Advocates, NEI and Unions. Advocates are essential.

Vermont Yankee when it was operating

Entergy withdraws from NEI

Entergy and NextEra have announced their withdrawals from the Nuclear Energy Institute.  http://southeastenergynews.com/2018/01/18/two-utilities-withdraw-from-leading-nuclear-energy-trade-group/

This could simply mean that these companies prefer to hire their own public relations firms and lobbyists.  Eliminate the middle man, etc. Another possibility is that nuclear energy issues are so state-specific that an institute focused on Washington has become less relevant.  I can think of  all sorts of reasons why this "may not be so bad, really."

But I think it is bad, really.   I consider these major withdrawals from NEI to be very bad news for the nuclear industry.

To me, this also means that ordinary people who support nuclear energy have to be out there, supporting it. The big institutions may not be doing their part in the future.

Update: In a post today, US Industry Faces Watershed Year, Dan Yurman has further background on events at NEI, plus links to this post and other posts on the need for advocacy.

Entergy faces union issues about decomm

Usually, I don't write about "labor negotiations are ongoing..." etc.  However, according to this LOHUD article, Indian Point Strike Deadline, one of the big issues in the on-going contract negotiation is whether current plant workers will stay on to do the decomm, or whether Entergy will turn over the decomm to a separate company: "Topping the list of worker concerns is whether they will have a role in the years-long dismantling process that will follow Indian Point's shut down. "

This just in: Talks have broken down over the weekend. Whether the union workers will be doing the decomm continues to be a major contention. https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/indian-point/2018/01/20/indian-point-talks-halt-weekend/1051511001/

Keeping the current workers on-site will be difficult, because the people who operate a plant have different skill sets (and usually higher pay) than the people who decommision a plant.

If Indian Point was going to operate for another twenty years, this entire issue would be irrelevant.  Plus, New York would continue to have clean power.

To me, the union request means that ordinary people who support nuclear energy and plant operation have to be out there, supporting it.  

Two News Items, One Conclusion

The big institutions (NEI, unions) are changing their roles. The nuclear industry needs its supporters, now more than ever.  It needs all the people who are willing to write letters, talk to their representatives, speak to a high school group or a Rotary, hold a rally, teach a class at the local community college, everything.

Nuclear advocates: the people of the world need you more than ever!

I am somewhat cheered by the number of pro-nuclear groups that are active now, and the number of pro-nuclear books that are currently being published.  And the videos, blogs, white papers, etc. Still, we pro-nuclear advocates are need to up our game, be out there, be effective.

It's up to us, now.

Much about politics, but little about fish.

Herring larva in drop of water
Matchstick for comparison

River Water, Sea Water and Nuclear Plants

My article Keeping cool under pressure describes the many ways that "water quality issues" are used by states to attack the continued operation of nuclear power plants.

 Vermont Yankee, Oyster Creek, Indian Point, Turkey Point, Diablo Canyon, and Columbia Generating Station have been accused of overheating rivers and/or causing the death of billions of fish.  Well, the death of billions of fish eggs or larva (larva are newly-hatched fish).  These accusations have closed down plants or made them far more expensive to operate.

My article appears in the May 10 edition of Nuclear Engineering International Magazine. The section about  Turkey Point is a separate call-out in that article, due to the unusual canal-based  cooling at Turkey Point. 

In reality, the reason most fish eggs don't grow up to be adult fish is--other fish.  Fish eggs are an important food source for fish, so fish lay thousands of eggs. An American Shad lays about 30,000 eggs per year.  A salmon lays a more modest number, around 3,000.  A fish egg usually does not become an adult fish, and this has nothing to do with power plants.  It's about other fish: the fish that like to eat fish eggs.   

Some links

I am always very pleased to write an article for an important magazine such as Nuclear Engineering International.  However, "read my article" seems a rather thin blog post.  So I finish this post with a couple of links that can supplement my magazine article.

