 Welcome viewers to our ongoing program, Nuclear Free Future Conversation, coming to you from Burlington, Vermont, from the Center for Media and Democracy, Town Meeting TV. I'm your host, Margaret Harrington, and this is our ongoing show, Nuclear Free Future Conversation, which has been going on for 14 years now. And the title for our program today is a repeat of a title that we have done over the past couple of years, the hazards of transporting radioactive waste from Vermont Yankee. And welcome, Kevin Camps, our returning guests. I'm so grateful that you have returned here, Kevin Camps, from Beyond Nuclear. Thank you so much, Margaret. Good to be here. Yes, Kevin, you're the radioactive nuclear waste specialist of Beyond Nuclear. And you've been on the program several times with different guests over this long 14-year period. And during that time, many, many things have happened, but I want to get, if you would, get us up to speed on what has happened since January 2021. It was more of an upbeat program, wasn't it? I mean, you had some hopes for the new administration. And so if you would, could you walk us through something of what has been going on? Sure, yeah. Well, a lot has happened in six months since we last spoke. A big one would be, you know, the Biden administration's cabinet nominees who were then confirmed, and that includes Jennifer Granholm at Energy and Christopher Hansen, which was not requiring Senate approval, but Biden nominated Christopher Hansen to be the chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So those are a couple of the most significant, relevant Biden cabinet appointees. And wouldn't you know, I'm also on the board of directors of Don't Waste Michigan where I'm from, and I've been a part of that organization since 1992. And Jennifer Granholm was our attorney general in Michigan for a number of years, and then our governor in Michigan for a number of years. So we have some experience with her. And so I was concerned when I learned of this nomination and she's since been confirmed because she was never really concerned about nuclear power and radioactive waste risks in Michigan during that tenure. Just one example would be that we were fighting, speaking of transporting nuclear materials, we were fighting in Michigan the transportation of what's called mixed oxide or MOX fuel. It's a blend of uranium and plutonium. And where is the plutonium coming from and in the MOX proposal, but weapons grade plutonium being downgraded for reactor fuel purposes. They called it swords into plowshares. And we knew from the very beginning two decades ago that that was a lie. And in fact, it's been proven to be a lie because the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility in South Carolina, upon which the Department of Energy over the past couple of decades has wasted, I kid you not, something like seven plus billion dollars, a complete waste, the facilities half built, they are now proposing to convert that very shell of a facility, so-called swords into plowshares into swords into swords, taking plutonium and making new pits for nuclear weapons out of it. So long story, but Jennifer Granholm as attorney general met with, don't waste Michigan, met with other groups. We were pleading with her to get involved in stopping these mixed oxide plutonium fuel shipments through Michigan. It was coming from Los Alamos, New Mexico where actually I'm in Santa Fe, New Mexico right now. And it was going all the way to Chalk River, Ontario and Canada for a test burn. There was another proposal to take it to Bruce nuclear generating station for test burns. And we were fighting it. And Granholm, although her staff did meet with us, which is something they would not agree, she would not agree to take a position on that. And in fact, weapons grade plutonium mixed oxide did roll through Michigan. Thankfully the program was canceled ultimately, but I was leery and I also was leery of her environmental justice stands because she had some very problematic environmental injustice policies when she was governor of Michigan. So to bring it right up to the present just in the last month or so, Jennifer Granholm, energy secretary in press statements in congressional hearing testimony has said things like we are moving forward as an administration, as a federal government with consolidated interim storage facilities. And she added that financial incentives would have to be put in place packages to offer to state governments, county governments. She didn't specify the only specification she gave was Native American tribal governments. And when I heard those words from her, it was outrageous. It was outrageous. And in fact, I've heard Western colleagues say, let them try, they are gonna walk into a buzz saw if they try to target Native American reservations for consolidated interim storage facilities. And to be fair, she did mention consent-based citing as a prerequisite, but those financial incentives are to win consent-based citing. And when it comes to Native Americans being targeted, we've seen this movie before 25 years ago, 20 years ago. It was an environmental justice outrage and took a concerted nationwide environmental justice movement combined with the environmental movement combined with the anti-nuclear movement to stop up to 60 proposals to target Native reservations, a couple of which went the furthest that