Category Archives: View from Vermont

Plant cooling a stumbling block?

Posted on September 11, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

By Howard Shaffer

When the heat released by nuclear fission is used in a steam plant to produce mechanical power, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that a large part of the heat must be rejected to the environment. Most land-based nuclear plants reject heat by using cooling water from a river or ocean.

The environmental effect of rejected heat is a legitimate concern that has been addressed in the design process for all nuclear plants. Environmental monitoring begins with a preconstruction baseline survey and continues throughout the plant’s lifetime, per regulations.

Environmental science continues to advance, and these advances must be taken into account when considering plant cooling.

Vermont Yankee’s design

The Vermont Yankee plant design began in the 1960s, and operation began in 1972. The plant is located on the Connecticut River in Vernon, Vermont, in the southeast corner of the state. The Connecticut River borders Vermont and New Hampshire, flows south through Massachusetts to Connecticut, and then empties into Long Island Sound. The Vermont Yankee plant is built just upstream from the Vernon Dam, and the dam’s large “pond” provides the plant’s cooling water.

The Vermont Yankee design included cooling towers, recently required by the Clean Water Act. Tower use is required only in warm months. River temperature requirements are specified in the plant’s Discharge Permit, and have been adjusted during plant life.

Permit issues

Vermont Yankee’s Discharge Permit is issued by the State of Vermont, under the authority of the Federal Clean Water Act. As the plant’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission relicensing date approached, the plant also applied for an extended permit from the state. The state review has been underway for several years.

Meanwhile, the NRC issued a 20-year renewal of the Vermont Yankee license, and the plant then sued Vermont for trying to nullify this license through state law. The plant won in federal district court and the case is being appealed.

Then, interveners sued the NRC claiming that the license renewal is illegal because the plant does not have a valid Discharge Permit from the state. The federal court dismissed this suit on procedural grounds, saying that the state and interveners had not used every available step in the administrative process, as must be done before going to court.

A detailed blog post on these rulings is available at Yes Vermont Yankee.

Protecting the river

The Connecticut River Watershed Council is an environmental group that monitors the river’s health and acts to ensure its protection and continued cleanup. Prior to the Clean Water Act of 1972, the local lore called the river “the world’s most beautifully landscaped sewer” because it was used that way by every city, town, and factory that had access. The river is far cleaner now.

However, the Watershed Council is now reporting that its studies have shown that one of the river’s fish, the shad, has essentially disappeared for a distance downstream from the plant. They claim that their studies show that water temperature increases due to the Vermont Yankee plant can be measured miles downstream. The council advocates the use of Vermont Yankee’s cooling towers for a longer part of the year, or even all year. Meanwhile, the state is waiting for its scientific review to be completed.

One law professor called for shutting down the plant until the Discharge Permit process is resolved. The responsible state official replied that the process must be fair and defensible in court!

A complication?

About 10 miles downstream of Vermont Yankee, the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage plant also uses the Connecticut River. It pumps water up to a reservoir at night, and releases it as needed during the day to generate power. This reservoir is on a mountain top and open to the sun, so it gains heat.

There has been no mention of this heat gain by the Watershed Council. A Massachusetts environmental professor detailed severe effects on aquatic life that were probably caused by this plant. He pointed out that many species recovered when the pump storage plant was off-line. In addition, there are reports of heavy shad fishing at the river’s mouth. Will these concerns appear in the council’s report? They should.

Opposition activity

The SAGE Alliance plans a September 15th Flotilla at Vermont Yankee. Supporters are encouraged to launch any kind of craft, and also be on the river banks. Banners opposing the plant will be displayed. They will symbolically dump some ice in the river for cooling. There has not been much to keep the plant in the news this summer, so this seems to be a publicity stunt, and an effort to keep supporters energized.

Possible outcome

It seems possible that scientific findings may eventually dictate that the Vermont Yankee plant reduce its temperature impact on the river for more months than it does now. The plant’s cooling towers would have to be used more. However, tower operation reduces the net power the plant delivers to the grid. Winter operation of these wooden frame towers is problematic at best, due to potential ice damage, and probably not possible.

Likewise, the findings may also dictate changes to protect fish from the effect of the pumped storage plant. There are fish ladders around the dams, but there may need to be a long canal installed to allow fish to bypass the pumped storage intake.

The future

Several other nuclear power plants (Oyster Creek and Indian Point, among others) also are facing challenges about discharge temperatures. The sciences of aquatic life are advancing. It may be that practices once believed acceptable will need to be changed. Nuclear scientists and engineers believe primarily in science and the scientific method. We will go where it leads us (that is why we are so passionate about publicizing correct information about radiation safety).

In terms of aquatic life, we need to accept valid, peer-reviewed findings substantiated by the evidence, even if conclusions turn out to be uncomfortable for us. However, the important point is to accept comprehensive, peer-reviewed scientific studies that look at the whole river, dams, pumped storage and all, and do what is best for the ecosystem.

________________________________

Shaffer

Howard Shaffer has been an ANS member for 35 years. He has contributed to ASME and ANS Standards committees, ANS committees, national meeting staffs, and his local section, and was the 2001 ANS Congressional Fellow. He is a current member of the ANS Public Information Committee and consults in nuclear public outreach.

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project. Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in cooling towers, View from Vermont

Tagged cooling, discharge temperature, Howard Shaffer, nuclear power, regulation, Vermont Yankee

The Search For Nuclear Happiness

Posted on August 28, 2012 by pbowersox| 6 Comments

By Meredith Angwin

This year, and especially during these long tomato-filled days of August, I have been thinking a lot about happiness. Actually, I have been thinking even more about unhappiness.

I am a nuclear advocate, and sometimes I find myself thinking, Why am I doing this nuclear activism thing? Do I like confrontation? Do I like it when I get a hate email?

NRC officials with police escort evacuate meeting in Brattleboro VT

Do I like to go to contentious Nuclear Regulatory Commission meetings where the NRC people are intimidated into leaving the room? Or to Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel meetings where opponents ask endless questions about nuclear safety? The answer is no. I don’t like to go to such meetings!

On a recent day, I found myself reading The Happiness Project by Gretchen Rubin. My daughter had recommended this book. As I was reading it, I was also receiving a series of accusatory emails from a plant opponent.

Quite a contrast in mental tone.

Not a contrast

Actually, it was not that much of a contrast. One of the points of The Happiness Project is that happiness doesn’t necessarily make you FEEL happy. This contradictory statement can be parsed as follows: The activities that are meaningful to a person, and lead to long-term happiness, are often stressful, hard, and anxiety-producing while they are happening. At the time you are doing them, happiness-producing activities do not necessarily make you feel happy.

Gretchen gave a simple example of how she began to discover this. A friend who is a gourmet cook was giving a dinner party. As he dashed around the kitchen, trying to do too many things at once, Gretchen asked him if he was “enjoying his own party?” He paused only briefly and answered that he would “enjoy it when it was over.”

So, why does he give the party? I mean, how is “enjoying it when it is over” different from “enjoying it by not doing it at all”? The answer is that cooking for friends is a major source of satisfaction for this man. The short-term stress of cooking leads to the long-term happiness of friendship and cheerful memories. It also leads to the happiness of being admired for the gourmet meals he creates.

I don’t want to try to summarize the book here, but it made me think about how to stay happy as a nuclear advocate. I came up with three ideas that work for me, and I thought I would share them.

Three routes to happiness as a nuclear advocate

First: Do something

Try to do something most days, even if it seems small. As Gretchen Rubin writes: We overestimate what we can accomplish in an hour or two, but we underestimate what we can accomplish by small efforts over time. Write enough letters to the editor, and you may be asked to write some op-eds. Once you have some op-eds printed, you can send op-eds to other newspapers and get wider publication. Organize a small meeting, or a big rally. There’s always something to do, and it doesn’t matter if it is big or small, or if you don’t do it perfectly, just as long as you do it.

Second: Work on curing the brownie deficit

Nuclear opponents tend to spend a lot of time together. They have potlucks, make costumes, have coffee and brownies in letter-writing groups. Pro-nuclear people have a brownie deficit; that is, a personal-interaction deficit. Try to cure it! Meet others in person whenever you can. I don’t know if I could do much for nuclear energy without the friendship of Howard Shaffer and my husband George Angwin. My female pro-nuclear friends tend to live farther afield, although I have developed a very close personal and pro-Vermont Yankee friendship with a woman in Brattleboro. It is over an hour’s drive between our houses, but we both think that getting together regularly is worthwhile, because personal friendships are important.

Yes, it is hard to get together, but humans were meant to get together. My best ideas don’t come from cogitation, they come from conversation. Don’t hide behind your computer. Get out there and cure the brownie deficit!

Third: Prioritize

Being a pro-nuclear activist means living in a “target-rich” environment. Every day, somebody will say or plan something ridiculous and anti-nuclear, and you want to answer them all. Every day, someone will ask for your help. You can’t do it all. Work on the situations where you have the most knowledge and the most credibility. Usually these are the events and talks that take place near your home. Prioritize! Time is your most precious commodity.

Another way to say that is to quote a friend of mine: “You don’t have to join every fight you’re invited to.”

The General Rule: Gratitude

My rules are specific to nuclear advocates, but I think there’s a general rule for increasing happiness that is true for everyone, in every circumstance.

Cultivate gratitude.

As a nuclear advocate, gratitude might mean appreciating your health (so you can be an advocate), appreciating your friends (so you aren’t alone in your advocacy), and appreciating your victories, however big or small. However, writing that list just for “nuclear advocates” feels much too petty. Advocate or not, I believe that gratitude helps everyone to happiness, to generosity, and to love.

In other words, being a nuclear advocate is just like being anyone else, and staying happy as a nuclear advocate uses the same techniques as anyone’s successful ”Happiness Project.”

____________________________

Angwin

Meredith Angwin is the founder of Carnot Communications, which helps firms to communicate technical matters. She specialized in mineral chemistry as a graduate student at the University of Chicago. Later, she became a project manager in the geothermal group at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Then she moved to nuclear energy, becoming a project manager in the EPRI nuclear division. She is an inventor on several patents.

