Rally Retrospective: On the Sidewalks for Vermont Yankee

This is an edited version of an article I wrote for True North Reports. The picture in that article was correctly critiqued by Rod Adams, so this version has a better picture. Pro-Vermont Yankee people on the right side of the picture, opponents on the left side.

Rally for Nuclear Power and Vermont Yankee

On Monday, September 12, the lawsuit between Vermont Yankee and the State of Vermont began at the federal courthouse in Brattleboro, Vermont. The "Safe and Green Campaign", an opponent group, announced they were holding a "silent vigil" in front of the Courthouse from 7:30 to 9 a.m. that day, just before the hearing started. The group had held a similar vigil in June, when the preliminary injunction hearings took place.

Nuclear energy has supporters, but they are seldom visible. The opponents organize marches, vigils, skits, demonstrations, and puppet shows. Some of us decided to hold a rally to help correct the visibility balance. Rally participants came from the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute, the Vermont Pilot Project of the American Nuclear Society, and the Coalition for Energy Solutions.

Many people support nuclear, and by 7:30 a.m. there were about 25 of our group on the sidewalk in Brattleboro. We had decided to stand across the street from the Courthouse: we had several practical reasons. Where we stood, we weren't blocking the Courthouse steps. There was "no parking" on our side of the street, so our signs would be more visible.

Furthermore, when we arrived, a green pickup truck was already further down the block on our side of the street. It had several green VY4VT signs, and was driven by a representative of the Vermont Yankee union, the IBEW. The pick-up was not there by chance. We had asked if some people from IBEW might come, and they came to support us!

At first, there were more supporters than opponents. Most, but not all, of the opponents stood on the other side of the street, near the Courthouse. More and more opponents came as the morning wore on. By the time we left at 9 a.m., we were outnumbered, probably 60 to 25. However, we were still a big group and very visible. As we waved at the cars going by, we got many waves and "thumbs-up" from the drivers. One young woman who was walking by asked for a pro-Vermont Yankee sticker and she carefully attached it to her backpack. We had excellent signs, and white t-shirts saying "Nuclear Power Yes Please."

Our Policy: No Confrontation

I had briefed everyone before the rally about the opponent's love of "street theater." We had all agreed to walk away from any confrontation. We weren't there to argue. In general, things were calm, but not always. One of the opponents came to our side of the street, holding a large sign. He positioned himself on the street, standing in front of one of the women in our group, who was standing on the sidewalk. He held his sign up, and hid her from passing traffic. She objected, and told him he was being very rude. He said he was doing this because he loved democracy. Since she has served in the state house, this "love of democracy" business was not going over with her!

I dashed over and headed off the argument, allowing him the victory. However, a certain amount of escalation followed, with people from their side coming over and people from our side stepping into the street to remain visible. Eventually, the police told everybody to stay on the sidewalk! That was a good thing!

Interestingly, many of the opponents were carrying Vermont flags, "Supporting Vermont" in the lawsuit. One opponent had a sign, "State's Rights Trump Feds." (You can see the sign in the this video.) I was a young adult in the 1970s, and the sight of counter-culture demonstrators with state flags and "state's rights" signs made my head spin!

I also knew that some of the people waving Vermont flags lived in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I live in Vermont, and I should have had a flag! After all, by supporting Vermont Yankee, I support clean air and a good economy for Vermont. I support Vermont!

Afterwards, some of us had breakfast together. We were a jolly and enthusiastic group, who felt we had made a difference. We had made nuclear supporters visible. People had honked and waved at us. We were a presence.

At breakfast, several people asked: "When are we going to do this again?"

To learn about our next event, contact meredith@ethanallen.org

Did Vermont Yankee Bring the Suit at the Right Time? Some Thoughts on the Injunction Hearings

The current hearings about Vermont Yankee are not about the merits of the case, but about the injunction, that is:

Shall the court grant an injunction that allows Vermont Yankee to keep operating until the entire case is resolved? If the injunction is granted, the State could not close down Vermont Yankee while the lawsuit was in progress.