Diablo Canyon: The owners of this power plant recently announced that the plant would close by 2025. This article describes the upgrade-your-cooling-system issues the owners would have faced if they had chosen to stay open.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/environment/article39459930.html

Indian Point: The plant has ristorph screens and proposes adding wedgewire screens.  Opponents continue to push for expensive cooling towers, but offer no reason to believe that cooling towers will be better for the fish. http://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/04/26/indian-point-entergy-wedgewire-screens-cooling-towers/8238627/

Vermont Yankee: Vermont lost a lawsuit that asked the NRC to deny Vermont Yankee's license extension because Vermont Yankee didn't have the proper state-level water permit.  Even some of the plant opponents said that such concerns have to be raised before appropriate commissions, rather than in lawsuits. http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2012/07/vermont-loses-lawsuit-against-nrc-about.html#.V37lAjYXH3F

Oyster Creek: State of New Jersey closes plant, ostensibly to protect Barnegat Bay.
http://www.nj.gov/dep/barnegatbay/plan-oystercreek.htm

Columbia Generating Station: This blog post has an excellent graphic that compares the water use of the power plant with the volume of water flowing through its water source, the Columbia River, near the plant. https://northwestcleanenergy.com/2014/11/01/environmentalists-need-to-decide-if-science-matters-or-not/

Turkey Point: There is no evidence that any effluents from the plant  or the plant canals will  harm drinking water, or will affect Biscayne Bay.  Still,  some groups are suing the plant for causing vaguely-stated environmental harm. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/us/nuclear-plant-leak-threatens-drinking-water-wells-in-florida.html?_r=1

-----

I enjoyed putting these supplemental links together, but I do hope you will read the article itself: Keeping Cool Under Pressure. 

Defending SAFSTOR planning at Vermont Yankee

The post and the objection

In a recent op-ed, I wrote that the proposed Entergy-Vermont settlement is good for Vermont. Here's the post on this blog

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-proposed-entergy-settlement-is-good.html#.UwnmFSiyTAY

and here's the post as it appeared on the local news site, Vermont Digger

http://vtdigger.org/2014/02/11/meredith-angwin-entergy-settlement-psb-good-state/

There's a lively comment stream on the Vermont Digger post, with several comments objecting to my description of the plans for decommissioning.  Here's what I said in my op-ed:

You can’t begin tearing down the building while the fuel pool is still in use. So there has to be at least a five-year delay between plant closing and the beginning of major decommissioning work. Therefore, there will be a gap of several years in the economic activity around the plant.

Some comments basically  said: "I am not a nuclear engineer, but they can start decommissioning sooner."  I encourage you to read the comments themselves. I have my answer to these comments below. I have added subheadings (in bold) that weren't in my original answer.  Hopefully, these subheadings add to readability.

------

My answer to the objection

You say you are “NOT commenting on how or when decommissioning needs to be done” yet you seem to think it can begin immediately, despite the requirements of the operating fuel pool. Sounds like you actually ARE commenting on how and when decommissioning can be done.

You give the impression that if Entergy doesn’t start decommissioning areas other than the fuel pool immediately, Entergy is stalling. Actually, this is not the case, in my opinion. In general, the nuclear industry is very conservative about decommissioning. You might think: Hey, they can always start by tearing down the office building, no big deal. Actually, the industry shows itself quite reluctant to begin big deconstruction/decommissioning projects in close proximity to active nuclear plants (or actively maintained fuel pools that can’t be isolated easily). This is basically a safety precaution.

SAFSTOR for Safety

Indian Point

For example, Indian Point 1 ceased operation in 1974. It is in close proximity to the operating plants Indian Point 2 and 3. Indian Point 1 is in SAFSTOR, which is safer than attempting to tear it down while it shares the same area with active plants. Similarly, Dresden 1 was shut down in 1978, and is right next to Dresden 2 and 3. Millstone 1 ceased operations in 1998, and is close to the operating plants, Millstone 2 and 3. Dresden 1 and Millstone 1, like Indian Point 1, are also in SAFSTOR.

Considering the position of the fuel pool at Vermont Yankee, I would expect the owners to do nothing on site (except perhaps move some of the fuel to dry casks) while that fuel pool needs to be maintained. That’s the conservative way. I frankly have no particular opinion on when they move some of the fuel from the fuel pool. They can’t finish moving the fuel out of the pool for five years, and nothing much else can happen on site while the fuel pool is in active service.