was Mescalero Apache in Southern New Mexico and Skull Valley Ghost Shoots in Utah, where in fact at Skull Valley, it was called private fuel storage, consolidated interim storage facility is the new wording for it. They got a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to open that dump on a tiny Indian reservation. And the political fight back by Utah and their allies across the country stopped it from opening. In fact, Holtec was involved. They would have been the reactor supplier. They, I'm sorry, not reactor container supplier in Utah and they provide the containers for Mount Yankee. So it's an environmental justice outrage that the energy secretary even mentioned Native American reservations and just real quickly, because I've spoken so long already, but NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman, Christopher Hansen has long been a consolidated interim storage facility proponent, especially when he worked for Senator Diane Feinstein from California, a Democrat, but a proponent of this idea. He was a senior staffer for her and they tried session after session in Congress to make that legal. It's not legal as currently proposed. So at the NRC, we're expecting some big shoes to drop as early as next month. The NRC staff will finalize the environmental impact statement and the safety evaluation report for the Texas stump. That's called interim storage partners closely tied to North Star, which is decommissioning Vermont Yankee. In fact, many of the same companies are involved in both interim storage partners, this consolidated interim storage facility at waste control specialists in Texas and the Vermont Yankee decommissioning. Orano of France previously called Arriva, but also other companies like waste control specialists where all of the low level radioactive waste, so-called from Vermont Yankee, that's being dumped in Texas, that's at waste control specialists. And then just to close the whole tech consolidated interim storage facility in New Mexico and the two consolidated interim storage facilities are just 40 miles apart across the Texas New Mexico border. It is not far behind the Texas stump and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Hanson has said as soon as the NRC staff publishes these final documents, they will vote at the NRC commission and it's clear how they will vote that will be in favor. All four currently sitting commissioners have voted in favor of these for short CISFs consistently for years now. And if a fifth is added by Biden in the near future because the Republican caputos about to leave the NRC commission, that could be an interesting question for that nominee. What is your position on this issue? So a lot of shoes are about to fall on this issue. Yeah, well, that's a lot of information, Ken, in the consolidated interim storage facilities is it the new threat that it will be high level nuclear waste that will be deposited at these places? That's exactly right. What consolidated interim storage refers to is the highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel like at Vermont Yankee, like at Pilgrim, Massachusetts, like Yankee, Rome, Massachusetts, just to name a few reactors in your neck of the woods. And that's what would be shipped out to the Texas New Mexico borderlands is the irradiated nuclear fuel. And that is a million times more radioactive than the uranium that went into the reactors. A lot of that uranium coming from places like the Four Corners, Navajo, Denayland, Acoma, I'm sorry, yeah, Acoma Pueblo, Laguna Pueblo, other Pueblo land in Northwest New Mexico, for example. And I'm reminded of a quote just to put these financial incentives for Native American tribal governments in some perspective. Another uranium mining district, so to speak, in the Great Lakes of all places is called Elliott Lake, Ontario, the homeland of the Serpent River First Nation, which is no jibway tribe. The environmental director up there, Keith Lewis, who passed on some years ago, I was a part of a team that interviewed folks up there for a book called This Is My Homeland about uranium mining and milling impacts up there. And his quote was so powerful that it just seared into my memory like in real time and ever since, and that was decades ago. He said, there is nothing moral about bribing a starving man with money. And he was referring to uranium mining and milling in his neck of the woods. And here we go again, the energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, talking about financial incentives for Native Americans to consider taking high level radioactive waste into their community. But there's, you know- At the center of it all is the money, right? The dispersal of money to different entities in different interests. Yeah, I mean, the rumored amount of money at Skull Valley Go shoots 20 years ago, I lose track of the years. Was 50 to 100, I'm sorry, 50 to $200 million, that this small tribal nation, 125 adult members was being offered by the nuclear power utilities to take up to 40,000 metric tons of high level radioactive waste into their community. And, you know, it is fair to say that there was a corrupt tribal chairman at the time, Leon Bear, whose legitimacy as tribal chairman was challenged within the tribe, oftentimes by the very people who were opposed to the dump. There were these clear divides within that tribe on one side where the