Injunctions are often granted when one side could take action that would be a de facto win for that side. For example, a tenant has a leaky roof and the landlord has refused to fix it. So the tenant has sued. If the landlord evicts the tenant while the court case is going on, the landlord has basically won the case, no matter what the merits of the situation might be. In this case, the court would almost certainly grant an injunction that prevents the tenant from being evicted during the court case.

Vermont Yankee is also asking to not-be-evicted during the court case.

The State Says Vermont Yankee Should Have Sued Sooner

As the Associated Press reports: Scot Kline, an assistant attorney general on the state's legal team, maintained the company was exaggerating those claimed harms. He also said the company has known for years that March 2012 loomed, could have filed its lawsuit much sooner and shouldn't be complaining of a time crunch now.

"To the extent they find themselves in a corner, they kind of walked into this corner," Kline said.

Entergy Took Action As Soon As It Could

Entergy took action as soon as it could.

• On March 10, 2011, the NRC announced it was going to grant a license extension to Vermont Yankee.
• On March 21, the license extension was granted.
• On April 18, less than a month later, Entergy filed suit against the state.

Why do I say this was "taking action as soon as it could?" A little personal history here--not about Entergy, but about my own legal education. I owned a business, and someone cheated me. It didn't cause immediate harm, but I was pretty sure it would impact my ability to get contracts in the future. (No, I am not going to go into the gory details.) At any rate, I went to a lawyer.

The lawyer told me not to sue--I couldn't win. He looked over the contracts and agreed that the other side had cheated me. However, he explained that there were two parts to a lawsuit: responsibility for the action, and harm from the action. I had one, but I didn't have the other. I had only potential harm, if other things happened in the future, if other clients did this or did that, and so forth.

In other words, any harm to me was future, nebulous, depended on other people's actions, unquantifiable. I had the cheaters on responsibility, but I could prove no real harm.

I didn't "have a case."

I was steamed, but I learned something about the law.

Earlier: Entergy Had No Case

In 2006, the legislature passed Act 160, giving themselves veto power over the Public Service Board (PSB) issuing a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) to Entergy. If Entergy had tried to bring a suit in 2006, right after Act 160 passed, I think they would have met this response from the court:

Look here, Entergy--you claim that, six years from now, IF the NRC grants you a renewal license, and IF you have that license but the legislature doesn't vote to allow the PSB to release its findings and IF the PSB finding would-have-been to grant you the Certificate of Public Good....if all this happens, then you will be harmed by this Act 160 law? Well, gimme a break. Don't clutter up the calendar with such far-fetched cases, where the harm depends on so many actions happening in your favor by so many third parties, with only the legislature causing the harm. And all this is going to happen six years from now, no less! You haven't got harm, you haven't got a case, please go away.

(Note: Entergy is currently taking the position that the PSB ruling has also been tainted by the legislature's actions. However, in the paragraph above, I am pretending it is six years ago, not today, and that Entergy attempted to sue at that time, which is what the state claims it should have done.)

The Right Steps at the Right Time

Entergy lobbied against Act 160, they fought it, they knew it was not a good thing. But they quite rightly did not sue about it until it was clearly a source of harm. In this, they acted very responsibly, in my opinion.

Of course, the State thinks Entergy should have sued immediately. After all that is what the state does! Just recently, the state lost a major suit about doctors and pharmaceutical companies, which our Attorney General argued right up to the Supreme Court. The State is johnny-on-the-spot to go to court with our tax money, but Entergy quite rightly waited till it "had a case."

Post Script: A few words about the pictures.

Howard Shaffer took these pictures outside the Brattleboro Federal Courthouse on Thursday morning, June 23. (Since Howard is behind the camera, I am in the pictures.) The Safe and Green Campaign was running a protest at that time.

In the top picture, you can see me at the far right.

In the next picture, I do not know the name of the man with the "Mafia" sign, but I have made the assumption that if you are standing on a sidewalk with a sign, you expect to get your picture taken.

The last picture shows me being interviewed by Robbie Leppzer, who is filming a documentary about Vermont Yankee. My hand-made sign says: Save the Children, Yes Vermont Yankee and shows a small child with an asthma treatment nebulizer. My point is that replacing VY with fossil would mean more childhood asthma. However, many of the anti-Vermont Yankee protesters told me, in no uncertain terms, that VY would be replaced with wind turbines and solar, not fossil.