Angwin serves as a commissioner in the Hartford Energy Commission, Hartford, Vt. Angwin is a long-time member of the American Nuclear Society and coordinator of the Energy Education Project. She is a frequent contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

__________________________

→ 6 Comments

Posted in nuclear opponents, View from Vermont

Vermont Yankee supporters at anti-nuke book tour

Posted on August 14, 2012 by pbowersox| 7 Comments

By Howard Shaffer

On Tuesday, August 7, I attended a book tour event sponsored by a New England anti-nuclear group. The event’s title that first appeared on the group’s website was “Fukushima: Nuclear Power’s Gift to the Planet.” By the end of the four-state book tour, the title had been changed to match the book, “The Devil’s Tango: How I Learned the Fukushima Step by Step” (publisher’s website), by Cecile Pineda. As stated during the presentation, the book tour was planned around August 6, the 67th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing in World War II. Pineda’s presentation contained all the standard anti-nuke issues, and a few new wrinkles as well.

The author

Pineda

Pineda is an author of several published novels, which have contained a persistent theme of the “nuclear cycle” according to her website. At the book tour event, she recounted her memories of the day the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. She made her comments while visiting Northfield, Mass., which is in the emergency planning zone for the Vermont Yankee plant. Her decision to write Devil’s Tango was made a few days after the accident at Fukushima-Daiichi began, she said, and it was published on the first anniversary of the start of the accident.

The venue

The meeting was hosted by the Upper Valley Sierra Club, at the Howe Public Library, in Hanover, N.H. Arriving early, I was greeted by the program chair, whom I have known for several years. We have a cordial relationship, and he tries to see both sides of issues. I handed him a copy of the World Health Organization’s spring news release on the radiation doses outside the Fukushima evacuation zone, which reported up to 10 milliseivert, an insignificant amount. That’s one example of the value of continuing to show up at events such as this: One can make contact with those who remain open-minded, even if they already have a definite opinion.

The banner on the meeting room wall behind the speakers read: “Entergy = Fukushima.” In all, 38 persons attended the meeting, including board members of national anti-nuclear organizations. One of them greeted a friend as “All the way from Rutland County”—70 miles or more.

The presentation

Nestel

The program chair opened the meeting, and reminded everyone that not all present shared the same opinion, and thus to be respectful. He then turned it over to Hattie Nestel, an avid anti-nuclear activist and frequent arrestee from Massachusetts.

She stated that the tour was set up to reach four states with reactors in nine days (in Vermont, Vermont Yankee; in New Hampshire, Seabrook; in Massachusetts, Pilgrim; and in New York, Indian Point.) Hattie’s car, with its No Nuke paint job, was parked outside. She introduced author Pineda.

Pineda began by asking everyone to introduce themselves and their affiliation. Her presentation consisted of three rounds of speaking about a topic, then reading from her book. This was followed by a brief question-and-answer session. Copies of the book were for sale and would be autographed. Also available were DVDs, including one featuring her interview on Channel 17’s Town Meeting Television, as well as anti-nuclear literature and buttons.

Points raised

The Sierra club now has an agenda against nuclear power.
Nuclear power is linked to Hiroshima and Fukushima.
A Japanese woman on a speaking tour in California said that the Japanese live with anxiety all the time.
Nuclear power is a technology that has never learned to resolve itself.
There is no way to solve the waste problem.
Yucca Mountain failed. There was a demonstration where the proposed drip shields were immersed in water similar to that in the mountain and they quickly corroded.
The U.S. Center for Disease Control did a study that showed a 35-percent increase in infant mortality in several cities in the northwestern United States after the Fukushima accident.
Vermont is in the fallout from Fukushima—it is a planetary disaster.
We are waiting for the other shoe to drop at Fukushima, where the Unit 4 fuel pool is collapsing. If it does, Tokyo and Yokohama will be uninhabitable.
The GE MK I reactor plants were sold knowing that there is a 90-percent chance of failure.
The Japanese forgot that there are tsunamis in the Fukushima area. They even cut down a protective bluff where the plants are located.
There have been 200,000 people in Tokyo protesting the restart of nuclear power plants. We are as good as the Japanese when it comes to activism to shut down nuclear power. Get active.
There is a nuclear war going on now! Using depleted uranium ammunition, Iraq is contaminated for all eternity. In hot spots, there is a 15 percent rate of birth defects.
We all “channel.” Children know, but as we become adults, we are convinced that it is not so.
Outside the evacuation zone around the Fukushima plants, 30 percent of the children have thyroid cysts.
Nuclear power and fossil waste are for all eternity.
There is a French movement to shut down nuclear power plants.
There are cancer clusters around the La Hague reprocessing plant.
Vermont politicians care about our safety. But President Obama has increased the amount spent on nuclear power.
The MK I plants have put the “bath tub in the attic [spent fuel pools].”
A TV set uses the most power in your home. It muddles your brain. Turn it off. Visit people. Stop using computers so much!

This was a typical “anti nuke” presentation, appealing to emotion, and using scare stories. It is wrong on the facts, as science knows them (just to begin with, if an isotope is radioactive, it does not last forever…)

Coverage of other stops on this tour

On Monday, August 6, Richard Schmidt of Westmoreland, N.H., a fellow pro-nuclear activist, attended the book tour presentation in Brattleboro, Vt., at the Center Congregational Church.He was there early and handed out his “Important Facts about Vermont Yankee” fact sheet. He used green paper to aid in tracking its circulation. He spoke to about 15 of the 25 in attendance, which included tourists and some receptive young people.

Also, on Thursday, August 9, Dr. Sam Martin, a colleague in the American Nuclear Society Northeastern Section, attended the presentation at the Harwich, Mass., Community Center. It was hosted by the Cape Downwinders (Cape Cod is down wind from the Pilgrim plant at Plymouth, Mass., across the bay. There are two bridges to Cape Cod, and vacation traffic is often backed up. Some residents on “the Cape” feel that evacuation in the event of an accident and release from the plant would be impossible.)

Sam had a cordial exchange with the head of the organization. But when a question was asked about the reconstruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, author Pineda went off on a tangent, Sam felt, and he commented, “You’re not answering the question.” After the presentation, Sam continued to try to communicate with others in attendance, but he reported that some at the event would not even look him in the eye.

_______________________________

Shaffer

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project. Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

____________________

→ 7 Comments

Posted in View from Vermont

Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel: Safety Again!

Posted on July 24, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

By Meredith Angwin

VSNAP is the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel. This state panel gives advice to the state government on nuclear issues. The most recent meeting was in Montpelier, Vermont, on July 9.

In my opinion, VSNAP has not accepted the fact that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is in charge of nuclear safety. In other words, while a Federal judge already ruled in Entergy v. Vermont that nuclear safety is in the purview of the NRC but not the state – the state still doesn’t “get it.”

Bill Irwin (designee of the Agency of Human Services); Larry Becker (designee of the Agency of Natural Resources); Elizabeth Miller (Chair and Commissioner of PSD); Leslie Kanat (public member appointed by Governor Shumlin); Rep Sarah Edwards (Representative, chosen by the Speaker of the House); Jim Matteau (public member, appointed by Governor Shumlin). Not pictured, Sen. Mark McDonald (Senator, chosen by the Committee on Committees) (thanks to Sarah Hofmann of the Department of Public Service)

Many Changes

I had been to VSNAP meetings in the days before Governor Shumlin was elected, but I had missed some meetings that took place more recently. I wondered how the panel’s deliberations had changed. Since the last time I attended the panel:

* A Governor (Governor Shumlin) opposed to Vermont Yankee was elected, and he appointed a new Department of Public Service Commissioner, Liz Miller

* Vermont Yankee received its license extension from the NRC

* Reactors similar to Vermont Yankee suffered melt-downs at Fukushima

* Vermont Yankee won its federal lawsuit against the state of Vermont. The judge ruled that the state of Vermont has no authority over nuclear safety issues. Such issues are controlled by the NRC.

In the Old Days

The VSNAP panel includes two members of the Vermont legislature, a Senator and a Representative, appointed by the legislature. The panel is chaired by the Commissioner of the Department of Public Service; the Commissioner is appointed by the Governor. “In the old days” when I went to these panels, the Governor was in favor of Vermont Yankee operation and many in the legislature were against it. Back then, the Commissioner and the two legislative panelists were on opposite sides of the fence about nuclear matters.

In those days, the legislative panelists attempted to wrest control of the meeting from the Commissioner. At one memorable meeting, “wresting control” of the meeting included one of the legislators attempting to wrest the actual microphone out of the Commissioner’s hands.

Naturally, in those days, the panel talked about nuclear safety.

Times Have Changed

Those were the exciting old days. The new Commissioner, Liz Miller, has been appointed by the anti- Vermont Yankee governor, Peter Shumlin. She is basically on the same side of the nuclear fence as the legislative panelists. The meetings have calmed down. Microphone-wrestling is over.

In another change, this meeting was held in Montpelier, not Brattleboro or Vernon. (Brattleboro and Vernon are near the southern boundary of Vermont. The plant is in Vernon.) Liz Miller wants people throughout the state to have access to VSNAP meetings. I think this is a good idea. The same people always formerly came to the meetings. Many of the regular attendees came from nearby Massachusetts.

However, this Montpelier meeting had few attendees, and only three members of the public spoke during the public comment section. I think that if the former Commissioner had tried to move the VSNAP meeting away from the Brattleboro area, the proposed move might have been seen as a trick to make it difficult for plant opponents to attend the meetings. However, Miller was able to move the meeting and include people from different parts of Vermont.

Miller has also made the VSNAP website available to the public (a good thing!). You can hear audio files of the entire meeting here. Other VSNAP documents are available at the site.

Advising on Safety

VSNAP is an “advisory” panel. It doesn’t vote on anything, its job is to advise the state government (agencies and elected officials) on issues relating to nuclear power. It can talk about anything, since it is advisory only.

As far as I can tell, VSNAP advises the state government on safety, safety and safety. The panel had asked Entergy for a briefing on Fukushima upgrades required by the NRC. The Entergy presentation was the main business of the meeting. After Entergy’s presentation, it was almost as if the Judge’s ruling hadn’t happened.