Or rather, in my opinion, nothing much SHOULD happen on site while the fuel pool is in active service. Similarly, I think it would be a bad idea to decommission Dresden 1 while still operating Dresden 2 and 3 right next door.

Maine Yankee

No doubt, someone is going to say: “They dismantled Maine Yankee quickly! So what’s the problem here?” Well, Maine Yankee was a PWR with the fuel pool in the basement of a building that was comparatively easy to isolate. Vermont Yankee is a BWR with the fuel pool in a position that is not easy to isolate.

Waiting five years to begin serious decommissioning is the safest and most conservative way to proceed with the Vermont Yankee plant, and this has nothing to do with money.

Workforce issues and the nuclear opponents desire to feel good about themselves

About the workforce. Alas, decommissioning rarely uses very many members of the original workforce. The decommissioning jobs include chemical cleaning and deconstruction. These are not the same skills as running the plant. As others have noted, for decommissioning, teams of contractors with either specialized skills (chemical cleaning) or moderate skills in the building trades (deconstruction) do the jobs. In many cases, a decommissioning contractor is hired by the utility, and that contractor hires the teams. EnergySolutions is one such company, but there are others.

The people at the plant will be laid off, and there will be few of them involved in decommissioning. That is what has happened at other plants also. The opponents of Vermont Yankee do not want to admit this, because otherwise (conceivably) they would feel guilty about causing their neighbors to lose their jobs. But all their sweet sayings about “hoping the good people at VY will continue to work” doesn’t change reality. Decommissioning is almost completely done by teams of outsiders, no matter when decommissioning is done, early or late. That is just the way it is.

More reading

I have more explanations and some links in this blog post, including some workforce analysis from the Maine Yankee experience. I have written other blog posts on the subject also: you can search my blog for “decommissioning” in the little keyword box at the upper left.

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2011/11/decommissioning-facts-versus-fantasy.html#.UwtoCRZ5ufQ

The Subways of New York and Indian Point

 Grandma on the Subway

I just came back from a trip to New York City, where I hung out with my grandson.  One thing my grandson and I did together was take the subway to his day camp in the morning. I chose to visit at the last minute, so he was enrolled in camp for part of the day. If the parents had known I was coming, I could have spent more time with him.  He wouldn't have been in camp. Ah well.

So, there I was on the subway, thinking a bit, especially on the way home, after dropping him off at day camp. One of the things I thought about was the Indian Point nuclear plant.  It makes over 2000 MW of power and that power is widely described as the power that runs the New York subways.

When I think about the New York. subways, I am always amazed at how inexpensive and effective they are.  All these trains, all those people, so fast!  All electric. Most or all of the power coming from Indian Point.

Nobody on the subway probably knows that the power for the subways comes from Indian Point.  They may read an article in the Times or the Post or see something on TV about Indian Point, but they don't know much about it.  I bet that most subway riders don't think that Indian Point's inexpensive, reliable, non-polluting power makes any difference to their own lives.

I wish I could change that.

Advertising on the Subways of New York

There's a place above the windows of a subway cars where there's usually some advertising (the same is true on most buses).  In most New York subway cars, the entire car was advertisements from one company.  For example, a life insurance company might have all the ads.  So the first ad would be "insurance you can afford" next to another ad that said "don't get high blood pressure worrying about health insurance" next to an ad that urged you to "see the best doctors in New York on our plan."  (I am paraphrasing, of course.) The statements were short and positive, and the cumulative effect was greater than any of the individual statements.

I was especially amused by one subway car that contained  advertisements for New York Yankees Fragrances. Some ads encouraged you to show that you are a Yankees fan by buying these products.  Other ads noted that there were Yankees perfumes for men and women.  Another ad included a picture of a ballplayer in the dugout.  Again, each message was short, but the cumulative effect was great.

I decided that Indian Point should advertise on the subway.  Each ad could be short and sweet.