Real Information at a Real Meeting

Vermont Yankee hosted an informational meeting for the public yesterday at the Ramada Inn in Brattleboro. The meeting room was set up for poster-type exhibits, like a science fair. Exhibits included:

• A big model of the plant
• An excellent diagram of the famous Advanced Off Gas System.
• A timeline on the tritium leak detection.
• On-going slide shows and videos.
• Several areas devoted to various aspects of tritium.

Entergy also had a great new fact sheet about tritium at Vermont Yankee.

The people there were plant people who knew about the plant systems, and contractors who knew about other systems (such as well drilling and hydrology). It wasn't a PR show; active professionals provided information.

The picture above shows part of the tritium area: the rules of a contest and a one-liter bottle. The tritium EXIT sign is not in the picture.

Another good thing about this science-fair arrangement was that anti-nukes couldn't disrupt the meeting. Part of this might have been the police presence: I counted three policemen in the room at one point. There have been shouting and manure-throwing at other meetings, and people were prepared for the worst at this meeting. Of course, in that case, the worst didn't happen.

I found the police presence reassuring. On the other hand, my friend Howard Shaffer takes the attitude that the anti-s don't actually hit you, so what's the big deal?

The "science fair" type set-up didn't lend itself to disruptions. There was no built-in audience as people moved from display to display. As one organizer said: "Someone shouting would just look silly. People would wonder 'why is that man shouting at the chemist?' " Many anti-nukes attended, but all they did was talk endlessly to various people at the exhibits, or grab press time.

The Meeting and the Media

In this news video, you can see Deb Katz grabbing half the air time, while identifying herself only as a Massachusetts resident, and not as the president of an active anti-nuke group that has hired their own lobbyist in Montpelier (through an affiliate group).

Aside: For those of you who follow this blog faithfully, yes, this is the same Deb Katz that debated the clown in Putney. End Aside.

Other anti-s also got significant play in the press, and some reports noted that not many people came to the event. But some people who came were quite happy to have the company reach out (as WPTZ reported).

"I really don't know much about tritium, so before I got all excited I thought I'd get the details," said Bill McGee, who lives four miles south of the plant in Massachusetts, and attended the forum.

Here's a note from Howard about the beginning of the meeting:

There were perhaps as many as 10 of the hard core antis there. I know most of them by sight and name. I was holding a sign outside, on the motel grounds as a guest of VY. The motel would not let the antis have signs on the grounds since they were not guests of VY. They could and did come into the meeting as you know. One of the TV reporters began to video my sign and Deb Katz stepped in front of the camera with her sign, and got an interview. One of her partners tried to engage me in conversation while this was going on..... The antis signs said, in black and yellow, like road signs "Caution Entergy LIES ahead."

The meeting was worthwhile. Good information was available, and it was presented very clearly. The plant people were patient and open to questions. The anti-s came, but they weren't surrounded by whipped-up crowds of followers. Plant personnel and plant managers attended, and all visitors were treated very respectfully (no matter how repetitive some of the questions were, from the hard-core antis). I was impressed. At this meeting, everything that could be done to encourage participation was done. Entergy should be proud of itself.

I wish there had been better media coverage. Some of the media noted the affiliations of the people they interviewed, which was good. Others didn't, allowing Ms. Katz to claim to be merely a citizen of Massachusetts, rather than a professional anti-nuclear activist. I hope this changes in the future as more meetings are held.

Pictures and people:

When Rod Adams blogs that he is awaiting my blog post on the meeting---that means I had better get busy and post! Hope you like it, Rod!

A few words about the pictures. The overview at the top shows Dr. William Irwin, (teal jacket) and some of the exhibits. Dr. Irwin is Radiological Health Chief for the Vermont Department of Health. He was the Department of Health man-on-the-scene at the tritium investigation.

The next picture is the guess-the-jelly-beans game for tritium. I saw several people enter a calculation.