The panel members asked about safety issues internal to the plant. Representative Sarah Edwards was concerned with the Mark I containment. Senator Mark MacDonald claimed that the NRC doesn’t enforce its own standards. He stated that the NRC will “change the graduation requirements, and everybody graduates.” Panel members suggested Entergy should move rapidly toward taking the fuel out of the fuel pool and putting it in dry casks (for increased safety, of course). Miller was concerned with the steam dryer and whether the plant was working effectively to coordinate with first responders in an emergency situation. The diesel generators, the hardened vents, diesel fuel storage. All were up for discussion.

One particular exchange showed the mood of the meeting. The Entergy presenter said “The Fukushima accident” as part of his presentation. Senator MacDonald interrupted him. “Was Fukushima an accident?” At that point, Miller asked MacDonald to hold his questions until the end of the presentation, but then she added: “Point well taken.”

The state panel, being advisory, can legitimately discuss anything. However, the question does arise: after they have held these meetings about safety, whom are they planning to advise? The legislature is in the middle of a court case about federal pre-emption,. The Attorney General (AG) denies that the legislature ever voted on “safety.” The AG claims that Entergy’s lawyers convinced the judge that the legislature was involved in nuclear safety assessments, but nothing could have been further from their minds. Really?

To me, despite the new venue, the civility, and the new Commissioner, this panel was basically the same as all the previous panels. VSNAP is exactly where it was before the Federal court ruling: quizzing Entergy about safety and safety equipment. People on the panel also make it very clear that they don’t expect the NRC to adequately protect the public.

The state legislature cannot concern itself with nuclear safety, but the state can be an intervenor with the NRC. Maybe that is the point of the VSNAP meetings: helping the AG get ready for the next NRC intervention. Though one would expect such a panel to have a broader reach.

Who Discusses Safety

Many people inside and outside of the nuclear industry discuss safety. Everyone wants to be sure that safety changes prevent any recurrence of the events of Fukushima. People should talk about safety.

However, is nuclear safety the proper concern of a state advisory panel? I don’t think so. I think it is bizarre that elected state officials are quizzing Entergy about safety, and discussing the “inadequacies” of the NRC. To me, it’s like a time warp. It’s as if the court case never happened.

The fundamental issue remains the same. The Vermont legislature and its advisory bodies still seem to think that they, not the NRC, are in charge of nuclear safety.

References

A more complete description of the meeting is at Vermont Digger.

Howard Shaffer’s testimony at the December 11, 2011 VSNAP meeting.

: Angwin

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, View from Vermont

Some Big Changes in Vermont

Posted on July 10, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

By Howard Shaffer

Since the previous View from Vermont posted June 12, courts have issued several decisions that will have a major effect on nuclear power nationally, and on the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in particular. The Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act has moved attention from these important federal court decisions, which otherwise would have received more publicity (outside of Vermont).

Three main rulings covered the following topics:

A lawsuit challenging the legality of the Vermont Yankee license extension issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Refunding spent fuel storage costs nationally.
The “used fuel confidence” rule of the NRC.

Meanwhile, Vermont Yankee’s opponents staged another rally at the plant’s gates, with planned arrests.

And meanwhile, plant supporters continue to spread the positive message about Vermont Yankee and nuclear power.

The challenge to Vermont Yankee’s license

The State of Vermont and intervenors sued the NRC in federal court, claiming that the NRC issued Vermont Yankee’s 20-year license extension illegally. The plaintiffs asserted that the license extension was invalid because the plant has no valid water discharge permit.

The court of appeals dismissed the suit on procedural grounds. The court noted that there were six opportunities for the state to raise the issue during the licensing process. These opportunities were not used. The court said that all administrative avenues must be used before coming to the courts.

In other words, waiting until the license is issued, and then hoping the court will issue a “gotcha,” won’t work. Commentators expect that the Supreme Court would not accept a challenge to a circuit court decision on procedural grounds, when there is no disagreement between circuit courts and no larger issue involved:

“Appeals court hands NRC a victory in Yankee license case”

Miller

Commissioner Miller, chair of the Department of Public Service, argued the case:

“State loses another legal round in Vt. Yankee relicensing”

This decision was reported in the Valley News, our local paper, on the back of the front page, at the bottom. This area contains short, single paragraph articles of local interest. The Valley News does not support Vermont Yankee. If the plant had lost, it would have been a front-page story.

Yes Vermont Yankee has a great post about the ruling:

“Vermont loses lawsuit against NRC about water quality permit”

Used fuel storage cost refund

Vermont Yankee sued the federal government to recover the cost of storing used fuel on site. Other plants have filed similar suits. The plants claim that they have been forced into unnecessary costs because the federal government has not fulfilled its legal obligation to take custody of the fuel and remove it.

The court ruled for Vermont Yankee, and allowed almost all of the costs. What is of note in the Vermont Yankee case is that the state had put a special assessment on Vermont Yankee when the plant needed to build a concrete pad for dry cask storage. About this, the court said it would not be inappropriate to describe the high fee the state charged for construction of the concrete pad for storage of the dry casks for the used fuel as “blackmail”(!)

We will certainly hear more about “blackmail” in the fall election campaign. Vermont’s governor Peter Shumlin, a committed opponent of the plant, is up for reelection at the end of his two-year term.

Waste confidence rule

A federal circuit court decision found that the NRC’s waste confidence rule is not valid, because the NRC did not provide an adequate environmental impact statement for long-term storage. This decision is for all plants, not just Vermont Yankee, and will not affect Vermont Yankee immediately. The plant already has its 20-year license extension, so there is no pending NRC license to be stayed. However, there has been editorial commentary based on this ruling, and we can expect opponents to bring this up during the State Public Service Board hearings on the required Certificate of Public Good next year.

The State Public Service Board

Under Vermont law, the Vermont Yankee plant requires a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board to operate. The original certificate expired on the same day as the expiration of the original NRC license.

The plant continues to operate under the original certificate because it had applied for a new one, and the proceedings are still in progress. The board had actually completed its proceedings several years ago, but was blocked from releasing them by a state senate vote that led to the Entergy v. Vermont lawsuit. The senate action was found illegal by the federal district court in January. The state has been enjoined by the court from acting to shut down the plant while the decision is appealed.

The board has set a schedule with proceedings finishing in August 2013, with their decision to follow. Entergy just filed a motion with the board suggesting the limits of the proceedings. Since the board cannot consider safety, or anything related to safety, or veiled attempts to imply safety, there is a real question about the proper scope of the proceedings. The board will hold a public hearing in Vernon, the plant’s hometown, in November.

The intervenors are expected to file their own opinions on the board’s proper scope. As a public radio reporter called it, intervenors are looking for any “hook” they can find to limit the plant’s power or shut it down. Vermont Yankee’s opponents are eying a requirement for year-round use of the existing cooling towers as a way of limiting the plant’s power. This was a partially successful tactic recently at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey.

Some things stay the same: The opponents

The various local opponents groups, banded together during the last year as the Safe and Green Alliance, have not slackened their efforts to keep the Vermont Yankee opposition story in the news. They staged a protest event on Sunday, July 1.

Among other proceedings, a large “Trojan Cow” (600 lbs) was unloaded at the plant’s gates. The event received lots of free publicity from several newspapers, as opponents have become very good at this. In the Brattleboro Reformer, a state trooper was quoted as saying that the state was doing “due diligence” to shut the plant down, but the troopers had to do their own due diligence and arrest the protesters:

“Protesters arrested at Vermont Yankee gates”

Capt. Ray Keefe of the Vermont State Police said that there’s been a long relationship with the organizers and various police agencies to ensure that things run smoothly.

“Cow attacks Vermont nuke plant (video)”

Meredith Angwin has a stinging commentary about the protest at Yes Vermont Yankee:

“Vermont Yankee protest: low turnout and low intelligence”

A regatta is planned for August 18, with the objective of publicizing the plant’s use of the river.

And the supporters

There is no slackening of effort on the part of the plant’s supporters. For example, opponents always refer to the plant’s emergency planning zone (EPZ) as the “evacuation zone.” In a recently published letter, Dick January, now on the plant engineering staff, described another “EBZ”: the economic benefit zone.

“The Vermont Yankee economic benefit zone”

Dick is a long-time activist, going back to our days at the Yankee Atomic nuclear power plant and the Massachusetts shutdown referendum. His letter nicely shows that the Vermont Yankee plant is a very big economic benefit to the surrounding tri-state communities.

In fact, according to a member of the local chamber of commerce, this was one of the original justifications for locating the plant where it is. This fact will undoubtedly be raised again by supporters during the upcoming Public Service Board proceedings for a Certificate of Public Good.

_____________________

: Shaffer

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project. Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Comments Off

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, spent fuel, View from Vermont

Meredith Angwin and Howard Shaffer Receive American Nuclear Society Presidential Citations

Posted on June 26, 2012 by lscheele| 7 Comments

American Nuclear Society (ANS) President Eric Loewen, PhD, presented ANS members Meredith J. Angwin and Howard C. Shaffer, III with Presidential Citations in recognition of their successful public information efforts in Vermont and elsewhere. Angwin and Shaffer received their award during the ANS President’s Special Session at the ANS Annual Conference: “Nuclear Science and Technology: Managing the Global Impact of Economic and Natural Events,” being held June 24-28 in Chicago, Illinois.

“Meredith Angwin and Howard Shaffer have inspired nuclear proponents across the country by shaping the public debate over nuclear energy using facts and technical credibility,” said Loewen. “Their success in making sure that accurate information is shared in public venues will continue to benefit the nation moving forward.”

The Presidential Citations recognize the following achievements:

Angwin

Meredith Angwin—For providing rational, reliable, and unbiased information about nuclear energy to the citizens of Vermont during the contentious re-licensing period for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. By establishing the Energy Education Project, Meredith nourished a grassroots organization that changed the public debate about nuclear energy, lending a credible voice and a helping hand to ANS members and other nuclear advocates well beyond the borders of Vermont.