pro-dump, pro-Leon Bear folks and money was flowing to those folks even from the nuclear utilities, maybe not the full amount by any means, but you could tell who was pro-dump and who was anti-dump on that tiny reservation, tiny by population, not tiny by size of land, was pro-dump folks had money and they had new trucks and they had new mobile homes, you know, and if they have money, it's their right to spend it how they choose, but where did the money come from? It came from the nuclear utilities, they called themselves private fuel storage, limited liability corporation, a consortium of about a dozen or more nuclear utilities to open consolidated interim storage on this tiny Indian reservation. And then the anti-dump folks lived in traditional housing, they certainly had less money, they were low income, and it got really ugly down there. The tribal chairman attempted to excommunicate dump opponents from the tribe, stopped the disbursement of federal funds to them and they were, Leah, I'm sorry, Sammy Blackbear was one of the opponents, Marjean Bull Creek was another leader of the opposition who prevailed in the end, but they were made to suffer badly for their opposition over the course of many years. Kevin, besides the money, which is the big factor in all of this, there is the legality and you're saying that it's imminent, it's going to happen soon, that the high level nuclear waste from what you call the four corners up here, including Indian Point, right? Since I spoke with you, Indian Point is supposed to be closed and will that mean that in a very near future, high level nuclear waste will be legally allowed to be transported to these waste dumps in the West? Yeah, Indian Point's closure is huge news since we last spoke, it happened on April 30th, the final reactor at Indian Point unit three shut down, thankfully, because among many problems, it was one of the five worst and brittle reactor pressure vessels in the country. So thank goodness the reactors closed down, you can no longer have reactor core meltdowns once the fuel leaves the core, but all that risk does go into the high level radioactive waste storage pool. Thankfully, no more high level radioactive waste will be generated at Indian Point, but all that risk still is in the pool. And so your question, the timing, well, we have lawsuits that are ready to go beyond nuclear does, but so does a bigger coalition of environmental groups like Citizens Environmental Coalition of New York, for example, as part of this coalition opposing both the New Mexico and Texas dumps. We, once the NRC issues a record of decision on the Texas dump, we're hopeful that the second highest court in the land, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals at the federal level will finally hear our case that this proposal, these proposals in Texas and New Mexico are illegal because what they represent really is a transfer of liability and ownership from the nuclear utilities onto the Department of Energy for the high level waste because these companies are looking to DOE to pay all the bills, including a handsome profit margin for these companies to store the waste so-called interim in a consolidated centralized way in the Southwest. And that is a title transfer effectively, if not clearly and officially. And that is not allowed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as amended, which has a prohibition in it that unless there is a permanent geologic repository open, DOE can't do centralized interim storage. And what's the reason behind that? A big part of the reason was smaller, less populated states like New Mexico, way back in the early 1980s saw the writing on the wall. So-called interim without a permanent repository will become permanent surface storage. And so the smaller population states banded together to defend themselves against this ruse that if they became interim storage sites for high level waste, this deception that somehow interim was meaningful, it would get stuck there and it would never move, it would never leave. That's in the law. And the companies involved, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so far have just ignored that and proceeded with these licensing proceedings right to the verge now of licensor of construction, licensure of construction and operation. So we're gonna fight that issue in court, but that's just one legal challenge. The other groups have brought literally over a hundred legal challenges against both dumps put together, which were rapid fire dismissed and rejected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by its licensing board, by its staff. So off to court we go and we'll try to raise as many legal objections as we can. And meanwhile, Kevin, what about the permanent dump site? What about Yucca Mountain or is there any other alternative to Yucca Mountain? Yucca Mountain, Nevada as a high level nuclear waste dump, a permanent geologic repository is not going to happen. For raw politics alone, the state of Nevada, the Western Shoshone Indian Nation and their allies, which include more than 1,000 environmental, environmental justice, public interest groups across the country will not allow it to happen just through raw political willpower. But what are the reasons for that passionate resistance that goes back 33 years at this point or longer? While the site is scientifically unsuitable, it will leak