• Indian Point Energy runs this subway!  
• Indian Point: adding more than  half a billion a year to the New York economy! 
• Indian Point: reliable and inexpensive.  
• Indian Point:  less radiation to the public than they would get walking through Grand Central Station.
• Indian Point: safe for the community.
• Indian Point: Green Energy avoiding so many tons of greenhouse gases a year.  

I think it would be a great campaign. Of course, I thought of it so I think it's great....

Take the Bus?

While I was thinking, I thought about buses. What if there weren't any subways in New York or if the subway electricity costs were dependent on "cheap natural gas"and natural gas does one of its periodic price doublings?

As I was heading out with the grandson one morning, my son-in-law said: "You can take the bus if you want. If you don't like the subway." Luckily, I like the subway.

Imagine the greenhouse gases if everyone in New York was taking the bus. It's an appalling thought. Those subway trains are sometimes twenty cars long (or longer) and often packed with people.  Putting all those people on surface transportation would be horrific. The city would practically close down.

The streets and sidewalks of New York would be impassable and impossible without the subway.  All hail to the subways and to Indian Point for providing the power!

Now, we have to figure out a way to tell the subway riders about the role of nuclear energy in their lives.




Notes:

Reference needed: I tried to find a truly authoritative reference on the amount of power used by the subways, and the agreements they might have with Indian Point.  I couldn't find it easily and I hope my readers will help me if they know of this.

Harlem School of the Arts: Our grandson was going to day camp at the Harlem School of the Arts. The grandkids go for a week or two at a time: our granddaughter went earlier this summer.  It's a great place and the kids really enjoy the camp. Harlem School of the Arts is mainly a theater and arts school for older children, but it has many outreach programs in the summer.

Children and subways.  First, when traveling with a four-year-old, always take the local train because the four-year-old is eager to read the numbers that describe the stations. 135th Street was my grandson's favorite, because it is a big number and his stop was next, at 145th.  Second, I was amazed how many children I saw on the subway. They were traveling with their mothers, fathers, grandmothers, or they were in groups of children. I saw a far higher percentage of children on the subways of New York City than I do at the average grocery store or park in Vermont. Of course, the state of Vermont has the second-highest median age in the nation.  (Florida is fifth-highest, in case you were wondering.)  Not so many children up here in Vermont.

Poll Shows Vermonters Equally Divided on Vermont Yankee Operation. NRC Meeting Tonight.

A recent poll on energy issues was commissioned by Vermont Business Magazine and two of Vermont's biggest radio and television stations. Results show that 44.8% of Vermonters want the state to continue to try to close Vermont Yankee, and 44.2% want it to keep operating.  10.7% were undecided.

In other poll questions, the merger of Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS) into Gaz Metro/Green Mountain Power was also a split decision: 36.4% support the merger, 28.7% oppose it, and 33.4% were not sure.

In contrast, opinions on returning the CVPS rate-payers money was not an even split. A whopping 66.4% of Vermonters think CVPS customers should be repaid the $21 million that was borrowed from them, while only 23.4%  think the money should be used for weatherization projects. Governor Shumlin wants the weatherization projects.  I wonder if Shumlin would still describe this $21 million as a "quibble"?  See my post yesterday for a fuller description: Gaz Metro: What's in it for Vermont? What's in it for Governor Shumlin?

Finally, Vermonters overwhelmingly support wind turbines (69.4%) and state subsidies for renewable energy (63.1%).

NRC Meeting Tonight


I will be at an NRC meeting this evening in Brattleboro.   Judging by previous NRC meetings in Brattleboro, the opponents are not there to listen: they are there to hold an anti-nuclear rally, with a built-in audience.  Judging by a recent NRC meeting for Indian Point, opponents are going to be out in force with signs and costumes.

It cheers me up that this poll came out today.  Every year, the NRC meetings are an unpleasant experience, including opponents shouting, booing, and saying that they are behaving this way because--by golly, they come every year and the NRC still hasn't shut the plant down!  The nerve of the NRC!  The NRC is supposed to jump when the opponents say: "jump"!

Still,  I go to the meeting to support the plant. To support nuclear energy.  And to show that mob rule and scapegoating won't work in this country.