The next picture is Clay Turnbull of the New England Coalition (an anti-nuke group) taking a picture of the reactor model, while a security guard keeps watch in the background. (By the way, there's an interesting quote from Arnie Gundersen on the New England Coalition website.)

Clay Turnbull of the New England Coalition just emailed me that the quote from Arnie Gundersen was incorrect and has been eliminated from the New England Coalition website. In case people have already visited their website, I decided to leave my original statement in this post, and add the new correction. I thank Mr. Turnbull for the update.

Near the bottom, Senator Mark MacDonald (gray sweater), a long-time foe of the plant, confers with his supporters. They have managed to position themselves with all of their backs facing the information and displays.

Actually, that last sentence was catty and unfair. Senator MacDonald was clearly un-interested in the exhibits, and made an extremely perfunctory tour of the room. On the other hand, Gary Sachs (the tall man in the pony tail) spent hours talking to various people from the plant. I don't know the third man in the picture.

Also, I was happy to meet people who read my blog, people who don't read my blog, and especially Representative Patty O'Donnell from Vernon. (She reads my blog sometimes.)

Prologue to a Fake Debate

When discussing Vermont Yankee, it is always hard to know where to start, and how much to assume that people know. I will begin with some basics. The Vermont Yankee plant was owned by a consortium of utilities, and in 2002 it was sold to Entergy. At that point, various agreements were set up in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which is worth a couple of blog posts on its own.

When Vermont Yankee's original license runs out in 2012, it requires the approval of the Vermont Legislature before the Public Service Board can issue a Certificate of Public Good for a renewed operating permit. This legislative involvement is highly unusual. License extension usually requires an NRC ruling and approval by the state PUC or Public Service Board, but legislatures don't get involved. To meet the 2012 license expiration date, the legislature must vote this year or next to approve or not approve the license extension.

The fact that the legislature has to approve a license extension is seen by many as a referendum on nuclear. Anti-s from all over the country have flooded into Vermont. I met a man from the Citizen's Awareness Network who had been dispatched here from the Great Plains. He was fighting a coal plant for them. Greenpeace has opened an office in Vermont, specifically targeting Vermont Yankee. And don't get me wrong, these people are well-funded. I don't know where they get their funding, but their funding sources are clearly national, and right now, they have focused their attention on Vermont.

And now, on with our story.

Currently there is a walk from Brattleboro to Montpelier to shut down Vermont Yankee. The protesters plan to arrive in Montpelier with a petition to the legislature, etc. As part of the walk, there was supposed to be a potluck and debate about the plant in Putney on Saturday night. A "debate" means that someone was defending Yankee, so I was very interested in attending and supporting that person. According to the web announcement at the time, a man named William Newcomb, of NUCORPAC (Nuclear Corporation PAC) was supposed to be the pro-nuclear debater. He was to debate Deb Katz, of Citizens Awareness Network. When I looked at the anti-VY walk site, however, it claimed that Ms. Katz was debating "Will Nukem".

I couldn't figure this out. Who was William Newcomb? Nobody I knew had ever heard of him. And were the organizers making fun of the poor man's name by calling him "Will Nukem"? Also, Nucor is a steel company: there is no nuclear NUCORPAC.

I emailed the organizers, and they emailed back quickly and politely. They explained that "Will Nukem," is a comic role played by our actor friend Court Dorsey. (taken from one of the emails I received.) They assured me that it would still be an interesting and informative debate. I suggested that announcing it as a debate was misleading, since the pro-nuclear debater was a comic actor, but nothing was changed. The "debate" was widely announced and open to the public.

I resolved to go and hear this. Howard Shaffer and I decided to drive down to Putney together.

A word about Howard Shaffer III. He was a Submarine Engineer Officer, is a P.E. in Vermont and New Hampshire, was Startup Engineer at Vermont Yankee, and was a Congressional Fellow in 2001. He is in NEI's third party expert program and is a nuclear power advocate. Howard wrote an excellent commentary on nuclear energy for the Vermont Law School Journal. Howard and I often go to hearings and other VY-related events together.

It was a dark and stormy night (well, snow was threatening) when Howard and I got into the car to drive to Putney and hear the debate with Will Nukem. Tune into the next post to read about the debate.