Shaffer

Howard Shaffer—For tireless efforts to provide accurate and credible nuclear energy information to the citizens of Vermont during the contentious re-licensing period for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Howard’s dedication to furthering public understanding and dispelling fear and uncertainty with facts, through a variety of forums, correctly focused the public debate about nuclear energy. He has inspired ANS members and other nuclear advocates across the country.

Angwin is founder of the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute. The Energy Education Project is a non-profit with the mission of helping people in Vermont understand their energy options in terms of cost, reliability, environmental impact and government support. She was a Project Manager at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) with a yearly budget of a million to a million and a half dollars to fund research in geothermal and nuclear power generation. Angwin holds a BS in chemistry, with special honors in chemistry, from University of Chicago and an MS in physical chemistry from University of Chicago. She founded Fourth Floor Databases in Palo Alto CA to continue making progress on issues in electricity generation, and she owns Carnot Communications, which specializes in effectively communicating technical issues. She blogs at Yes Vermont Yankee and is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Shaffer has been an ANS member for 35 years. He has contributed to the American Society for Mechanical Engineers and ANS Standards committees, ANS committees, national meeting staffs, and his local section and served as the 2001 ANS Congressional Fellow. He is a current member of the ANS Public Information Committee and consults in nuclear public outreach. He is coordinator for the ANS Vermont Public Information Pilot Project. Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

For more information about the conference, visit www.ans.org. For information about ANS Honors and Awards, visit http://www.new.ans.org/honors/.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Honors & Awards, Meetings, PI Spotlight, View from Vermont

Tagged American Nuclear Society, Angwin, Honors and Awards, Shaffer, Vermont

Facts and fears at NRC public review in Vermont

Posted on June 12, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

By Howard Shaffer

Vermont Yankee’s annual NRC performance review for the previous calendar year was held May 23, in Brattleboro Union High School, within 10 miles of the plant. In previous years, annual reports and state meetings have been held here, and in the Vernon Elementary School, across the road from the plant. The town of Vernon stopped hosting plant-related events due to behavior of some attendees.

This year’s meeting was in two parts. The first was set up like a science fair, with displays and the opportunity to move from one exhibit to another to talk individually with presenters. The second part of the meeting was held in the same room after the removal of displays, with a traditional setup of chairs for attendees, a table and chairs for NRC officials, and a moderator to manage a Q&A session. Events during this second part of the meeting were covered in “The Politics of Intimidation.”

An important display

BWR MK I Containment and Reactor Building, showing location of used fuel

One of the displays in the “science fair” part of the meeting was a cutaway model of Vermont Yankee’s reactor building. The model showed the fuel pool wall and liner depicted with clear plastic. In the pool were models of fuel assemblies, and the walls were blue to show the location of the water. This model clearly demonstrated that the fuel is several stories below the refueling floor, behind a thick outer wall, the thick pool wall, and pool liner. Obviously a great deal of work and expense had gone into this model. It seems to have been made to address one of the issues that “anti-nukes” continually raise against boiling water reactors with the MK I containment: an alleged vulnerability to aircraft attack by intentional collision.

An attempt to explain

As I approached the table with the model, a member of the public was examining it. Behind the table was the staff member assigned to explain it to the attendees. I joined the conversation. I mentioned my background as a startup engineer at the plant and pointed out that the fuel is behind very thick walls, as shown in the model. Also, the top of the pool is at the refueling floor level, and the water surface just below, as clearly shown in the model. It was pointed out an aircraft would not be a good “battering ram” against the reinforced concrete walls.

The reaction

Walking away with the member of the public toward the next display, I continued to explain that the industry had carefully studied the effects of intentional large plane crashes into plants. The study found that the only parts of a large commercial jet of concern are the engines. The turbine shaft acts like a spear. The rest of the plane is only a little more than heavy duty aluminum foil, when a plane is used as a battering ram. The tragic crash at the Pentagon on 9/11 proved that.

Stopping, turning, and looking at me, I could see the fear in this person’s eyes as she said “I don’t buy it.”

Enhancing fear

During the second part of the meeting, nearly all the speakers were opposed to Vermont Yankee and nuclear power. Many statements and questions raised or reinforced fears.

One speaker listed all the core damaging accidents in the history of nuclear power, then said that the frequency was much more than had been predicted and “promised.” As I recall from hearing Professor Rassmussen describe the results of his work [WASH-1400 "Reactor Safety Study" (1975)], the frequency he stressed was for core damaging accidents resulting in releases to the public. Core damaging accidents not resulting in releases to the public would be expected to be more frequent. After the Three Mile Island accident he reviewed his report, and found that an accident like TMI was predicted to have already happened before then!

A calm request

Former State Representative Sarah Edwards, from Brattleboro, complemented the opponents for being there, and for being persistent. She said that she had visited Waterford, Yucca Mountain, WIPP, and Oak Ridge, and was on the Vermont State nuclear advisory panel; all while a member of the legislature. She asked that used fuel in the pool be moved to dry casks as soon as possible. Edwards said that she understood that used fuel had to stay in the pool for five years after being discharged form the reactor. As I understand it, this request could be fulfilled, once the Vermont Public Service Board modifies the plant’s Certificate of Public Good. Currently, the plant is approved only for dry cask storage sufficient to reach the end of the original 40-year license—which was this past March.

The future

On June 4, the State of Vermont filed an appeals brief in the US Second Court of Appeals, as expected. The consensus is that this case, Entergy v. Vermont, will go to the Supreme Court.

The Vermont Public Service Board is conducting an examination for a new Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee. There will be a public hearing in November in Vernon, the plant’s location.

End note

David Ropeik, former Boston environmental journalist and expert in risk communication at the Harvard School of Public Health, is well known to the American Nuclear Society’s Northeastern section, having spoken at and attending our meetings over the years. His recent article on “what controls what we think” is highly worthwhile reading. The feelings and behavior at the NRC’s May 23 meeting confirm his conclusions.

____________________________

Shaffer

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project. Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, spent fuel, View from Vermont

Tagged Howard Shaffer, nuclear energy, nuclear opponents, public opinion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Vermont, Vermont Yankee

NRC Public Meeting in Brattleboro: The Politics of Intimidation

Posted on May 29, 2012 by pbowersox| 19 Comments

By Meredith Angwin

A recent public meeting held by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) turned out to be a horrific way for a nuclear supporter to spend an evening. The NRC held the meeting to report its annual review of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant’s performance. The plant received the highest safety ratings, but that was not the focus of the May 23 meeting in Brattleboro, Vt.—to put it mildly.

I hope I never get that close to a mob-rule situation again. I will be completely honest here. The politics of intimidation at this meeting definitely intimidated me. I have always urged people to “show up at the meeting and stand up for nuclear energy” in my discussions of nuclear activism. I will continue to say and do this, but perhaps more cautiously.

The meeting begins

The NRC meeting was divided into two parts. The first session in some ways resembled a “science fair.” Attendees could see NRC exhibits and ask questions one-on-one with NRC officials. Vermont Yankee also provided an exhibit, a cut-away model of the plant. This part of the meeting was completely civil. You can see people standing by an NRC table, and standing around and chatting, in this picture:

Near the end of this first session, however, a group of women in black, with white death masks, filed into the room and began walking a circuit around it.

As the NRC attempted to set up tables for the second session, intended to be a more formal meeting with a question-and-answer period, many of the black-dressed women went to the front of the room and stood behind the NRC tables. The NRC moderator asked them to sit down. He said that he wouldn’t start the meeting with them standing there, and that standing behind the tables was disrespectful. (You can see the interaction at WCAX “Vermont Yankee hearing turns heated.”)

The crowd shouted that those were merely the NRC rules, that this is a democracy, that the women don’t have to sit down. Then most of the crowd surged up from their seats to stand near the women.

At this point, at the front of the room, the NRC regulators were now surrounded by a hostile crowd. The police and the NRC decided that the NRC officials should leave the room for their own safety. This picture shows the NRC officials leaving (at right) while the front of the room is filled with protesters.

I hope to leave

With the NRC gone from the room, the opponent group had taken over the microphones and were saying anything they wanted and clapping for each other. This was an anti-nuclear rally, with a meeting room thoughtfully provided by the NRC.

I realized I had no earthly reason to be in that room. Maybe it was time for me to leave too. While the NRC was out in the hallway, I became hopeful that the meeting would be cancelled and I could leave.

Alas, the NRC came back in to the meeting. The NRC ceded the front of the room to the opponent crowd. Chris Miller, NRC Region 1 director of the Division of Reactor Safety, answered questions from the side of the room. Karl Farrar, NRC Region 1 regional counsel, called on people to ask questions from the aisle at the center of the room.

Same old, same old

The anti-nuclear crowd was noisy and intimidating. At random-seeming intervals, they started chants. One of the leaders would shout “Mike Check” and the group would echo it. Then the leader would shout a few more lines about the plant, or “This is what democracy looks like!” and the group would echo that. The audience also shouted, whistled, and rang bells to show approval for one of their speakers, or disapproval for an NRC official, or for the sole brave pro-nuclear speaker.

The questions and statements of the opponents were the usual. NRC is an industry lapdog, there is strontium in the fish, etc. The final query was what could the people at the meeting say that would get the NRC to shut down the plant. Karl Farrar answered, “That’s not the way the system works.” With that response, the anti-nuclear leaders declared that “the people” were leaving. There was a final burst of chanting, and most of the audience walked out.

Was it worth it to attend?

Yes and no. During the “science fair” session of the meeting, I had a friendly talk with Mike Mulligan, a Vermont Yankee opponent. Mulligan frequently comments on my blog Yes Vermont Yankee. Howard Shaffer also spoke with several plant opponents at that time. I saw several pro-nuclear people whom I like a lot (but they left early—and I do not blame them!). I was interviewed by a local TV station (it’s in the video clip above) and also a radio station. So for those reasons, it was worthwhile to attend.

I have been to many meetings dominated by nuclear energy opponents, but in general the meetings have been civil enough that I felt my presence counted for something. My feeling about this meeting is different. My presence at the formal meeting did not count, and I had no chance to stand up and speak during the entire meeting. A Keene Sentinel article said this about the one man who did speak up:

“One man spoke in favor of the plant, but was shouted down by other audience members.”