massively radioactivity into the environment if waste is ever dumped there, both into the groundwater, which eventually surfaces in Death Valley, California and is used for drinking water and irrigation water by not only the Timbershire Shoshone Band of Western Shoshone Indians, but also by one of the largest agricultural communities in Nevada, which is Amagosa Valley. So there's the scientific and technical unsuitability. There's the fact that the Western Shoshone have treaty rights to Yucca Mountain and they don't approve. So it's a violation of the highest laws of our land. It's not consent-based. The transportation risks are huge because most of the waste is in the East. It would have to go all the way out West like that. So no, there's not a second plan B for Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy in its most recent estimate, which was many long years ago now, five years ago, said that a repository beside Yucca could not be opened in this country until the year 2048 at the earliest and nothing's changed in the last several years. So you'd have to say past 2048. Mid-century is the earliest. Another repository could be identified, studied, characterized, licensed and opened. And that's probably an optimistic estimate. So, this fear, this risk of centralized or consolidated interim storage becoming de facto permanent, surface storage is a very real risk. And also it sounds like legally, by saying that Yucca or someplace else will be on ready in 2048, then they're saying, well, there will be a permanent storage place. So they're legally able to dump the high level nuclear waste in these interim sites, so-called interim sites, which you were saying will become de facto permanent. Yeah, and in fact, both applications by the Texas company and by the New Mexico company assume Yucca Mountain as the dump site and the NRC at all levels goes right along with that assumption. So it's outrageous, because it's kind of a big assumption. It is not going to happen. It's gonna be stopped at Yucca Mountain. So it's a false premise. But what's really ironic and objectionable is the NRC going along with this assumption of the Yucca Dump, NRC is supposed to be the licensing agency for the Yucca Dump. They're supposed to be the impartial judge that hears the proponent for the Yucca Dump, which used to be the Department of Energy, but is not under democratic presidents like Biden and Obama. The Department of Energy would be the license applicant for the Yucca Dump, and there'd be opponents like the state of Nevada and the Western Shoshone, and then the NRC is supposed to be the judge, but the judge has already declared the verdict before the trial has begun by assuming that Yucca will be the dump. So it's just, you know, the judge would have to recuse themselves in a legitimate court proceeding, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no intention of ever recusing itself from being the licensing agency for Yucca Mountain. So you can see what a mess it is, just ethically, let alone legally, it doesn't look good, Kevin. It doesn't look good because also they're planning to transport the high level nuclear waste from east to west, that's in the plans. Can you talk a little bit about that, about how they're going to do it by rail and truck and boat? So, yeah, roadways, railways and waterways are the ways that the high level waste could be moved. Again, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission plays a huge role in that decision making. They are the licensing agency for the containers with a lot of problems with that. We've had whistleblower revelations about Holtex containers, for example, that they violate quality assurance left, right and center. And again, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seems to be fine with that. It's like the illusion of regulation, except NRC does not regulate, they just do whatever the companies ask them to do or demand that they do, they approve it. And what this can lead to was just revealed recently at the end of May, a publication called Exchange Monitor broke the story that at the Oyster Creek, New Jersey nuclear power plant which is undergoing decommissioning by Holtex, they had an incident with the loading of one of their containers. What happened was radioactive water leaked out of this container that was already loaded with high level radioactive waste and doused and dosed a worker who fortunately was wearing protective clothing, but the media reporting, including in the local newspaper, made it sound like the clothing got doused. And this is radioactive water, which means that worker was exposed to a radioactive dose. And it was all due to the failure of a part on the container. And you have to wonder, and it turns out there had been previous failures of the same part. So is it related to the quality assurance that they've made a bad part on these Holtex containers? So they're learning as they go on the job training with high level radioactive waste management. It's not the first incident with Holtex containers, there have been numerous serious incidents. And those are the containers used at Vermont Yankee. And if Vermont Yankee ever ships its waste out west, they're in these questionable containers from a perspective of structural integrity. Right. Kevin, can you tell me what is the difference between the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance