Dr. Irwin reported that a significant leakage source has been found in a flawed concrete joint in the AOG pipe tunnel.  VY and NRC concur that this is one clear source of groundwater contamination which probably occurred in the last 18-24 months.  While this is one leak, it may not be the only leak.  It could be that about 300,000 gallons of ground water are contaminated and could have been happening at a rate of about 100 gallons per day.

Dr. Irwin’s review of the documents indicated that the AOG system was modified in 1972, creating a very long pipe tunnel that was otherwise inaccessible to inspection.  Later modifications in 1978 were described as “a set of construction practices that are, frankly, totally alien to nuclear facility construction practices.”  He described one piece of form wood originally used to create a form around the impaired concrete duct that had been left there “by neglect.” Over the course of years, when the wood rotted, this created an open space or pathway for this water to leak out (especially when wet) of this otherwise sealed pipe tunnel.

When asked if he thought this could happen again, he state that these exact circumstances might not happen, however the evidence that the workmanship here was “so shoddy it would not likely pass the local town building inspector, let alone the nuclear facility inspector…This defies all basic engineering principles, in my opinion, to have so much important piping where it is physically uninspectable, let alone where you have to literally break thru 24 inch concrete flooring to get to it to affect any repairs.” It is possible that this kind of work may have occurred elsewhere.

In his discussion with the VY engineer, they acknowledged that “when this kind of work was done in 60-70’s for these nuclear power plants, people really thought that it was unlikely that these plants would have to run so long that corrosion problems such as this would occur…It was in an era when it was too cheap to meter and where multiple hundreds of nuclear power plants would exist and this one would simply be shut down after a certain period of time and a new one put up next to it to replace it.”

Dr. Irwin was also asked about the missing awareness of underground pipes, he said to his knowledge the documentation of these pipes has always been there.  He saw dates from the drawings from 60’s and 70’s.  He saw documents that list dates like 2007, so he didn’t know the basis for those opinions. “It seems pretty clear that people have known about all of these.”

When tritium first made itself known, they suspected this AOG pipe tunnel and drain line and had pulled drawings out to review at that time.  There are system engineers that were aware of and very well described all of these systems.  “Why you would think there weren’t any of these is hard to imagine.”

Ah, train travel. You arrive at the station 5 minutes before departure; there is no security screening and you end up right in the center of town. You can sleep, read and even text safely while traveling. Once the form of travel that inspired songs, Vermont went the way of many states, preferring the speed of air and the flexibility of the personal automobile. Over time, we have let our tracks deteriorate or even disappear, decreasing the viability of passenger rail to an even greater extent.

As air and road travel have become increasingly more unpleasant, we have seen resurging interest in train travel. First year legislators in the House Transportation Committee could not contain their excitement when the subject of reinvesting in Vermont’s rail system began to seem like a real possibility.

Act 50, passed last year, directed the Agency of Transportation to estimate the cost of upgrading the track and creating passenger rail service along the western corridor from Burlington to Rutland to Bennington to Albany. They also directed the Agency to look at connecting Rutland to Whitehall, New York.

As part of the ARRA stimulus funding, Vermont applied for over $100 million in three separate stimulus rail grants through the Federal Rail Administration. These awards were announced by President Obama the day after his State of the Union address. Vermont won two out of three of the awards. Sadly for Shelburne, the Western Corridor was not one of them.

The “Track-One” grant was awarded to the privately owned New England Central Rail (NECR) line which serves the “Vermonter.” The Vermonter originates in St Albans with service to Essex Junction, Waterbury, Montpelier, White River, Ascutney, Bellows Falls, and Brattleboro. From there, it heads south through Massachusetts and Connecticut then on to New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Improvements to the track, roadbed and bridges were expected to increase speeds, thus decreasing travel time in Vermont by 27 minutes and 80 minutes overall to NYC.

The “Track-Two” grant for the Western Rail Corridor did not go through. The $73 million request would have brought upgrades to the rail line connecting Burlington to Rutland and beyond for both passengers and freight. The Western Corridor is state-owned and run by Vermont Railway systems. For the past decade, $28 million in Jeffords earmarks have gone unspent for this line. This may well have jeopardized this project.