It's nice to have read the poll right before I leave for Brattleboro.  Thank you, Vermont Business Magazine, for choosing today to release the results.

Transformer Fires? Erosion-Corrosion? Recent Events at Indian Point and Vermont Yankee

Two days ago was not the best day for Entergy. Indian Point Reactors Unit 2 was taken off-line by a transformer fire, while Vermont Yankee was shut to repair a 60-drop-a-minute leak of radioactive water within the plant. In my opinion, the best description of these incidents is in the Wall Street Journal.

Quick on the trigger, David Lochbaum of Union of Concerned Scientists was on the job about the transformer fire, while Ray Shadis of New England Coalition hopped aboard to discuss the leak. You can read their remarks in the Brattleboro Reformer.

In this case, they have made statements without knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge isn't their job. They are paid for anti-nuclear activism, not for scientific or technical credibility. Unlike science, which actually looks for causes, Lochbaum and Shadis's remarks always fit this theme: "The plant is aging and can't run anymore."

Okay. Let's look at the facts, instead.

The Transformer Fire at Indian Point

Quoting Mr. Lochbaum:

David Lochbaum,

director of the nuclear safety program for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said both problems were probably due to their age. As plants get older, they face more and more such challenges, said Lochbaum......Transformer explosions happen, on average, about a half dozen times a year at U.S. nuclear power plants, Lochbaum said.

Really? It happened because the transformer was old? The Wall Street Journal is pretty famous for digging deep, and they asked Entergy about that transformer. Here's the answer:

The transformer that failed was made by Siemens AG (SIE.XE) and installed in 2006, Nappi said.

The question then arises: Why would a new transformer fail?

Well, because it is new.

They Don't Build Them Like They Used To

Transformer fires are nothing new, but more transformer fires are happening. There's a company whose business is transformer fire prevention. (There are several companies in this market, but this is the biggest one I found by Googling.) Transformer Protection Corp.

Transformer Protection Corporation says on its website that they expect transformer fires to increase in the future because: .....This (regulatory) weakness, in addition to the globalization market, has opened the door to a disturbing drop in the quality of new transformers...Many experts anticipate that the number of failures will increase significantly in the near future, from 1% in 2001 to 2% in 2008 ..... In addition, the shorter lifetime of new transformers will sharply increase above this rate after 2008

The website also notes that there were around 800 transformer fires in the U.S. in one year. I have no idea if Lochbaum's "a half-dozen fires at nuclear plants" is correct. If it is correct, I can rephrase his statement as below.

• Less than 1 % of the transformer fires in the U.S. were in nuclear plants last year.
• Nuclear plants should be careful to not replace transformers unless they absolutely need to do so. The old (aging) transformers usually have better life expectancy than their replacements.

Erosion Corrosion

For years I was a member of NACE and a working corrosion engineer. Mr. Shadis's description of erosion-corrosion is accurate. It is a terrible, sometimes catastrophic form of corrosion. It breaks pipes.

In other words, erosion-corrosion rarely seeps. It busts things. It causes pipe failure. I would say "Erosion-corrosion never seeps" but I have been a corrosion engineer too long to be throwing around the word "never." Things happen, you know. Not everything goes according to form. Erosion-corrosion could make one through-wall pit, under some complex circumstances, a single pit that leaks. It would be unlikely to leak at a drop-per-minute rate, however. Also, erosion-corrosion is rarely seen in straight flows of steel pipes. It is far more common in copper, or at places where the flow in a pipe becomes turbulent.

Let's say that erosion corrosion would NOT be the first thing I would consider in a case of seepage in a straight run of pipe. Indeed, Vermont Yankee had seepage around a weld, the most common thing on earth, corrosion-wise. Mr. Shadis decided that to say that the seepage was erosion-corrosion because that was the worst thing he could think of. It was not a likely cause for the leak.

As I said, Shadis is paid to attack the plant, and that is what he does. Most of the time, frankly, he does it better than he did in this case.