and the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance Citizens advisory board? There was a two trains running, right? Yeah, the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance is actually a non-governmental organization. It's a watchdog on Vermont Yankee has been for a long time. It's an environmental group and they call for a safe and a safety commissioning comprehensive cleanup of the site. What the Vermont nuclear decommissioning citizen advisory panel is, is a governmental agency. It's under the auspices of the state of Vermont. It does include NGL watchdog individuals, representatives, but it also includes, unfortunately, in my opinion, North Star, the company doing the decommissioning at Vermont Yankee. But it also includes elected representatives from Vermont, from New Hampshire, from Massachusetts at all levels of government and then residents in the area. So that one is more of a governmental oversight panel. And I did attend its last meeting, which was in March and an interesting dynamic that's underway is a re-examination of their previous advocacy in favor of especially consolidated interim storage, but also the advocacy by at least certain members of the panel for the Yucca dump. And because North Star is on the panel and has a very active role on the panel, kind of a domineering role, those perspectives of North Star, waste control specialists, interim storage partners come through every time, like, oh, it's okay to dump all the low-level waste in Texas. Well, what about the Oglala aquifer? What about the fact that the communities who host this dump are low-income people of color? They're Latinx, indigenous nations have ties to that land. You know, when the company dominates the panel, those questions don't get raised. And so we try to raise them from the peanut gallery, so to speak, during public comment opportunities. And here we go with this proposal for consolidated interim storage, that this panel has taken a favorable position on before they sided with Yankee Atomic, the owner of, you know, the past owner of Vermont Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee. They've taken that position some five, six years ago. And the good news is that they're re-examining their position. They've not changed their position officially yet, but we're hopeful that they will. Once these issues of environmental justice, for example, are brought forth to them. Right, because right now it's, their mindset seems to be clean it up and ship it out. And that's their mantra that they're repeating and have on their website, North Star website, ship it out. And that's the dilemma too, that, you know, where it's at, at Vermont Yankee on the banks of the Connecticut River, that can't be called a safe situation in any regard. It's not safe to have high level radioactive waste on the banks of the Connecticut River in a floodplain. But you know what, it was never safe there as the reactor was never safe there. And that goes back, you know, a half century. So it's not like anything new, there's been this danger on the banks of the Connecticut River for a half century. The question is, what are we gonna do about it now? And what, you know, citizens awareness network of Vermont and of the Northeast has a big hand in was the development of hardened on-site storage as a policy position. And there are, you know, any number of reactors in this country, Vermont Yankee perhaps included that are in floodplains or are on the seacoasts with rising sea levels and ever worsening weather conditions because of climate destabilization. If on-site cannot be hardened and made safe enough for the interim, then perhaps it has to go further inland to higher ground. A bit, not a thousand or 2,000 miles to the Southwest of the United States because the transportation risks are so extreme as well. So we're looking for reasonable steps to be taken instead of these extreme proposals by the nuclear industry. And you know, one thing I should mention is there's news breaking out of China just last night by CNN actually that there may be serious trouble at a Chinese nuclear power plant called Tai Shan in Guangdong province. And the reason I bring it up because it's of global importance but also because the French are involved. And if the French can't get a reactor right in China then can they get a high level radioactive waste dump right in Texas? Can they get the transportation right? Can they get the containers right? It's the same company. It's a Rano, it's a Riva of France involved in the Chinese nuclear power plant that's having a problem right now and this Texas dump proposal. And North Star, truth be told which is decommissioning for Mount Yankee. So we have our, you know, our suspicions that this company can do these nuclear activities safely and it's based on very solid grounds. And Kevin, formerly in, well, in other discussions with this program you've mentioned that Representative Welch has supported the transport of nuclear fuel out west. And is there any bill that is now before the US Congress that is addressing this issue? Yes, just like past years every session they reintroduced the same bills. And so we're waiting for the most problematic bill which is entitled the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act to be reintroduced. And that's a big one because it's in the House Energy and Commerce Commission