Go to meetings anyway

I still encourage people to go to public meetings and show support for nuclear energy. Most public meetings are not like this one, thankfully. On the other hand, after this meeting, I would also suggest that you keep your eyes open. “Bail out” if you think things might get ugly. Many of my friends left early. There’s no shame in deciding to get out.

I put a link to the WCAX video on the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook page. Here’s what one man wrote in response. I think I will end this post with his words:

“It’s strange I did not see anyone arrested in the video. It’s almost at the level of a lynch mob, which is where this type of activity appears to be escalating. You should be careful around mobs like this. They can be very dangerous and things could get ugly quickly.”

____________________

Angwin

→ 19 Comments

Posted in nuclear opponents, View from Vermont

Tagged Meredith Angwin, nuclear opponents, public hearing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Vermont, Vermont Yankee

The Vermont Yankee Follies Continue

Posted on May 15, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

By Howard Shaffer

Since March 22 of this year, the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has been operating via a 20-year license extension granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The State of Vermont has been barred from attempting to shut down the plant by federal court injunctions. Nonetheless, the follies surrounding the plant continue, with all stakeholders participating: the legal system, the legislature, plant supporters, and plant opponents.

The legal system

Entergy Vermont Yankee’s suit against the State of Vermont, which was found in Entergy’s favor, has been appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Briefs are due next month. This suit involves federal authority versus “States Rights.” It is generally expected that it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. That might mean a decision at the end of the court’s 2013–2014 term, in the spring of 2014.

The NRC has been sued for improperly issuing a license renewal to the Vermont Yankee plant, on the grounds that the NRC does not have a valid water quality permit from the state. Such permits are issued by states under federal law. The plant and the NRC maintain that they do have a valid permit: the one originally issued. The commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, a lawyer, argued the state’s case on May 9.

The Vermont Public Service Board (not to be confused with the Department of Public Service) that regulates state utilities has decided to start all over on Vermont Yankee’s application for a Certificate of Public Good. The board recently held a conference of the parties to get all the issues on the table. The conference also discussed the option of starting all over by opening a new docket, or scrubbing the existing docket of issues struck down by the court when it found in the plant’s favor. A new docket has been opened. A prehearing conference was held, and the board just issued the schedule for proceedings. There will be public hearings in November, followed by sessions with testimony, rebuttal etc. Final briefs will be due August 26, 2013. A decision would follow, and could take months.

Plant opponents held a rally at the plant offices, 10 miles from the plant, attended by more than 1000 people on the first day of the plant’s extended NRC license. Non-violence training had been held, and 130 protestors were arrested for trespassing. The state’s attorney for the county refused once again to take them to court, opting to not waste court time to provide the trespassers with a forum. The rally and arrests provided plenty of media coverage.

A small group of grandmothers was again in court for blocking the plant’s gate. They acted the day after hurricane Irene did major damage in the state, while first responders were busy. Their action on that day was not popular. Their case was scheduled for trial later. It will be interesting to see what happens. (The “Grannies” have claimed that radiation permanently damages the gene pool, a discredited and dangerous argument from the early Eugenics movement—see Yes Vermont Yankee articles here and here.)

Anti-nuke grannies

The legislature

Vermont’s citizen legislature recently adjourned after its annual four-month session. The legislature passed a new tax on Vermont Yankee to make up for revenue lost when agreements based on plant purchase and used fuel storage expired. The agreements ended when the state’s Certificate of Public Good (CPG) expired on the same day as the original NRC license. Under state law, an expired CPG remains in effect if renewal proceedings are in progress, which they are. Commentators were quick to point out that the legislature and governor may not like Vermont Yankee, but they don’t mind the revenue it provides them.

The governor has been lampooned for his comments on the legislature’s action on a proposed merger of two electric utilities in the state. One of the utilities was in financial difficulty some years ago, and it was allowed to raise rates to be bailed out. A provision of the agreement was that if the utility were ever sold, the ratepayers and stockholders would be refunded the bailout money.

Now it is proposed to sell the utility for the merger, and the ratepayers are expecting checks for their refunds. The utilities suggest “refunding” the money in the form of energy and money saving investments, claiming that the ratepayers will ultimately save much more than they would gain from direct cash. Many are angry, and the AARP organization has run ads blasting the “non-refund.”

The legislature proposed a bill to order the Public Service Board to require a direct cash refund as part of the merger agreement, which they are reviewing and must approve. The governor wrote to the legislature saying that they should not interfere with the board, because it is the legal body that oversees utilities. Many quickly pointed out that interfering with the board was precisely what the legislature did during Vermont Yankee’s CPG renewal, which led to the federal lawsuit. The governor never objected to that (Yes Vermont Yankee has the details.)

Vermont Yankee’s supporters

We continue our public outreach at every opportunity. Meredith Angwin’s “Yes Vermont Yankee” blog and our “Save Vermont Yankee” Facebook page keep on inspiring supporters.

On April 28, there was a book signing in Keene, N.H., with the author of “Public Meltdown,” Prof. Richard Watts from the University of Vermont. Cheryl Twaorg, whose husband is a senior reactor operator at the Vermont Yankee plant, and Richard Schmidt were there. No opponents showed up, which was surprising, since Antioch New England University, a hotbed of opposition, is in Keene.

Richard Schmidt was on a two-hour radio panel with Meredith Angwin in North Hampton, Mass. The topic was the Vermont Yankee power struggle.

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) David Lochbaum appeared at two Massachusetts events on successive nights. The first night was at Plymouth on a panel sponsored by the Freeze Pilgrim group (that is, Freeze relicensing until all Fukushima fixes are done). Russell Gocht, a graduate student at UMass Lowell, represented nuclear power and plant supporters (American Nuclear Society Northeastern Section member Chuck Adey had lined him up at a recent section meeting). The next night, UCS had a panel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nuclear supporters and students attended. Steve Stamm provided a report. We had encouraged attendance at these events by providing notification and details.

Our flow of letters to newspapers hasn’t stopped. There are continually issues on the whole spectrum of energy policy and technology that provide a springboard for comment.

Vermont Yankee’s opponents

Plant opponents have not “laid down their sword and shields” either. The Fukushima tragedy has provided grist for them to keep up the attack on the MK I containment design, and bring back an old German study on childhood leukemia around nuclear power plants. A letter promoting the study appeared in the Valley News, and another supporter and I had rebuttals published.

The Vermont Yankee opponents and anti-nuclear groups have allied with the Occupy movement. They held a rally where 130 people were arrested. A nuclear supporter took a picture of a sign showing the linkage. No picture of this sign appeared in the media.

____________________________________

: Shaffer

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project. Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, News, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Radiation, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), View from Vermont

Tape review of Vermont Yankee power struggle debate

Posted on May 2, 2012 by radams| 2 Comments

By Rod Adams

One of my college roommates served for a while as the manager of our football team; we would talk about the “tape review” sessions that were used by the team to evaluate past performance and to prepare for future opponents. Nuclear organizations, for their part, often have highly developed “lessons learned” programs and they practice the use of technical methods that have been successfully employed by other organizations.

In that spirit, I would like to offer a “tape review” of the recent radio debate “Vermont Yankee: Power Struggle” that Meredith Angwin wrote about so beautifully for ANS Nuclear Cafe under the title of Be Here Now and The Debate.

My intent is not criticism—Richard Schmidt and Meredith both did a great job and already scored a win for the pronuclear team. My goal is to contribute to continuous improvement, help our team get ready for the next time, and build confidence for anyone else who gets an opportunity to publicly engage on the topic of nuclear energy.

The “here and now” philosophy that Meredith wrote about is important. People need to recognize and deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. We should challenge our opponents to base their decisions on what IS, not what is dreamed about. Balance is also important, naturally, since if everyone always thinks of only here and now, the future for our children will be pretty grim.

The predictable

We can make reasonable attempts to predict and influence the future so that it is closer to what we want. We can, for example, predict exactly when the sun will set every day. We can also predict its elevation angle based on time of day, day of year, and elevation. With those predictable numbers, we can chart the maximum power available to collect at any given time—while factors like clouds, snow, and shade from neighboring trees reduce the amount available.

During a debate, a good prop for that statement is an old celestial navigation book with a sun table in it. You can pick one up on the web or at a used book store. A few ancient implements that were used to measure the sun’s travel—perhaps a sextant or a sundial—might also help to illustrate just how much understanding mankind has had about the sun’s behavior and how long we have collectively owned that understanding.

Predictable nuclear

Unlike the scheduled operation of a coal, oil, gas, or nuclear plant, we usually have no real way to predict when and where the wind will blow or for how long. While we know how much it costs to run power cables from one point to another, we do not know specifically whose backyard will host those cables, along with the necessary towers and clear cut corridors, if we want to use someone else’s wind to back up our own.

In contrast, we can predict, based on demonstrated history, that completed nuclear plants can run for at least 50 years (the USS Enterprise recently celebrated its 50th birthday), and probably for 60-80 years. We know how much nuclear fuel has cost in the past and can do a pretty fair job of predicting the cost in the future. We also know that used nuclear fuel still contains 95 percent of its initial energy, and we know how to capture at least some of that energy through recycling. We have no way of knowing what natural gas prices will be in two years.

Walden Pond

During the debate, Richard did a good job in declaring that coal is the alternative in the world in which he lives and works; and in his next opportunity in a public forum, he should use his own experience with a solar energy system to concisely explain why solar can NEVER replace either coal or nuclear NO MATTER WHAT engineering improvements are made. It is perhaps even better to stress that point about solar than the true statement concerning coal and the way things work now. Alternatively, another possible response would be to allow an opponent like Michael Daley to attempt to win supporters (for pronuclear!) by describing—in detail—exactly what it means to live in a “100 watt house”.

Aside: I have visited Michael’s 100 Watt home website. I wonder if Michael and his wife actually live in the 100 watt cabin, or if it is just a writing retreat. His website describes it thusly: “Michael writes his books in a five foot by five foot tower room on a solar-powered laptop computer. He lives in Westminster, Vermont with his wife, award-winning children’s author Jessie Haas.” However, the solar cabin is in Putney, about five miles away from Westminster. End aside.

