Vermont Yankee Sale: Local groups happy, CLF objects again

Almost Everyone Agrees

Entergy plans to sell Vermont Yankee to NorthStar for decommissioning.  As you can imagine, this plan has led to lots of discussions and hearings, and I have even written a few blog posts about it.

The last time I wrote about this proposed sale was right before the April 12 hearing before the Vermont PUC. (Thursday Meeting on Sale of Vermont Yankee)  In March, all parties (state agencies, Native American tribes, intervenors) signed off on the agreement between Entergy and NorthStar, as detailed by Mike Faher at Vermont Digger. (State, NorthStar strike deal for sale of Vermont Yankee).  At the April 12 hearing, supporters of the sale were clearly in the majority.  Supporters dominate meeting on sale of Vermont Yankee. (Article by Faher)

Oh, did I say "all parties" had signed off on the agreement?  Wrong. My bad. The Conservation Law Foundation refused to sign the agreement. In March, I predicted that CLF would do everything in their power to make the sale fall through.  I was right.

Sleeping Beauty

This reminds me of the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, where fairies are giving their gifts to a newborn princess, but one fairy feels slighted.  That fairy's gift is a curse: the young princess will prick her finger on a spinning wheel and die. Another fairy partially reverses the curse. The girl will fall asleep for 100 years instead of dying.  Thus begins the story of Sleeping Beauty.

CLF is planning something similar. I don't know if they actually feel slighted, but I think they sure plan to kill the deal. If they succeed, like the girl in Sleeping Beauty, the VY power plant will be in SafStor for many many years. Sixty years. The economic development of the town will sleep for more than a generation.

The people of southern Vermont and the people of Vernon want a clean site and a new employer in Vermont. They are hoping this change will happen soon, not sixty years from now.  But when a powerful creature like CLF feels slighted, what are you going to do? A creature like that can stop time.

She pricked her finger on the spindle
Art by Anne Anderson

Lawyers and Ventures

Okay, all that was just a metaphor.  CLF is not a magical evil creature.  And it is not unstoppable.  Basically, CLF is a not-for-profit law firm (Conservation Law Foundation) and an associated "Ventures" group.

 CLF claims that the companies involved in the VY sale have not released "even a page of their contract to the public."  CLF also admits that they could have read the contract by signing a non-disclosure form, but they claim that such an agreement would be onerous and unnecessary. ( Mike Faher article in Vermont Digger Conservation Law Foundation details Vermont Yankee concerns.)

Transparency and soap

Guy Page, a frequent guest blogger at this blog, has been following the sale closely. Like me, Page cannot understand why CLF (a bunch of lawyers, after all) won't sign a non-disclosure in order to obtain more information about the sale. I will not attempt to equal Page's excellent commentary in Vermont Digger: Where most see opportunity, CLF sees only problems with VY sale.   However, I will quote him.

CLF’s knowledge of NorthStar’s plan is limited, due to its choice not to sign a non-disclosure statement protecting certain contract information. If CLF was truly concerned about transparency, it shouldn’t have soaped its side of the window.

-----
A side note about CLF Ventures

 Aside: I have never understood the relationship between the main CLF and their Ventures.  CLF is a not-for-profit 501c3, and they make their form 990 readily available. 501c3 organizations generally have educational or charitable purposes, which can include advocacy under the "educational" purpose.  

CLF Ventures seems to be a part of the main CLF, and it is described under the Our Focus section of the CLF website. Still, the work CLF does as "Ventures" seems pretty much like the work other law firms do for for-profit companies. For example, here is a quote from the CLF website: "CLF Ventures helps early stage companies gain access to the market through our unique blend of experience. We use private and public networks, our knowledge of the business, market, and regulatory arenas, and our understanding of key gatekeepers to help early stage companies access markets and generate revenues."

Helping companies "generate revenues"? Is this service also a part of the not-for-profit CLF 501c3?  I can't tell from their website: such services may be part of the main CLF, or not. The website doesn't make it easy to understand the relationship between the two (or maybe just one) entities, CLF and CLF Ventures. It is not transparent. End Aside. 