where Representative Welch serves that that comes forth. They may not have dropped it yet this session but they likely will. And related bills that have bits and pieces of that bigger omnibus radioactive waste bill have already been reintroduced by California Democrats, for example which are very in favor of consolidated interim storage. I mean, they have the political cover of Diane Feinstein the US Senator from California who advocates for that. So we are beginning to have legislative fights. That's where they would legalize consolidated interim storage even under Department of Energy ownership that's what these bills would do. That's why we have to fight them so hard even if we were to win in court and we are very confident that we will we would have to defend that court victory on Capitol Hill because they'll just try to change the law. They'll just pull the rug out from under us with a slap dash radical change in federal law to make all of what's proposed in the Southwest legal. It brings to mind the discussion that I've had with you and other anti-nuclear experts over the years that there is no political party that really is the advocate for justice in these nuclear issues. There is no savior in the political arena at all. Well, the good news in your neck of the woods is that Senator Sanders in Vermont, Senator Markey in Massachusetts are real watchdogs on these issues through on Senator Sanders at least it took a lot of public pressure to get him there but he got there. And both of those senators, Markey and Sanders serve on the Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee which has jurisdiction over nuclear power, radioactive waste, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And in fact, Senator Markey is the chairman of the subcommittee with that oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And this new nominee that Biden will probably appoint soon because there's a Republican leaving the NRC commission or five year term is up. They will have a confirmation hearing at EPW. That's where some real sharp questions can be asked about all these policies. And we do have representatives in the US House who are allies with us, who are watchdogs on this industry. We have to, again, Vermonters need to lean on Representative Welsh because thus far he's taken a bad position on these bills in the house. He's in favor of these bad bills, which is hard to wrap my head around because he's also on the Congressional Progressive Caucus and these proposals for consolidated interim storage in Texas and New Mexico, the permanent dump site in Nevada. These are environmental justice outrages. And not only that, but they're environmental risks. I mean, shipping high level waste through most states in our country for no good reason to go to interim storage in the Southwest. That is an environmental risk with environmental justice consequences because who lives along these transportation routes? Low income people of color communities many times. So rural communities. I mean, Vermont, if you study the transportation routes, Southwest Vermont would see a large number of shipments come through from other states of high level waste from Massachusetts, from New Hampshire, perhaps even from other states. And so the risk is to Vermont as well from these transportations. And the closing of Indian Point is another issue too because they will be transporting nuclear waste from there and they're right across the lake from us. One of the most risky proposals in the entire country for transporting high level radioactive waste is to barge it down the Hudson River past Manhattan into a port in New Jersey, whether it was an accidental sinking or an attack that sinks such a barge immediately offshore from downtown Manhattan. I mean, Andrew Cuomo, when he advocated, thankfully for the shutdown of Indian Point, his famous line was what are New Yorkers supposed to do swim to Jersey if there's a problem at Indian Point? Indian Point is 25 miles from New York City limits, 40 miles from downtown Manhattan. The proposal now by Holtec is to barge the waste down the Hudson. How close is the Hudson, the middle of the river from downtown Manhattan? At most a mile, less than that? I don't know. What are New Yorkers supposed to do if the accident is unfolding in the Hudson River when they can't swim to Jersey now? Cause that's where the accident's happening in the river. It's just nuts and it's not the only example of very high risk shipping proposals that would be part and parcel of these interim storage sites. Well, Kevin, before we close this program and I'm going to invite you back, hopefully next month to continue this discussion because it's, I think it's very, very important that we get to know what is going on because there's so much going on in the world. I'm looking at the Beyond Nuclear website. You have, you're addressing so many issues around the world also in the nuclear problem world. But what about the new nuclear reactors that famous industrialist from Silicon Valley? Bill Gates. Right, Bill Gates is, I'm sorry to laugh but I mean, I don't know why my reaction is except that his name escaped me at the moment whereas it's plastered all over the paper for every issue from personal, you know, people all over the world are wondering should they get a divorce? Because Bill Gates got a divorce, you know? So, I mean, this is just a