Mythical Fire Salamander From Wikipedia

Editorial Against VY Acknowledges that Groups Against VY Are Not Telling the Truth

The Brattleboro Reformer is not known as a friend to Vermont Yankee. Most people at the plant refuse to read the paper, calling it the MisInformer. The Reformer editorial policy can be summarized in three words: Shut It Down!

So imagine my surprise when I read the July 14 editorial entitled: Just the facts, please.

Now, I don't want to oversell this editorial. It does not support VY's continued operation, and ends by urging people to give money to the most effective anti-VY groups.

But, in the meantime, this editorial lists and refutes the usual pack of lies told against VY. Here are the first few paragraphs:

The opponents of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant’s continued operation are passionate, emotional and rightly concerned about the health of their children, themselves and the environment.

But many of the claims used to support their stance are not hard cold facts but rather exaggerations, misinformation and downright wrong, which do not serve their cause well.

For example, there were cries of distress when the Department of Health revealed that bones from fish caught near the power plant tested positive for strontium-90, proof the plant has been leaking radioactive materials into the environment.

A spokesman for the Vermont Department of Health told the public that the strontium levels were normal and within the background levels that are a result of the meltdown at Chernobyl and weapons testing that went on until 1965. Even the river steward of the Connecticut River Watershed Council, a fierce opponent to the plant’s continued operation, said the levels were normal.

The editorial goes on to refute several of the other calumnies against the plant and against nuclear power (the Tooth Fairy Project, the German children-get-leukemia study). It urges anti-plant activists to

• stop throwing compost at people in meetings
• stop pretending to copulate during public meetings
• stop other antics which please the hard-core zealots, but repulse ordinary citizens

The editorial ends with this ringing suggestion:

So if you are opposed to the plant operating past 2012, put your money where your big mouth is, become better informed and stop the childish outbursts and juvenile foot stomping.

Wow. What happened in Brattleboro?

I think I know.

The Fish Turned

As the editorial noted, the Vermont Department of Health, and a well-informed anti-nuclear group (among others) noted that the fish in the Connecticut River contain only background levels of radioactive strontium. However, as I have noted in earlier posts, that has not prevented groups from marching in the Brattleboro Fourth of July parade as radioactive fish, showing up at meetings as radioactive fish, etc. It did not prevent Shumlin from stating that radioactive strontium was attacking the teeth of children in Vermont.

In a post called Destructive Lies, published in June, I stated that the lies of the anti-nukes were destroying the Vermont Brand. I think that when the (not) radioactive fish walked down the street in Brattleboro in the Fourth of July parade, other people also noticed this. (You can't help but notice a human-sized, three-eyed fish.) Other people saw this and became aware of what the anti-Vermont Yankee lies are doing to Vermont.

People in Brattleboro will no longer accept lies about contamination and dangers caused by VY.

Good News on Indian Point

I want to give a tip of the hat to Rod Adams, for his excellent post on pro-Indian Point citizens coming out to testify in New York. We can all learn from this! We have to be out there and visible.

Especially now that the fish has turned.

PSB Meeting Thursday Night. Get Your Comments In!

There's A Meeting Here (Thursday Night)

The Public Service Board is holding a hearing, Thursday July 8, at Brattleboro High School. The hearing is about Docket 7600. This is the docket to shut down Vermont Yankee immediately. (The relicensing docket is Docket 7440.) The hearing starts at 7 p.m and should be over at 9:30, because the high school does not stay open after 9:30 at night.

What's It All About, Anyhow? Why Should I Do Anything?

Starting in January, and going through sometime in March, there was a leak of tritiated water at Vermont Yankee. On Thursday February 25, the day after the Senate vote against Vermont Yankee renewal, the PSB opened a new docket, docket 7600, on closing Vermont Yankee early, due to the tritium leaks. As I noted in a blog post at the time, the PSB said they would hold the first hearing on the new docket in March, and I predicted the leak would be over by then. (It was).

But of course, it's not over till it's over. Once you open a docket, it stays open. It's like some modern version of Dickens Bleak House--a never-ending court case. The fact that the leak is fixed and being remediated seems irrelevant to the law.