The Track-Three grant award does offer some hope for the future of the Western Corridor. The $500,000 bi-state grant to New York and Vermont will fund a study of the future of passenger rail service between New York City, Albany, Bennington and Rutland. The plan looks at options for equipment, frequency and schedules to assure the most practical and cost effective service for both states. Results of this study may help secure additional funding should federal rail grants become available again.

Vermont’s primary election date, the second Tuesday in September, is one of the latest in the country. While this has worked for Vermont for many years, it does not fit with the new federal election rules. The new Military Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, or MOVE, require states to send out overseas ballots at least 45 days prior to the general election. This year, the second Tuesday falls on September 14^th, leaving only 49 days between the primary and the general election. Prior to the general election, the votes need to be verified and new ballots formatted and printed to include the winners of the primary as well as any independent or minor party candidates. The current dates would leave only 4 days to complete what is typically an 18-day process.

Last April, the Vermont Senate addressed this problem by passing a bill that would move the primary date from September 14^th to August 24^th. The House Government Operations committee took up the bill this year, hearing testimony from a variety of sources before passing it out of committee.

The debate on the floor was quite lively, very partisan and revolved around a few central issues. Those against changing the date to August 24^th, expressed concern that our already low 11-12% turn out for primaries would be further reduced by moving the date before Labor Day. They also felt we had other options. One suggestion was to have the state apply for a hardship waiver. The second was to have ballots sent to our soldiers electronically and it would take less than $10,000 to get the state up and running by the fall. A third option was to move primaries to a caucus vote rather than a ballot vote, saving the state about $200,000 and the fourth was to make no changes and risk paying a penalty. In addition, Adjutant General Michael Dubie had testified that he was interested in electronic voting. The cons reminded us that this is about “supporting our troops.”

Those in support of the bill indicated it was very unlikely we would meet the stringent criteria for the 2010 waiver. In addition, there will be no waivers permitted by 2012. Allowing our troops to vote electronically was as compelling as it was problematic. First, 24 town clerks in this state are without Internet access or email so would not be able to participate. Secondly, security and privacy issues have yet to be resolved and estimates to establish electronic voting were closer to $500,000. Caucus voting remained interesting but unresolved. In addition, 59% of the town clerks who responded to a poll supported the move to August 24^th. The pros reminded us that this is about “supporting our troops.”

At the end of the day, I voted against the amendment to provide for electronic voting because I believed the evidence that we were simply not ready - yet. I voted for the change of date in order to comply with the new federal law. I also figured those of us on vacation were more easily accommodated than our soldiers overseas. And, of course, I wanted to “support our troops.”

The politics? To me, it’s just a noisy grade B movie in a very small state. The bill heads back to the Senate for approval of a few technical changes and if accepted, will then go to the Governor.

I have had many calls and messages asking me to please vote to close Vermont Yankee both before and after the recently found tritium leaks.

By statute, the legislature only has the right to decide on the “Continued Operation” of the plant beyond 2012. If the legislature voted “no” today, this would not close the plant tomorrow. The closing date would still be March 21, 2012.

Neither do we have authority to vote on whether the plant is safe or a risk to public health. That lies in the hands of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Depart of Health respectively. In fact, if the legislature should vote not to continue operations based on safety, we would be entirely outside of our jurisdiction and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could pre-empt our right to vote. For that reason, I share everyone’s concerns about safety, but if called to vote, I must base my vote on issues related to economics and reliability and leave the safety decisions with the experts.

If and when the current crisis is over and the NRC and Vermont Health Department are satisfied, the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem will order committees to start hearings on the economic value and reliability of the plant. Testimony will revolve around 1) a thorough review of the power-price offer, 2) the request to spin off to Enexus, 3) the decommissioning fund and 4) misrepresentations made by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee. All of these can be considered by the legislature. Speaker Shap Smith is holding firm that this process be disciplined, thoughtful and very complete. When these questions are answered, we will be ready to vote.

As it currently stands, Yankee is not looking so good in any of these areas: 1) The power-price offer of 6.1 cents is unacceptable to the utilities; 2) the spin-off to Enexus appears to offer little security to Vermont; 3) the decommissioning fund is grossly under funded and 4) there is a serious breach of trust stemming from critical misinformation provide by Vermont Yankee.