little levity in the conversation. But what do you think of those nuclear reactors? Because in my opinion, everybody's gonna listen to Bill Gates, I mean, he's the one with the money. What's ironic about Bill Gates being a reactor proponent is, you know, Microsoft has had a few problems with its operating system over the decades. So it's kind of frightening to think of, you know, Bill Gates dabbling in nuclear reactor technology. But there are a whole slew of proposals for what they call advanced reactors, small modular reactors is kind of a catchphrase anymore. What they're doing is they're throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what'll stick. It's a get rich quick scheme as it always is. And here's Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest individuals in the world begging for money, probably not begging, more like demanding money from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy subsidies from federal taxpayers, you and me, to promote his, you know, so-called advanced reactor technology. And he's not the only one they all do. They all demand subsidies. They don't wanna risk their own money. They know full well how risky, even from a financial standpoint, these proposals are let alone from a safety or a security standpoint or an environmental and health standpoint, they don't seem to care about any of that. They do care about the financial standpoint. They won't risk their own money. So the fight is on to try to stop these subsidies for so-called new reactors that would take literally not, you know, if these were to be deployed across the United States for so-called climate mitigation, which is often their greenwashing argument, it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And taxpayers could be expected to pay for a lot of that because they always do. Internationally, if it were to be deployed internationally, we're talking trillions of dollars. And again, the public in all these countries look to pay for it. And the craziest part of all is, it's not gonna work. It takes way too long. It would take decades. And as we're seeing in China, brand new reactors, this reactor having trouble right now is only a couple of years old. And that's often the case where bugs get worked out. It's called the break-in phase of nuclear power. Chernobyl was a brand new reactor. Three Mile Island Unit 2 was a brand new reactor. Fermi Unit 1 in Michigan was a brand new reactor. That's when they have major problems sometimes. But there's also the breakdown phase. And we have 93 operating reactors in the US that are age-degraded. Some of them are more than 50 years old, including in upstate New York. And wouldn't you know, it's another bad sign from the Biden administration. The proposal that's been floated in recent weeks is $195 billion with a B in federal taxpayer subsidies to keep these dangerously age-degraded reactors operating in the United States. And we've had any number of break-down phase near misses in the United States, including at Indian Point with a steam generator to rupture. And you know, incredibly, it's hard to believe this, but a lot of that money to all of that money would not be used to fix anything to make major repairs at these age-degraded reactors. They literally will stick it in their pockets, executive salaries, shareholder returns. Maybe some of it would be used for maintenance. None of it would be used for major repairs that are needed because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't require it and the companies aren't gonna volunteer it. So the safety risks of these subsidies, whether it's proposed new reactors or dangerously age-degraded reactors are immense, not just to pocketbooks, but to health and safety. Kevin, could you leave us now and come back soon on a positive note because it's always positive to talk to you because you're a true activist and you're everywhere with this issue. But leave us here in Vermont today with an upbeat note and please come back again. We appreciate so much your input and the knowledge that you bring. Well, it's always a pleasure to be on your show, Margaret. The positive note is, hey, look, 10 years ago, it seemed like a daunting task to put it mildly to take on Entergy Nuclear, which was the second biggest nuclear utility in the country after Exelon. We have chased Entergy Nuclear out of the North of our country. No more merchant reactors. Vermont Yankee shut down in 2014. Indian Point is now shut down. Pilgrim is shut down. Palisades in Michigan will shut down by May 31st of 2022. Entergy-owned reactors in the North, these merchant reactors, it seemed like a very daunting task. David versus Goliath 10 years ago, and we have won. We have, as of next year, about a year from now, all Entergy reactors in the North will be shut. Unfortunately, they still have some in the South, but we'll fight them too. And that's a tremendous accomplishment, a record-breaking number of atomic reactor shutdowns in the United States in the past decade and including in Quebec, Jean-T2, not far from Vermont, all shut down, 13 reactors all told. And that momentum continues and we have to keep on fighting. Thank you so much, Kevin Camps, nuclear waste specialist from Beyond Nuclear. And till the next time, Kevin, take care, stay safe. See you later, Margaret. Yeah, thank you so much, Channel 17, Center for Media and Democracy, till next time.