Since the docket is still open, everybody and their brother is weighing in with claims for the docket. The original docket was started by the Conservation Law Foundation, and concentrated on the leaks and leak remediation. Recently, the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) has taken a slightly different spin on the matter, saying that Entergy is violating the public trust about groundwater. A quote from Groveman of the VNRC:

"Groundwater is to be managed for the benefit of all Vermonters and the public trust doctrine does not allow for contamination of groundwater, even beneath your own property," he said. "Groundwater flows across property boundaries so these boundaries are meaningless when it comes to public trust resources."

I am particularly fond of this quote because it implies that septic tanks are illegal in Vermont, since they do "contaminate" their "leachfields" on your "own property" to some extent.

Is It Just Silly?

In my opinion, the people attacking Vermont Yankee on the basis of tritium leaks and groundwater contamination have VERY weak arguments. Pretty close to just-silly, as a matter of fact.

BUT, when Yankee opponents are the only ones to show up at a meeting, this has an effect. When the PSB sits at the front of the room, looking at the audience, it looks as if everyone is against Vermont Yankee. If there are no supporters at the meeting, the arguments of the opponents seem to carry more weight, no matter how trivial the content of these arguments might be.

So, try to attend the meeting and support the plant.

What If I Can't Come to the Meeting?

You can still help. Many people in the opponent organizations will testify at the meeting. They will make charges against the plant. As my friend Howard Shaffer points out:

"A charge unanswered is a charge believed." A quote from former US Senator Alan Simpson, in Newsweek recently.

Therefore, we must answer these charges. We know what the opponents are going to say: tritium, groundwater, leaky badly-run plant. We must write own comments and submit them to the board, noting that

• leaks were found and fixed within weeks
• there is no groundwater contamination outside the plant boundaries, and there will be none (contaminated groundwater is being removed).
• the plant is a valuable asset to people of Vermont, keeping electricity rates and emissions low.

You can write about your own experience with the plant and its safety culture. You can write about septic tanks and groundwater. You can say anything you want, really, as long as it is true and hopefully relevant.

You can submit comments by email. File a comment using the PSB general Comment Form. I wrote my comment under "other" ( I could not choose "Docket 7600" from the drop-down list). I wrote the words "Docket 7600" near the beginning of my comment. It only took a few minutes, and I urge you to do the same.

Aside: On the Docket 7440 page, at the bottom you can see a link to file a public comment. (This is the relicensing docket.) No such link is at the bottom of the Docket 7600 page, or on meeting announcement for July 8. I am not sure what to make of this. If the meeting tomorrow night is a hearing only, without public participation, there should still be an area in the general docket where the people can file a public comment. I'm not sure why they haven't made it easier to comment on the 7600 docket. End Aside.

Come to the meeting or submit your comments by email! Or both!

-----

About the cartoon. G. Murphy, the same artist who drew the parody cartoons in a previous post, allowed me to use this original cartoon. The copyright remains with him, of course.

This cartoon is about Indian Point. A series of polls taken by the Manhattanville College showed strong local support for Indian Point. 70% pro-plant, 30% anti. However, one of the local papers headlined the survey results: "Residents Worried About Indian Point." This totally misleading headline prompted Mr. Murphy to pen this cartoon, which shows the gap between perceived opinions (of people making a lot of noise) and actual local opinions.

Welcome and thanks

First, I would like to welcome a new Nuclear Blogger, and thank her or him for the shoutout.

Welcome, DY at Nuclear Today and Nuclear for the Future and thanks for mentioning this blog.

And thanks to Dan Yurman for an excellent post describing the Entergy issues at Indian Point and Vermont Yankee in historical perspective.

And finally, thanks to John Wheeler for a thoughtful description of what a small quantity a "pico" is. Great quote from John:

Said another way; if I had an olympic swimming pool full of pure water and I sprinkled in 0.0003 grams of tritium (less than the mass of one drop of water), then mixed it up, I would have a mixture containing 1,000,000 picocuries of tritium per liter.

We all appreciate the mutual support of our fellow bloggers. Thank you all.

A short video from Burlington Free Press about the search for the source of tritium at Vermont Yankee. Including some ice fishing on the Connecticut River within sight of the plant.