In the meantime, various legislative committees are looking at different aspects of Vermont Yankee. As I serve on the water resources committee, I have been following tritium testing in drinking water, ground water, and the surface waters of our rivers and streams. Health Commissioner Dr. Wendy Davis and Radiologic Health Chief Dr. William Irwin are speaking to our committee on a weekly basis. Staff from the Departments of Health, Environmental Conservation and Agriculture are on site forming teams and undergoing safety and security training. One of their tasks will be witnessing the taking of water, fish and sediment samples in order to insure no break in the “chain of custody” occurs from the taking of samples to the reporting of results. It is likely that ground water contamination will head east toward the Connecticut river, however the shear volume of water makes it unlikely that it could ever be detected.

News from Vernon is changing on a daily basis. I will continue to stay informed and post updates on my website: www.katewebbvt.com.

Please join Joan Lenes and me at Open Arms on Tuesday mornings in February from 7:30-8:30. I will also be at Village Wine and Coffee most Monday afternoons from 4:30-5:30. Call or email to make sure. 985-2789; 233-7798; KLWebb22@mac.com

House Fish Wildlife and Water Resources Committee continues to follow the impact on water at the Vermont Yankee plant.  Health Commissioner Wendy Davis stated that the most striking development was the identification of tritium at much much higher levels.  She felt this really underscores their concern with the need to find the leak and take action.  Again, she reported no contaminated drinking water at this time.

Dr. William Irwin, radiological health chief, presented us with a map identifying various wells on the VY site.  The map identifies 4 contaminated GZ well sites with the G-7 site recently measuring at 775,000 picocuries (the limit for drinking water is 20,000).  Of the 7 sites tested for tritium leaks around the country, this is the second highest ever reported, with the highest being 800,000 (71,000  200,000  300,000  and 600,000 being other high levels for comparison purposes).  As this site is very close to the river, to active farms and a school, reports at this level of concentration raises this to a very serious public health issue.  The half-life of tritium is 12+ years.  It is not inconceivable that this could have happened long ago at much higher levels.

The G-7 site is in a courtyard of sorts between the reactor, turbine and the condensation storage tank.  The condensation storage tank is the largest container of radioactive water and is used by multiple systems.  It is the most densely piped and plumbed part of the site and is in the middle of all key structures for generating electrical energy, nuclear power radioactive waste and other processes.  Although there is some progress in narrowing down the geographic site, ruling out the condensation tank as a source means that now they need to look at the many individual pipes one by one.  This becomes even more challenging given that it is an active facility with electrical cables, ventilating systems, and dense piping of which some are radioactive and some not. This will require very deliberate planning in order to avoid a mistake to individuals that do the work as well as safe operation of plant.

Dr. Irwin reported that a radiological sampling team has been formed, made up of members of the Agency of Natural Resources, Agency of Agriculture and Department of Health.   Training and security screening are in process and they should be ready to go next week.  (Note: the screening is a bit beyond the visitors’ screening many of us underwent last year.  Visitor screening looks at what you’ve been up to recently, while this level reviews your life!)

Dr. Davis was asked what her authority was should the plant escalate to levels that put public health at risk. She stated that her authority lies in the allowable limits stated in radiologic health rules.  Depending on where she is in the investigation, depending on what other data are required, she has the authority to ask that the suite of steps be taken in order to take what is “prudent caution.”  She stays in constant contact with the town health officers of the 6 surrounding towns as well as her NH and MA partners.

We also heard from Dr. William Irwin, Radiological Health Chief at the Department of Health, who was on site at Vermont Yankee.  He reported that Normandeau Associates has been hired as an independent contractor to take water, sediment and fish samples.  Samples will be split, with one set going to the Department of Health and the other going to Vermont Yankee.  This week, DOH staff has been undergoing safety and security training.  Next week, they will be on site to witness the taking of samples.  This is not routinely done but is being implemented to insure the “chain of custody” throughout the process. The speed of this process will be determined by the pace and proximity of wells being drilled.