The Walden Pond–style of simple living might appeal to some, but most Americans would immediately see that day-to-day living in a space that is 12 feet by 16 feet is not quite their idea of the American dream. That is especially true if living there means constantly monitoring the charge level on the battery system and the fuel state of a noisy generator. In a debate environment, there is nothing wrong with letting the opposition try to sell their vision—especially if it is one that is not all that attractive.

Economics

Another topic in the debate where Richard and Meredith could turn the opposition’s assumed strengths into a negative for the audience is in the economic area. Michael Daley stated on several occasions that his reason for opposing Vermont Yankee was that Entergy would not agree to give Vermont a discounted rate on electricity. The details there are important; Entergy had been selling power to Vermont for 4 cents per kilowatt hour and wanted to start selling at a market determined rate. It was willing to sign a long-term contract for 6 cents per kilowatt hour.

Compared to the 20 cents per kilowatt-hour that Vermont power companies pay for unreliable wind and solar electricity, 6 cents per kilowatt hour is a huge discount. Armed with numbers and hard copy charts (if prepared carefully in advance), nuclear power supporters should always be willing to talk about economic comparisons with renewable energy advocates.

I’ll now turn the microphone over to others who might have had a chance to listen to the debate. What else should we learn from this engagement? What other facts should we be ready to introduce, what appeals to emotion should we use in addition to appeals to reason, and how should we respond when challenged that “we do not know” what might happen in the future—if in reality the topic under discussion is rather predictable for those who have already done the study and calculation?

__________________________

: Adams

Rod Adams is a nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Entergy, nuclear opponents, View from Vermont, wind power

Be Here Now and The Debate

Posted on May 1, 2012 by pbowersox| 8 Comments

By Meredith Angwin

For many years, I practiced yoga and Aikido, both of which included considerations of full-attention and the ancient Buddhist practice of mindfulness. A spiritually enlightened person is mindful. She pays attention to what she is actually doing and to the reality of her life and actions. Such a person does not live in a world of daydreams or overly-complex thought processes. She does not live in the past or in the future. The enlightened person is “here now.”

I tried (and still try) to live up to this practice. In my opinion, “be here now” is good advice for anyone, of any philosophy or religion.

Now. On to my description of a recent debate.

The debate

On April 24, Richard Schmidt and I debated two anti-nuclear activists on radio station WHMP in Northampton, Mass. The subject was Vermont Yankee: Power Struggle. The activists were Michael Daley and Jeff Napolitano.

Daley is an anti-nuclear activist and author who lives in a 100-watt house, not connected to the electric grid. He also wrote a book about nuclear power.

Napolitano is a non-violence trainer with the American Friends Service Committee and Sage Alliance.

The debate was two hours long, and you can hear it on the web. Or you can download the mp 3. There’s also a photo album (photos on this post courtesy of WHMP).

WHMP news director Denise Vozella, WHMP host Bob Flaherty, Daley, Schmidt, Angwin, Napolitano

Being here now

This was a long debate, a bit of a marathon, so instead of recapping it, I will start by discussing how Richard Schmidt and I felt about it afterward. Schmidt said that he had been frustrated by the way the debate had gone. During the debate, he wanted to talk about the best ways to make electricity. However, the opponents managed to lead the conversation to fear, hypothetical situations, politics, lies, fear, testimony at hearings, more fear, more hypothetical situations. In other words, they preferred gossip about the past and endless ‘what-ifs’ about the future.

I agreed with him.

One exchange at the debate was particularly telling (I am paraphrasing here.) Schmidt had talked about his home solar installations, and how solar was fine but wouldn’t be enough for society’s needs. I had explained that we don’t have renewable capability to replace nuclear. Closing a nuclear plant would see it being replaced by fossil fuels, not renewables. Schmidt said that at the utility he formerly worked for, when the nuclear plant went off-line for refueling, a coal plant was started up.

At that point, we were almost shouted down by one of the opponents. He insisted that we have so many choices for electricity. He insisted it is not a choice between coal and nuclear. We don’t have to start up a coal plant when we shut down a nuke! Richard said quietly but effectively: “In the world I live in, we do.”

Schmidt, Angwin, Napolitano

The past and the future

The opponents also attacked dangerous uranium mining practices in the Southwest that have caused miners to get cancer. The opponents’ conclusion: We shouldn’t be using uranium because mining it is so dangerous. I said that ALL mining practices 50 years ago were ghastly, and we can’t say “we don’t use copper because they mined it terribly 50 years ago.” The mining practices of long ago are irrelevant to today’s decision-making on any subject.

Soon, the opponents switched the conversation from the past to the future. They described the cancers that will happen because of Fukushima, further collapses expected at Fukushima if there is another earthquake, strontium-90 as a cause of breast cancer, and so forth. We answered these allegations one at a time, but they always brought forth another one.

In other words, their words emphasized fear, fear, and more fear. Things that had been badly done in the past. Things that haven’t happened yet but “could” happen. Replacing nuclear with renewables. Stop talking about coal plants…we don’t want coal OR nuclear. Those aren’t the choices we have.

Be here now, for the opponents

Compared to many debates I have participated in, this one was friendly. The two opponents were nice people, and I think they were impressed with Schmidt’s conservation activities. Schmidt represents his town on the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, and he founded the Mattabessett River Watershed Association. Schmidt also has more solar panels on his house than Michael Daley has—Daley is the opponent with the 100-watt solar home.

Still, Schmidt’s after-debate assessment was completely correct. The opponents didn’t want to discuss today’s actual electricity choices. They seem to live in an alternate reality where shutting down a nuclear plant means starting up a wind turbine, not a fossil plant. They cannot accept the “be here now” real choices that Richard and I described.

They asserted that the world is NOT as we described it. They asserted that the world is the way they want it to be. I think that from their point of view, we were just saying annoying things that aren’t true.

Be here now, for me

What did I learn about reality, from this debate? Two things.

First, that nuclear has supporters. The debate took place in a restaurant, and fewer than a dozen people came to watch it. (It was also on the air, and is now on the web.) Three of the people who came to the restaurant were nuclear supporters! They had heard about the debate on the radio, and decided to attend. One man took his son out of school for the day to get “both sides of the picture.” His son is working on a school project about nuclear energy.

It made me realize, once again, how few forums there are for people to hear nuclear advocates. For me, that is an important part of reality, and something I am trying to change.

Second, I learned about nuclear opponents. As I said above, much of the debate was quite friendly. However, the opponents have dedicated their lives to shutting down nuclear plants. They refuse to acknowledge that shutting down nuclear plants means encouraging fossil plants. By over-emphasizing their personal friendliness, I may also be living in the world-as-I-want-it-to-be instead of the world as it is.

To be here now, I have to accept reality also about nuclear supporters and nuclear opponents. It’s hard.

_________________________

Angwin

→ 8 Comments

Posted in nuclear opponents, View from Vermont

The Nuclear Debate On the Road

Posted on April 10, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

By Howard Shaffer

Plymouth, Massachusetts, “America’s Home Town,” is the place where the pilgrims landed, and is also the home of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant. On March 29, a forum was held in Plymouth to discuss a non-binding ballot question for the town election in May. The question is whether or not to freeze the plant’s relicensing process until all the Fukushima fixes are completed.

The political setting

The town of Plymouth has a Nuclear Matters Committee (NMC), which keeps informed on plant issues and advises the town’s Selectboard. In New England, towns are governed by the town meeting, where all voters who wish can convene to become the town legislature. The executive is a group chosen by the voters, now called the Selectboard. Many towns now also have a town manager reporting to the Selectboard.

Massachusetts is known as a very liberal state, and proud of this tradition. In the 1988 election, a referendum required shutting down both nuclear power plants in the state—Pilgrim and the Yankee Rowe nuclear power station. This referendum was defeated, thanks to 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 voting margins in the towns along Massachusetts’ high tech beltway I-495 (how this was done is a story for another time).

There is a virulent anti-nuclear movement in the Plymouth area, spearheaded by an individual from the nearby town of Duxbury. This person is able to be an intervener, and has filed numerous motions in Pilgrim’s relicensing. She is expected to continue to file motions in hopes of delaying relicensing (the plant’s 40-year license expires in June). The law for all federal regulatory agencies, however, provides for continued operation of the plant if an agency has not completed action on an application for extension/renewal filed more than five years beforehand.

Arranging the forum

The Plymouth NMC arranged a forum to discuss the ballot question. It wanted to have both the “Vote Yes” and “Vote No” positions represented. The obvious underlying issues were nuclear power itself, and the Fukushima–Daiichi accident’s effect on the Pilgrim boiling water reactor with Mark I containment. To speak in favor of “Yes,” the committee obtained Arnie Gundersen, of Fairewinds Associates, Burlington, Vt. To speak in favor of “No” it first contacted Professor Gil Brown of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Gil is a long-time American Nuclear Society and ANS Northeastern Section member. However, he is on sabbatical and working at the State Department, and could not make their date. Gil called me and put me in touch with the panel organizer. When Arnie found out that I was to be on the panel, he said that he would withdraw! But eventually he changed his mind (this made an interesting lead-up story in the local paper).

Then the chair of the NMC took over organizing and moderating the forum. Entergy, the plant’s owner, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose Region I staff were in the same room up to a half hour before the forum for their annual plant review meeting, could not participate (this article covers both events).

Before the forum we had a briefing with Jack Alexander, who does the Pilgrim public outreach; Paul Smith, retired Pilgrim staff and now consulting; and Chuck Adey, now retired and living in Plymouth, who has worked at the plant, done public outreach, and is an ANS Northeastern Section member.

The forum

The forum was held in the Selectboard meeting room in the town hall. This was formerly the high school, so the meeting room was originally a large classroom or small assembly hall. The NRC’s public meeting to report to the public on the plant’s prior year performance was held in half the room. Its meeting was informal and reception style, with no formal presentation. There were tables with displays, and Region I staff circulating to talk with attendees.