Thoughts on Money: Revenue Sharing and Decommissioning Costs

My op-ed about Vermont Yankee economics appeared in the Valley News this Sunday.  In that article, I discussed the state position in the appeals court hearing in New York last month. The state tried to make the case that Vermont Yankee had a negative economic effect on Vermont and its utilities.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Vermont Yankee is an economic asset to the state.  Also, if grid prices rise, the revenue-sharing part of the Memorandum of Understanding could send more than half a billion dollars from Vermont Yankee to state utilities.   

My "half a billion dollars" number comes from a quote from the attorney for the state, who apparently thinks  that if Vermont Yankee shared money with Vermont utilities, that would be a Bad Thing.

In the past few days, several local people told me that they had never heard of the revenue share arrangement before I wrote about it in the op-ed. They had no idea that Vermont Yankee might be paying a $500 million dollar bonus to local utilities. 

Yesterday, I received an email from a local man who is basically in favor of Vermont Yankee. He asked if perhaps the revenue share money could be added to the decommissioning fund?  I wrote him a long response answering his question.   I decided to share my email here, with a few changes.


--------
Hi and thanks for the email!  Actually, revenue sharing is one issue, and decommissioning is a separate issue.

Revenue Share: 

The purchase agreement for the plant (Memorandum of Understanding between Entergy, former owners, and the State Department of Public Service)  requires ten years of revenue sharing. This contractual obligation kicks in after 2012 and when the grid price is above 6.1 cents.  This revenue share money goes to the utilities.Vermont Yankee gives this money to the utilities, and the plant cannot use it for anything at the plant, including decommissioning.

Decommissioning:

Decommissioning is a separate issue and a somewhat complicated one.  Three interlocking points.

1) The NRC supervises decommissioning funds and makes sure they are adequate. 

When the stock market dropped around 2010, NRC required many plants (including VY) to add tens of millions of dollars to their decommissioning funds, because NRC judged that the funds had fallen below the required level.  NRC does, indeed, watch these things.

2) What is "adequate"?  Greenfields?

NRC requires that the decommissioned site be radiologically safe and ready for another industrial facility.  Many opponents want to raise the cost of decommissioning (Conservation Law Foundation has a branch, Conservation Law Foundation Ventures, that actually does decommissioning legal work, for money.) Opponents want to raise the costs, both for their own gain and to harass nuclear plants.  

For example, for Vermont Yankee, opponents are pressing the idea that the site should be "greenfield" with ALL underground concrete structures removed, switchyards removed...basically, a cow pasture.  This would cost Yankee tons of money, estimated at more than $40 million dollars. "Greenfield" or "not-greenfield" is not something the NRC cares about, one way or the other.  The NRC criteria require that a dismantled industrial site should be safe, and it should be ready for another industrial facility, not a cow pasture.  If a state wants a cow pasture, that is between the state and the power plant.  

In the Vermont legislature, nuclear opponents are trying to pass a bill to require Vermont Yankee to instantly add  "greenfield" money to a  decommissioning fund. 

Conservation Law Foundation Ventures...gaining money from legal work about decommissioning for a nuclear plant and helping with site planning and popular acceptance for a gas-fired plant. They definitely stand to gain, monetarily, if Vermont Yankee is closed.  My words in italics are not precisely their words.  I suggest your read their boasts for yourself.

http://www.clfventures.org/our-results/facility-owners/

Indian Point, from Wikipedia

3) What is "adequate"? SafStor?

 Both the Vermont Yankee Memorandum of Understanding and the general  NRC rules allow the plant to be mothballed (SafStor) for up to 60 years before full decommissioning is complete.  This allows the plant to be less radiologically hot when decommissioned. It also allows the decommissioning fund to grow through accumulated interest while the costs of decommissioning (in constant dollars at least) actually sink, because the plant is less hot.  