There are currently 30-32 existing wells (David - not sure what these wells are, but I think most of them don’t have anything to do with the current drilling) with an additional 15 scheduled for drilling.  A short conversation in the cafeteria with Commissioner Johnson, revealed that the Department of Environmental Conservation will be reviewing drilling plans for new wells to make sure aquifers do not cross-contaminate other aquifers.  The terrain of the land, soils and bedrock would not likely move any flow of groundwater west (toward the elementary school) but east toward the Connecticut River.  Hydrological science would suggest that contamination must be getting to the river but there is no evidence of this yet.  Given the shear volume of water in the river, the Commissioner indicated this may be very difficult to detect.

Our committee has requested detailed mapping information and will be tracking what happens in Vernon as it relates to water.

“A crisis is too important a thing to waste,” Rahm Emanual once said, suggesting that such times allow us to consider options that might otherwise have gone unseen.  Given the huge discrepancy between our financial demands and present resources, we definitely face a crisis and a more radical, more bold approach may well be required.

Typically, governments respond to a large budget deficit with a variation on three possible responses: raise revenues, cut expenses, sell assets, float bonds.   In tough times, these solutions alone may seem too painful, unfair, or simply not enough.  Is it possible then, that we could challenge some of these old solution assumptions?  By bringing the legislature and the agencies together, could we redesign the way services are delivered and produce better outcomes with less cost?

Such was the mission of the bi-partisan “Challenges for Change” group which met this summer.   Challenges for Change is a broad brushstroke agreement between the legislature and administration to address a $38 million dollar portion of the $150 million dollar deficit in the General Fund.  Representative Joan Lenes reviewed the structure of this in her Shelburne News article last week.

There has been much push-back and grumbling about this in Montpelier.  Legislators, non-profits, lobbyists and agency members don’t see how a thoughtful response can be made in such a short time.  Others complain about the lack of specifics.

Using the Challenge design, the legislature is removed from providing specific detail and must refrain from micromanaging.  All detail is left to the agencies who have the required experience and expertise.  “Too often,” as Tom Evslin, our chief technical officer has said, “programs are passed by legislatures in Washington or Montpelier which specify minutely how to spend money but don’t define measurable outcomes all this spending is supposed to produce.”

With this in mind, the focus before my joint committee was regulatory reform.   Rather than describing what or how reform will be accomplished, our task is to describe what the end product will look like by defining broad but measurable outcomes such as 1) the permitting process is clear, timely, coordinated and predictable  2) citizens and visitors understand and comply with the laws of the state which protect our natural resources.”

Outcomes with measurable indicators of success are due to Senate Appropriations January 27. The Agency of Natural Resources and the Agency of Agriculture will then have four weeks to develop a detailed plan to achieve the desired outcomes.  The Speaker has requested that we have a bill on the governor’s desk by the end of February.

My own response to “Challenges” has been to quit the grumbling and encourage my colleagues to roll up our sleeves and give this an honest effort as requested by legislative and administrative leaders.  The administration and legislature are working together, for goodness sake, so let’s not waste this opportunity too!   I also believe that a focus on compliance rather than enforcement will allow the agencies to use more creative means to engender compliance.  Making compliance easier, more understandable, providing feedback and rewards for those who comply may well reduce the cost of enforcement after the damage is done.

It is possible that the Challenges process might work well in certain areas, such as regulatory reform, but be less effective in addressing the challenges of education or human services.  As this is all new, it might be that we struggle through with changes for 2011 and are more proficient in 2012.  I do not believe we have harnessed what technology can provide in cutting costs and believe the agencies are hungry for the opportunity to update in this area.

Please join Joan Lenes and me at Open Arms Café Tuesday mornings in February from 7:30-8:30 and most Monday afternoons at Village Wine and Coffee at 4:30.   Or contact me at KLWebb22@mac.com

HOUSE COMMITTEE PRIORITIES

It is Sunday evening and the close of the first week of the 2010 legislative session. The tone of the State House this year is somber as our fiscal constraints loom so large. While most of the news this week has been about the budget, here is some of what to expect from the 14 House committees this year:

1. WAYS AND MEANS: is concentrating on our revenue streams. Expect to hear about steps to provide for greater accountability, jobs creation initiatives, and another look at “current use.”

2. APPROPRIATIONS will focus on expenditures. They will work to create a balanced budget that reflects the values of Vermonters, knowing that many who depend on state government will receive less in the coming year due to the size of the deficit.

3. COMMERCE will address Vermont’s troubled unemployment insurance fund as well as strengthening long-term planning for Vermont’s economic future.

