was the risk of catastrophic accidents so they mostly focused on Chernobyl, three mile island, but the potential for as bad or worse. Fukushima happened five years after the book came out. And we, with our aged reactors and places like upstate New York. Some are more than 50 years old on the Lake Ontario shoreline there. We're pushing the envelope on age related breakdown phase atomic reactor disasters. And you know, we would add this was not in the book but we would add things like uranium mining and its impact on Native Americans in the Southwest, for example, all of these insurmountable risks that nuclear power has never addressed. It's been around since 1957 in the United States at shipping port Pennsylvania, the first so called civilian atomic reactor, built by the nuclear Navy as sort of a propagandistic. Our friend the atom nuclear power is the way to go move by the Eisenhower administration in 1957, which was unfortunate because the Truman administration in 1948 had said solar is the future. It was the newly commissioned. Unfortunately Eisenhower decided to go down the nuclear power road, but the reason that they did so was for nuclear weapons purposes to justify the expansion of uranium mining and processing. And all things nuclear was being sold by the Eisenhower administration as our friend the atom, the peaceful atom. And it was really a propaganda move there's a great book by Arjan Machajani of IER called the nuclear power deception. And those deceptions continue in the year 2021 we have to fight against them at every turn. Kevin, what are, what are the issues that Vermonters can keep in mind right now and act upon. I would encourage Vermonters and folks in Massachusetts and New Hampshire to regular regularly attend and follow developments of the Vermont nuclear decommissioning advisory panel. Take part, it is a public forum there are opportunities for public comment, public questions, you can even communicate with the end of cap in between meetings through email and other ways. Get them in a better position Vermont has been a leader on these issues by the closure of Vermont Yankee against all odds that was very hard one in 2014 it was grassroots people power that led to that victory. And we need Vermont's leadership on decommissioning now and also high level radioactive waste policy in this country so I encourage that participation, not only to defend your own self interests as a state but also to help the country. Get to a better position on environmental justice. Thank you, Kevin camps and what will sign off now. If you have is any, any, any, anything that you'd like to say to close our meeting and will invite you back in in hope in a hopeful year of 2021. It is a very hopeful time, despite it all. I'm reminded of something that Franklin Delano Roosevelt would say that then john Dingell of Michigan the longest serving member of Congress in history would say, and also Barack Obama, all Democrats, they would say, I know you're right. Now make me do it. That was FDR's phrase. And it's a bit frustrating that leaders like that know what's right and require the public to make them do it but that's the way things work. And that's what I call upon folks in Vermont listening to do to get Peter Welsh into a better position to help Bernie Sanders on his good positions. They know you're right now make them do it. This is the nature of our democracy, and it's a very hopeful time in that regard. Thank you Kevin camps of beyond nuclear and good to see you till next time. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Look forward to it. Thanks. Thank you.