The opponents constantly say they "won't allow SafStor" but actually, they can't stop it.  If Vermont Yankee chooses to decommission using SafStor, they have both federal and state permission.  At the federal level, SafStor is in their license and part of NRC policy.  At the state level, it's in the Memorandum of Understanding.

Many plants have used SafStor, but usually only for a few years.  However, sometimes (for example Indian Point) a small plant was built, retired, and two bigger plants were built next to it.  In that case, the small plant (Indian Point 1) may well be in SafeStor for more than 40 years, because decommissioning the small one might interfere with the other plants' operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center

------
Ah, Valentines Day!

My husband is off singing love songs to other women.  Yes, it's the annual Barbershop Singing Valentines Fundraiser! So I am sitting around writing overly-long emails.

Here's an example...not his group.

Have a lovely day my friend!

Best,
Meredith

Public Service Board Gives Entergy Time to Make Its Case

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
Schematic from InfoPix

In early May, the Public Service Board held a preliminary hearing on the new docket for a Vermont Yankee Certificate of Public Good (CPG). The Public Service Board decided to open a new docket for the CPG, instead of re-opening the old docket. The older docket  undoubtedly included discussions of radiological issues: a recent federal court ruling showed that such issues are federal, not state purview.  Scrubbing the old docket of this material was considered to be too difficult.  For further background, you can see my earlier post: Hearing Tomorrow at PSB.


Timing
Since this was a preliminary hearing, there wasn't much they could argue about except setting the calendar and the dates for further hearings.  So they argued about that.

Actually, there wasn't much of an argument. Entergy asked for 18 months for the case and the Department of Public Service agreed. Even most of the intervenors agreed (or were over-ruled).  According to the Brattleboro Reformer, Jared Margolis, lawyer for New England Coalition said that New England Coalition (NEC) will also need time to review the voluminous amount of information Entergy will soon present to the board, said Margolis.
"Discovery is going to be intense. They're going to dump a lot of stuff on us."

Note: Amazing how often the nuclear opponents use the word "dump."

Table-Pounding
I suspect that most of the fireworks in this case will be provided by Sandra Levine, senior lawyer for the Conservation Law Foundation.  In my opinion, she is an expert at table-pounding.  The old lawyer saying: If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.  If the law is on your side, pound on the law.  If nothing is on your side, pound on the table.

She is quoted in two table-pounds in the Reformer article, one of which is merely her opinion, and one of which is a false statement on her part.

The opinion: "One would expect an owner that can operate a nuclear power plant should be able to manage preparing a legal case in less than 18 months," said Sandy Levine, CLF's senior legal counsel.
Sure. That makes perfect sense.  If you can operate a power plant, you can prepare legal briefs very quickly. Everyone knows that (sarcasm alert).

The false statement.  Well, explaining this takes a little background.

Every year, Vermont Yankee has attempted to de-list from the grid-operators forward capacity auction, concerned that the plant may be shut down by the state.  Every year until this year, the operator refused to let them de-list, saying that Vermont Yankee was needed for grid stability.  This year, at the end of April, the grid operator allowed Vermont Yankee to de-list, saying that transmission project upgrades had increased grid stability and VY could withdraw from the auction. (Read about the auction at MarketWatch)  Ms. Levine took note of this and said: "ISO determined Yankee's power is not needed for reliability in the New England grid," said Levine, adding Entergy's claims to the contrary that were made to the PSB in previous hearings "are false."


No, actually, these statements were true.  Until late April of this year, VY had never been allowed to drop out of the auction, due to grid reliability concerns.  The false statement here was made by...well, you see it.

Amusement
Why do I have a picture of a combined cycle gas plant at the head of this post?  Read the comment stream on this post at Vermont Tiger, if you really want to know.  The post is about a Conservation Law Foundation subsidiary working hard to set up a natural gas-fired plant in New Hampshire. Ms. Levine's comments on that post are more table-pounding, but they are amusing.

Old Tritium, New Problems

Good news. Closing in on the leak!