4. HUMAN SERVICES’ primary focus will be responding to budget challenges. As the economy struggles, Vermonters are seeking assistance who have never needed it before. We will hear about chronic mental health issues, changes in child abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice laws.

5. TRANSPORTATION will present a bill that will provide a 1-year pilot project to allow heavy trucks currently restricted to town roads to use our Interstate highways. Expect to hear more about our 433 structurally deficient bridges. Nineteen of these were identified as most urgent as their closure would require a 30-60 mile detour.

6. GENERAL, HOUSING AND MILITARY AFFAIRS put support for families of deployed guard members and returning soldiers as a top priority. They will also be looking at affordable housing delivery systems, labor issues involving mandatory overtime among a myriad of other topics.

7. GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS faces a very big year. They will respond to the recent report on government accountability and government restructuring. Another hot topic will be the date of primary elections.

8. NATURAL RESOURCES/ENERGY will focus on several environmental initiatives.  First up is a bill to control the disposal and recycling of electronic waste, or e-waste–TV’s, computers, monitors, printers, etc.  The bill places responsibility for collection of e-waste with the manufacturer including convenient collection.  The committee will continue to gather information on Vermont Yankee to inform the continued operation debate. Whether there will be a vote from the Legislature or not remains to be seen.

9. EDUCATION committee is currently looking at 18 separate reports regarding the restructuring of education, education finance, and a host of other things. Priorities will be likely be set at the end of the week. One committee member told me the magnitude of pressure facing our schools and our taxpayers cannot be overstated.

10. AGRICULTURE will seek continued funding of the Farm to Plate program to invigorate Vermont’s food production systems. They will also address revisions to the Vermont Use Value Appraisal, known as “Current Use” in order to improve its performance while making it less costly.

11. JUDICIARY will spend significant time on the structural reorganization of our court system. Expect also to see legislation regarding texting while driving which was passed in the House last year, but died in the Senate.

12. FISH, WILDLIFE AND WATER RESOURCES will focus first on the riparian buffer bill which establishes a 50 foot buffer along our navigable waterways. This died on the House floor 2 years ago however has more momentum and clarification this year. Testimony from area scientists indicates that this is the cheapest and most effective way to protect our water.

13. INSTITUTIONS AND CORRECTIONS will focus on the direction of the state hospital and the capitol bill including a new health lab. They will continue to work on suggestions generated by Council of State Government report regarding ways to save on the corrections budget while keeping the community safe.

14. HEALTH CARE committee will be spend the first few weeks reviewing the federal health care options and determining what steps need to be taken to maximize reform efforts in Vermont.

Please continue to contact me with your questions and concerns at 233-7798 or KLWEBB22@mac.com.

REFORMING HEALTH CARE:  H.444 was signed into law on June 2nd as Act 61.  This is a 124 page omnibus bill which positions Vermont to receive ARRA (federal stimulus) money for health information technology.  A partial list of features of this bill is as follows: 1) allows farmers and self-employed people to use depreciation as an allowable business expense for reporting income; 2) people who have lost their insurance no longer have to wait twelve months for state-sponsored insurance; 3) asks providers to develop recommendations to coordinate treatment of stroke patients in Vermont;  4)  sets up a pilot program to provide vaccines at no cost;  5) bans the use of the flame retardant known as “Deca” which has been found, ironically, to be highly toxic when it burns.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG MARKETING:  S.48 was signed into law on June 8th as Act 59.  One of the great contributors to rising health care expenses is the cost of prescription drugs.  Alarmingly, one-third of every dollar spent on prescription drugs goes into marketing. In 2002, Vermonters spent $377 million on prescription, over-the-counter and nondurable medical supplies.  In 2007, this number grew to $572 million or an average increase of 8.7% per year.

According to the April 2009 report of the Vermont Attorney General’s office, pharmaceutical manufacturers reported spending almost $3 million in Vermont on fees, travel expenses and other direct payments to Vermont physicians, hospitals, and universities for the purpose of marketing their products.  Testimony cited considerable research that shows that marketing does affect prescription practices.