After the NRC meeting, the accordion wall dividing the room was folded, and chairs set up. The Selectboard members table was at one end of the room, on the floor with the audience, with microphones. The room had built-in TV cameras. The local public access station (PAC-TV) recorded for rebroadcast and on-demand viewing. A local radio station broadcast the program live, which necessitated one commercial break. A local newspaper had on-line coverage with a twitter stream, including many comments from Japan. Documentarian Robbie Leppzer had his camera set up in front of the first row of chairs, which unfortunately blocked my view of some of the audience. Meredith Angwin provided next day coverage at Yes Vermont Yankee.

There was standing room only. The members of the NMC were in the first row. The first several rows were filled with plant opponents. The moderator announced the program, and we began by introducing ourselves for 45 seconds, followed by our 20-minute presentations (see my presentation and the ANS report on Fukushima). Questions and answers followed for the balance of the two hours. The moderator, Jeff Berger, maintained strict control, including telling a person who raised a sign saying, “No Dose is Safe” that it was not permitted. The NMC members, now with a majority of technically oriented citizens, including Paul Smith who was on the plant staff and is still consulting, were given preference in asking questions. (The committee had recommended that the Selectboard not put the question on the ballot.) Then citizens of Plymouth were called, and when there seemed to be no more questions from them, people from other towns were called.

The content

The two-hour recording of the forum from PAC-TV Plymouth can be seen on demand.

My presentation and answers put the question of nuclear power in the context of a national policy to replace coal and its adverse health effects. I discussed the Fukushima-Daiichi accident and history of the Mark I containment as part of the development and learning process common to all technologies.

For his part, Arnie Gundersen continued his relentless attack on the Mark I Containment, saying it is too small, can’t contain, and must be vented. He dragged out references to Stephen Hanauer’s 1972 memo and other staff statements referring to Mark I as having serious problems. Additional claims by Gundersen:

A reactor produces 5-percent decay heat, which doesn’t stop.
NRC commissioners are vetted by the Nuclear Energy Institute. The NRC is cozy with the industry.
NRC Chairman Jaczko has said that people will have to be restricted from evacuation zones forever.
Fukushima will result in a million cases of cancer over 30 years.
Service water systems are vulnerable to sabotage, so reactors could lose all cooling. Gundersen referred to an incident in the recent past where a foreign sailboat got inside the buoy line around the plant’s intake.
The Chernobyl accident resulted in the demise of the Soviet Union, per Mr. Gorbechev.
Moving as much used fuel as possible to dry casks is important for safety.
The NRC is now concerned with drone attacks on a plant.

Most questions from the audience were also along the lines of these statements.

Members of the NMC and a few others did raise cogent points and dispute some of the statements made by Gundersen and others.

Aftermath

The local newspapers reported the forum, but the Boston newspapers and TV did not. Jack Alexander took this as a good sign, observing that these media specialize in only negative stories about the plant.

Supporters were satisfied that their position had been defended.

_____________________

: Shaffer

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project. Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Entergy, licensing, nuclear opponents, View from Vermont

Celebrating at Vermont Yankee: A successful rally on St Patrick’s Day

Posted on March 27, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

By Meredith Angwin

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant’s original Nuclear Regulatory Commission license expired on March 21, 2012 . The NRC, however, has renewed the license for another 20 years, and a recent court ruling will almost certainly allow the plant to operate for many more years. The American Nuclear Society’s Vermont Pilot Project (headed by Howard Shaffer) and the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute (headed by me) thought it was time to celebrate! So, we held a rally on St. Patrick’s Day, Saturday, March 17, to celebrate the court ruling and 20 more years of Green Power.

Howard organized the rally to take place outside the plant gates at shift change. More than 80 people attended, including people of all ages and from all over the state. It was our largest rally so far! Howard bought some St. Patrick’s Day hats, and he encouraged people to make their own signs for the rally. Some examples: “Only 7300 more days” and “Green and Clean.” Two local papers covered the rally, a major TV station put it on the evening news, and two radio shows interviewed me and ran announcements. Rally attendees and plant staff were all very happy with the results. Look at the faces in the pictures (at bottom). We were getting “thank you” emails from people for days! You can see more pictures and a short video on my blog post at Yes Vermont Yankee. We are grateful that Entergy, Vermont Yankee’s operator, allowed us to assemble on plant property just outside the main gates, and also for providing refreshments.

Carla Heath, Vermont Yankee employee

Opponent rallies

Nuclear opponents considered March 21 to be a very significant day, and planned all sorts of activities around it. They held out hope that the state’s Public Service Board would come up with some reason to shut the plant down. Instead, another federal court injunction intervened.

One of the first of these events was the arrival on March 21 of a group of Buddhist monks at the power plant in Vernon. These monks started their anti-nuclear walk at Oyster Creek, and ended it at Vermont Yankee. (If you look at their itinerary, you can see that they did not actually walk the whole way.)

O'Donnell, Merkle, and monk from Grafton Peace Pagoda, NY

As the monks walked past Vernon, two plant supporters arranged to have their picture taken with one of the monks and a pro-Vermont Yankee sign. (Yes, the monk does look a little puzzled. Or perhaps he’s meditating.) The two women in the picture are Patty O’Donnell, former state representative from the town of Vernon and current Selectboard chair, and Ellen Merkle, married to a Vermont Yankee employee.

The big opponent rally

That picture set the stage for the next day. Plant supporters were not confrontational, but they were not hiding in the closet, either.

On March 22, 1300 people came to Brattleboro to protest the plant. They wore different hats indicating their “affinity groups,” and stilt-walkers and persons with megaphones accompanied them. Some demonstrators had taken the kind of training they needed in order to be arrested. (The protest organizers had said that only people who had taken non-violence training could volunteer to be arrested.) Over 100 protestors were arrested. Though the protest was peaceful, the town of Brattleboro was mostly shut down for several hours. This was much to the annoyance of many people who live and work in the town.

Once again, however, supporters were not intimidated by the numbers of opponents. Gwen Shaculmis, a lawyer, sat on the lawn of her building, surrounded by VY4VT signs, while the protestors began their rally across the street. She was interviewed several times in the local papers and on TV. As Alan Panebaker of Vermont Digger wrote:

While the protesters made noise and created a spectacle, subtle signs lined many lawns in Brattleboro supporting the plant, which provides 650 jobs directly and around 1,000 including contractors.

And a few groups held signs saying “VY 4 VT” as the parade marched by.

Gwen Shaclumis, an attorney from Brattleboro, stood across the street from
the common while the protest ramped up.

Shaclumis said opponents of the plant neglect the fact that it is a crucial part of the regional economy.

You can see a video of the protestors and Ms. Shaclumis here.

The meaning of it all

What did we hope to accomplish? What did they hope to accomplish?

We hoped to do two things in our rally. First, we wanted to give plant personnel a chance to celebrate and be glad about the court ruling, and to know they have supporters.

Second, we wanted to encourage other supporters, just by being there, by being on TV, by having press releases about the rally in local papers. The message here: If we can speak up in favor of nuclear energy, so can other supporters. Howard and I do not take credit for the actions of other supporters. EVERYONE’s actions were part of a tapestry of pro-nuclear people who decided to be visible.

Did our rally achieve these two goals? Yes.

Did the opponent rally work? It undoubtedly encouraged the people at the rally. But I personally think that the whole stilt-walker, masks, funny hats business doesn’t convince anyone who is not convinced already. I don’t think that undecided people, watching on TV, would want to join the opponents’ rally. Street Theater is a tired old concept. It’s so…so… ’60s, perhaps?

In my opinion, the last few days in Brattleboro were a major step away from the customary silence of pro-nuclear people. Many pro-nuclear people were there; many people chose to be visible. We all encouraged each other to make a difference.

Fran Gerard, local Vermont Yankee supporter

Thanks to Cam Twarog for wide-angle picture

Larry Cummings, VY engineer, Howard Shaffer, Kenyon Webber, VY engineer

____________________

: Angwin

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Entergy, View from Vermont

Back to the Vermont Public Service Board: Square One – or Before!

Posted on March 13, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

By Howard Shaffer

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant received a 20-year extension of its operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 21, 2011. Vermont Yankee also is required to be issued a renewed Certificate of Public Good (CPG) from Vermont’s Public Service Board to continue operating.

The Vermont legislature, however, has passed a law stating that the board could release its findings only if the Senate passed a resolution allowing release. In 2010, the Senate voted against the board releasing its findings. Soon after receiving the NRC license extension i9n March 2011, Entergy, the owner and operator of Vermont Yankee, sued the State of Vermont in federal court over the state legislature’s blocking of Vermont Yankee’s operation through refusing to allow the board to release its findings. In January 2012, the court ruled in Entergy’s favor, and issued three injunctions barring the shutdown of the plant. The court found that the state was attempting to regulate nuclear safety issues, which is reserved for the federal government by law. The decision also stated that the Public Service Board retains its authority to regulate the plant in non-safety areas.

The conference

Since the Public Service Board retains some authority, the docket for the Certificate of Public Good was resumed. On March 9, the Public Service Board held a prehearing conference. The board sent out a list of questions to the parties to the docket, and the parties were asked to file responses. The conference was to address all the legal and procedural issues, so that the board could proceed with the hearing on the docket.

The conference was moved from the board’s own hearing room to a larger hearing room across the street in the State House. The State House was practically empty because the legislators go home for the week when it is town meeting day. The hearing room was packed with the board, lawyers and representatives, and media and the public (anti- and pro-nukes). There was a long table in front of the board for the parties to the docket, but they spilled over into the audience. Meredith Angwin and I arrived 45 minutes early to be sure that we got seats!

The State House meeting on Vermont Yankee (AP / Toby Talbot)

In reviewing the media coverage and my notes of the meeting, the best description of what the meeting revealed is a “legal thicket” built by the legislature and the board over the years. One side is trying to find a way through; the other is looking for “chinks in the armor to run in a sword.” Isn’t this what lawyers do? The Public Service Board started by asking the questions that it sent out. As revealed in the discussion, there were two things in the “thicket” that had been overlooked.