The good news is they are very close to finding the tritium leak. They think they have it, and they are testing their hypothesis this weekend. VPR has the news, the New York Times has a detailed description of the excavation, and the Vermont Department of Health, doing daily updates, feels they are close to the leak. Some quotes from Health Department updates:

At about 5:00 a.m. on Feb. 26, Vermont Yankee unearthed the concrete AOG pipe tunnel that carries the 2-inch drain line (labeled OGE-100-G1 Drain Line on the AOG Building schematic) at the point where the drain line connects to the AOG pipe tunnel. This revealed a substantial crack in the concrete and the PVC pipe that surrounds and carries the drain line into the tunnel...... "Leak testing" with pure demineralized water is scheduled for this weekend, Feb. 27 and Feb. 28, to help identify the actual mechanism and pathway more definitively.

This is very good news. VY is very close to finding the leak.

Bad News: Closing in on VY

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has been against Vermont Yankee for quite a while, and has pressured the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) to take action to shut it down. As recently as the end of January, the PSB turned them down flat. In a Public Service Board Order dated January 29, the Public Service Board, the Board
- expressed concern with inaccurate information received from Vermont Yankee,
- but said it would wait for a Vermont-Yankee sponsored Root Cause Analysis to be completed before taking any action.
In that order, it stated that it would not treat the entire docket (about renewing the license) as tainted due to the inaccurate statements.

CLF asked that the Board require ENVY to show cause why all evidence and argument in this docket that is "affected by the false information" should not be stricken from the record. ENVY committed to evaluate and correct any information in the record related to the recent disclosure of the underground piping systems.
We decline, without prejudice, to issue the show-cause order requested by CLF at this time... given that ENVY will be reviewing the record to determine what, in its view, needs correction, it appears premature to issue at this time the show-cause order that CLF requests.

Okay, that seems clear enough considering that we are talking about the law here and only lawyers can really understand this stuff. The PSB will await the results of the ENVY (Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee) review before taking action.

On Thursday, the day after the vote, the PSB reversed itself. The PSB issued a new Order, beginning an investigation into whether or not Vermont Yankee should be shut down earlier than 2012. This one is harder for me to figure out, and I don't just mean the PSB's reasoning. I was not able to find the Order on the PSB website (apparently it hasn't been posted yet) but I found it on the CLF website. The PSB apparently started a new docket to do this, docket 7600 instead of 7440. I had to hunt around to find this stuff.

At any rate, the PSB is now looking into shutting the plant down early. Quoting from the new Order, the PSB states that:

With respect to federal preemption, it is clearly established that the Board would be preempted from attempting to regulate Vermont Yankee based on radiological safety. However, it is also well established that the Board retains significant authority in other areas of traditional state regulation. ...Accordingly, we conclude that we are not preempted from taking action in response to the leaks at Vermont Yankee, to the extent that the leaks may have economic and other non-radiological-health-and-safety consequences....

Dave Gram of the Associated Press covered this story, and my local paper headlined his article "Vt. Yankee's License Could Be In Jeopardy Sooner Than 2012." If you read to the end of this Order, you will see that the PSB plans to hold the first hearing on this docket on March 10. By that time, the leak will be history.

The Opinion

My opinion, that is. I believe the Public Service Board is jumping on the bash-Yankee bandwagon, and despite their use of the words colorable claim , they don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Tritium has few radiological health effects, a fact which I certainly have beaten to death in earlier posts. And if the PSB can't regulate based on radiological effects, what on earth CAN they regulate about tritium? I mean, tritiated water is slightly radioactive, but otherwise...it's just water.

The PSB Order mention of extra costs for decommissioning, but I doubt the NRC would let them shut down a power plant because of their perceptions of decommissioning costs. I actually don't understand why the PSB has done this, except to waste my tax money with hearings that will be quickly overthrown.

More about tritium.

Okay. Instead of personally explaining, once again, why tritium isn't much of a hazard, I am going to just put in some links.

John Wheeler, on putting Picos in Perspective.

Fox News points out that all those picocuries add up to a trillionth of a curie, while exit signs routinely contain thirty curies worth of tritium.