This act attempts to reduce the real or perceived conflict of interest between manufacturers and providers by increasing transparency and placing limits on gifts.  Free samples of prescription drugs resulted in considerable debate in the House.  Free samples have been found to affect physician’s prescribing patterns, however, contrary to popular belief, these samples do not go primarily to low-income patients.  The House bill required manufacturers to report free samples given to providers however a last-minute compromise with the Senate resulted in exempting free samples from disclosure.  It is hoped that these measures will help control costs and improve care.  This bill received support from the Vermont Medical Society, the AARP and the mental health community.

PALLIATIVE CARE:   H.425 was signed into law on May 18th as Act 25.  The purpose of this Act is to improve the quality of life and management of pain for patients facing serious medical conditions.  Palliative care addresses relief from symptoms such as pain, nausea, anxiety, shortness of breath, which may be caused by the underlying disease or by side effects of more aggressive interventions.  It also addresses physical, cognitive, emotional, psychological and spiritual needs, while facilitating patient autonomy, access to information and choice.

This act works toward expanding access to palliative care for children and adults across the state and ensures that Vermonters are aware of their rights and care options through a patient’s “bill of rights.”  In addition, it sets a plan to improve the knowledge and practice of health care professionals with respect to palliative care and pain management.

Feel free to contact me at KLWebb22@mac.com or 985-2789.  I have posted my previous Shelburne News articles on my website.  www.KateWebbVt.com.

Most of us held out until the last minutes, hoping for an agreement between the administrative and legislative leadership.  The last day, we heard the closest they had come was to postpone some decision-making.  It was time to move forward with the 2010 budget, warts and all, make some corrections with the “Companion Bill” and encourage both leadership teams to begin in earnest to address the challenges in FY2011 and FY2012.

Make no mistake about it.  Both the Governor’s proposal and the Legislature’s budget, cut programs, cut spending, used ARRA (Federal Stimulus) funds, raised some revenues, cut some taxes and looked for savings.  Both budgets were balanced for FY2010 but faced difficulties in FY2011 and more so in FY2012.   The major difference between the budgets had to do with how FY2010 was balanced.  The Legislature left future burden on the General Fund while the Governor left the burden on the Education Fund, i.e. property taxes.

I voted to override the veto.  When I ran for election, I promised many people that I would work for quality education while also containing our distressingly high property taxes.  A vote to sustain the veto would have re-opened the discussion to shift the teachers’ retirement fund to the Education Fund, creating a huge, unfunded, and ongoing cost to property tax payers.  In addition, 216 Shelburne homeowners with incomes between $75,000 and $90,000 would have seen an average property tax increase of $944 with some adding more than $7,000 to their yearly property tax bill. Another spreadsheet comparing the effect of the two different budgets on the 265 towns in Vermont showed Shelburne to be one of the towns to suffer the most under the Governor’s budget.  Testimony from school board members and superintendents across the state expressed strong opposition to this shift. These issue, along with my concern with Administration’s near elimination of the Vermont Housing Conservation Board led me to vote for the override.

After reading the Governor’s budget, however, some valid concerns came to light. First, the Legislature’s attempt to close some capital gains loopholes would be tough on farmers and loggers.  Many of us objected to this so it was corrected in the Companion Bill.  Second, Administration wanted to see tax credits for research and development so this was added for FY 2011.  Third, the Administration raised concern about the lack of accessibility to college scholarships.   The Companion Bill thus transferred $1.5 million out of the Higher Education Trust Fund to the Next Generation Fund, making money available to be split among the Vermont State Colleges, UVM and Vermont Student Assistance Corporation.  Fourth, Administration’s concerns about the nearly bankrupt Unemployment Insurance fund resulted in limitations for the near term and creation of a 12-person study committee to work toward a permanent solution for the future.  These and others measures were built into the Companion Bill which currently awaits the Governor’s signature.

Although an official compromise was not reached, the outcome last week included remedies for those oversights identified by the Governor while keeping the Education Fund transfer and Vermont Housing Conservation Board off the table. I believe it is not good practice for either a governor or a legislature to go it alone.  It is the hope of many of us more moderate Democrats, that sections of the Companion Bill will provide an opening for more collaborative efforts for FY 2011.

I will be around most of the summer and value your input.  I am keeping data on calls and emails I receive.  Do share your concerns with me.  When possible, include your reasons why it is important to you or your suggestions for solution.  KLWebb22@mac.com