The issues

The first and most immediate question was, “Can Vermont Yankee operate after March 21?” This is the date that the CPG expires (it is the same date that the original NRC license expired). Entergy said yes, because there is a provision in the law that if a CPG application for extension is in progress when the original CPG expires, operation may continue under the old certificate. The opposing parties in the proceedings said no, and pointed to other laws and board orders. Entergy asked for assurances from the board on continued operation, and the board asked, “Why haven’t you applied to us for what you want?” The reply was we’re doing that now, and the board said that it should be formalized. Entergy said that it would comply.

The second question was, “How do we proceed in regard to the federal court ruling?” Do we scrub the hearing record produced so far, to remove anything that has been struck down by the federal court? Or do we start over? One board member asked what would be the fastest overall option. It wasn’t clear, but it seemed that scrubbing the record might be better. Or it might be worse. As the board member said: Scrubbing would be less work for the board at first, but if it wasn’t done right, there would be the possibility of a lot of time in court. This could lead to a longer time to completion.

The third question concerned storage of spent (used) nuclear fuel. State laws and CPG provisions allow storage only of spent fuel generated up until the end of the original CPG on March 21, 2012. The board did recognize that there won’t be any more spent fuel to store until the next refueling outage. The plant has some used fuel in dry casks, on a pad built to hold all the fuel from 40 years of operation, so that decommissioning could remove the reactor building and the fuel pool. Nevertheless, the board asked several times in several ways, “By what authority would you store more spent fuel after March 21?” The board also asked what authority they have to approve the storage of additional fuel. State law addresses storage of spent fuel up to the end of the current CPG, and the board stated it has only the authority given to it by the legislature.

Overlooked issues

A board member asked, “What about the open docket on the tritium leak?” During the tritium leak that was discovered at Vermont Yankee in January 2010, the board opened a separate docket (which has not yet been closed) to investigate the leak. There was a question about “who has the ball” on this issue. The board thought that Entergy does, but an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union representative at the conference pointed out that the IBEW had asked the board for a schedule for the next hearing on the tritium leak docket and been turned down. There was no direct response from anyone at the conference, but Entergy said that it had been waiting for the NRC license to be resolved before acting to resolve the tritium leak docket schedule.

A second stumbling block is a reported provision in a board order that the plant may operate beyond March 21, 2012, only for decommissioning. This was gleefully brought up by an opposition lawyer.

Tone

Meredith Angwin’s article at the “Yes Vermont Yankee” blog, written after we returned from the meeting, gives a good idea of the “tone” of the prehearing conference. To put things into perspective, however, the Public Service Board has been dealing with Vermont Yankee issues almost continually for about 12 years. The issues include the sale of the facility in 2002, a power uprate, dry cask storage, the ill-fated ENEXUS spin-off proposal, the tritium leak, and license renewal. The board may possibly be tiring of having to settle an issue that is fallout from the political arena. The fallout is as follows: Congress decided that the United States should have nuclear power and have it safely. Congress appointed regulators to ensure this. Some citizens don’t want nuclear power and have been unable to change the policy of Congress. These citizens have been using all the rights and powers given them by law, to try to derail the regulatory process, on the national and state level.

Coming up

The parties must file responses with the board by March 15. The board will respond by March 20. On March 17, the American Nuclear Society’s Vermont Pilot Project and the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute are sponsoring another rally outside the Vermont Yankee plant gates, to show support for the plant and its people. Naturally, the opponents have also planned many events, including non-violent civil disobedience with likely arrests.

The next two weeks will be interesting.

Some recent news coverage of the Public Service Board prehearing conference and associated Vermont Yankee developments:

Brattleboro Reformer: “VY Future Could Be Determined by One Line in PSB Memo” March 10, 2012

Brattleboro Reformer: “State Responds to Entergy’s Appeal” March 10, 2012

Burlington Free Press: “Midlife Crisis: Approaching 40, Vermont Yankee’s Ability to Keep Operating Debated” March 9, 2012

Vermont Digger: “Entergy to PSB: Don’t Shut Us Down” March 9, 2012

____________________

Shaffer

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project. Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, News, spent fuel, View from Vermont

The Mountains of Vermont Yankee

Posted on February 28, 2012 by pbowersox| 3 Comments

by Meredith Angwin

When I am reading an article or a blog post, I always appreciate when the writer places the immediate events into a bigger context. I always try to do this myself. Putting Vermont Yankee issues in context, however, is like facing a huge mountain range. There is always another set of hills beyond this one. Which mountain? Which context? Where to start?

In this post, I’m going to try to look at the mountain range, instead of the individual peaks. That’s one way to put Vermont Yankee in context. I hope.

The first mountain: Vermont Yankee and the Constitution

When Entergy brought a lawsuit against the Vermont legislature’s attempts to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, it brought the suit on constitutional grounds. It won on constitutional grounds: The Supremacy Clause (federal law is supreme over state laws) and the Commerce Clause. Two good discussions:

District Court Upholds the Rule of Law by George Angwin

Entergy Vs. Vermont In Plain English by Tamar Cerafici

The mountain behind the mountain: Vermont politics and the Constitution

Entergy won on the basis of the Constitution, but apparently Vermont’s government doesn’t give that much respect to the Constitution. Attorney General Bill Sorrell has brought several other cases challenging the Constitution. He’s lost big-time, and cost the state a lot of money. Although he likes “state’s rights,” he doesn’t pay enough attention to citizen’s rights. He doesn’t adequately protect the rights of ordinary citizens in Vermont.

History of Vermont and the Supreme Court (Constitutional Cases) by Rep. Thomas Koch

Vermont and personal liberties: Citizen’s Rights, State’s Rights and Vermont by Meredith Angwin

Scaring businesses in Vermont: The third mountain behind the mountain

The Vermont legislature has been on a vendetta against Vermont Yankee, and it hasn’t been particularly nice to other businesses, either. Once you throw out constitutional limits on lawmaking, anything goes. The latest plans include taxing Vermont Yankee to death. Of course, other businesses wonder: What business will be next in line?

Collateral Damage by Jeffrey Lewis

The fourth mountain behind the mountain: Vermont Yankee as cash cow

Vermont Yankee has paid a special tax assessment of $10 million dollars, $8 million of which went to clean up Lake Champlain. Lake Champlain is on the other side of the state from the power plant. This tax was the trade-off the legislature made for allowing Vermont Yankee to have a power uprate. Vermont Yankee has paid $30 million dollars to a clean energy development fund. This tax was the trade-off the legislature made for allowing Vermont Yankee to use dry cask storage.

Vermont claims that the federal government has given them no power over a nuclear plant in their own state. True, the state doesn’t have the power to set safety standards for the plant, but it seems to have done very well at taxing it! All of these special assessments, however, end with the last day of the plant’s current state certificate of public good. That is, the money stream ends on March 21, 2012.

As Emerson Lynn writes: [The legislature] wants it [Vermont Yankee] to go away. But they don’t. It’s their cash cow.

The Campaign Against Yankee Goes On… by Emerson Lynn

Meanwhile, the legislature’s latest scheme for a new tax, a half-million-dollar per year water discharge tax, has caused even Vermont Yankee enemies to look askance. There is a lawsuit going on. Pat Parentau says: It was not a good idea to pass laws targeting Vermont Yankee in “bad faith” during the state’s legal battle with the company.

Casting a Shadow by Times Argus Online

The final (maybe) mountain way back there in the mountain range: The Vermont energy plan and how it is failing

Perhaps the final mountain in the background is the Shumlin energy plan. When he took office, Gov. Shumlin was shocked that Vermont’s energy plan included Vermont Yankee. In a huge rush, his Department of Public Service put a new plan together without Vermont Yankee. The new plan says that in 2050, 90 percent of the energy used in Vermont will be renewable. Yes, the plan specifies that Vermont will use renewables for 90 percent of pretty much all the energy: Electricity, transportation, and space-heating.

The plan has intermediate goals also, and (surprise) it is failing to meet the first one. The first goal was to have 20 percent of Vermont electricity by renewable power by 2017. It turns out Vermont is going to miss that goal, and the legislature is also backing away from the goal of 30 percent renewable by 2025. These goals just aren’t being met in Vermont. There’s also been a groundswell of people who are worried about escalating power costs.

Vermont is scaling back the drive for renewable power. As Dave Gram writes: Scaling back the drive for renewable power is a big change for a legislature and administration that have been pushing to close the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and had touted wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy sources as keys to fighting climate change tied to burning fossil fuels.

Perhaps that scale-back of Vermont’s renewable goals is the final mountain.

Vermont won’t make renewable energy goals by Dave Gram/Associated Press

Vermont needs energy innovation that is realistic, rate-friendly by Bruce Lisman

Or is THIS actually the ultimate mountain?

On a practical basis, the Shumlin energy plan is mostly about natural gas and mid-size natural gas plants. Perhaps the gas pipeline to Canada is the ultimate mountain, the one in the distance that overshadows all the rest.

VPR Shumlin Energy Plan Criticized for Natural Gas Component by John Dillon/Vermont Public Radio

_________________________

Angwin

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, nuclear opponents, View from Vermont

Category Archives: View from Vermont

Plant cooling a stumbling block?

The Search For Nuclear Happiness

Vermont Yankee supporters at anti-nuke book tour

Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel: Safety Again!

Some Big Changes in Vermont

Meredith Angwin and Howard Shaffer Receive American Nuclear Society Presidential Citations

Facts and fears at NRC public review in Vermont

NRC Public Meeting in Brattleboro: The Politics of Intimidation

The Vermont Yankee Follies Continue

Tape review of Vermont Yankee power struggle debate

Be Here Now and The Debate

The Nuclear Debate On the Road

Celebrating at Vermont Yankee: A successful rally on St Patrick’s Day

Back to the Vermont Public Service Board: Square One – or Before!

The Mountains of Vermont Yankee

Search

Blogs We Read

15 most recent blog posts

Blog Archives

Categories

Admin

Sign Up for Free Daily Email Summary

ANS Video News Clips

ANS Nuclear Headlines

Social Media

Recent Comments