There is an emergency plan: Guest post by Howard Shaffer

Vermont Yankee
When it was making power

A recent editorial in the Keene Sentinel claimed that Vermont Yankee is still a danger to its neighbors.  The editorial, NRC backs Entergy bid to turn off emergency data system at Vermont Yankee, begins with the following sentence:

Once again the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission appears ready to dismiss the health and safety of citizens in favor of keeping change in the pocket of Entergy Nuclear Corp.

Several Vermont Yankee supporters wrote letters answering this editorial.  This blog is proud to feature some of their letters.

-----------
There will ALWAYS be Emergency Plans for Vermont Yankee.
by Howard Shaffer

Once again the Sentinel has succumbed to the siren call of the maidens of the anti-nuclear movement.  The editorial writer emotionally attacked the plans to modify the Vermont Yankee plant’s Emergency Plan to match the expected conditions in April 2016.

If Vermont Yankee had never been built, all jurisdictions would still have Emergency Plans, including evacuation when necessary.  Plans are required by Federal Law, for all kinds of emergencies--truck and rail accidents, storms, and industrial accidents at all the different kinds of plants present, etc. They began to be formed in 1979.

In the spring next year, the used fuel at Vermont Yankee will present a much reduced hazard to the public.  The amount of radioactive atom-splitting pieces that could possibly escape will be greatly reduced. All the pieces are still there, but many have given up their radiation and have nothing left to give.  The pieces left will continue to give off radiation, which creates heat, but in an ever-decreasing amount.

Maintaining an Emergency Plan for the plant that was properly needed when the plant was in operation is just a waste of money.  That money would come from the Decommissioning Trust Fund, slowing down the process.  Any money left over at the end will go back to the ratepayers, not to Entergy as the editorial wrongly charges.  Remember the heated discussion about any left-over decommissioning money when the plant was sold to Entergy?

The Emergency Response Data System is a computer link for a small number of plant instruments, to the NRC and State Emergency Response Centers. These few pieces of data indicate if the reactor is headed for a meltdown or not, so the NRC can advise the Governors of the three states to order precautionary evacuations, if the plant’s Offsite Emergency Response Center has not already done it.  There are only one or two data points that would indirectly indicate that the used fuel in the pool was releasing radioactive atom-splitting products, after the fact of an accident.  There are no data points in this link that would predict a release from the fuel pool.  In the spring next year it would take more than a day to get to that point in any conceivable accident, which is more than enough time for plenty of action to be taken to stop any chain of events.

Plenty of time and to inform the NRC, states and the public of events by the many other communication links that will continue to exist.  Keeping this system is also a waste of money. Relying on the normal Emergency Plans of all the surrounding states and towns is more than sufficient for any possible very slowly developing situation.

The plant will continue to have its Emergency Plans for all types of industrial and nuclear-related accidents inside the fence.

The editorial has the emotional tone that no plans at all will exist, which is not the fact, and silly.

----------

Howard Shaffer  PE,  Enfield, NH  Startup Engineer at Vermont Yankee, 2001 Congressional Fellow.

Howard Shaffer is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.

Fear-mongering delays decomm: Guest Post by Richard January

A recent editorial in the Keene Sentinel claimed that Vermont Yankee is still a danger to its neighbors.  The editorial, NRC backs Entergy bid to turn off emergency data system at Vermont Yankee, begins with the following sentence:

Once again the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission appears ready to dismiss the health and safety of citizens in favor of keeping change in the pocket of Entergy Nuclear Corp.

Several Vermont Yankee supporters wrote letters answering this editorial.  This blog is proud to feature some of their letters.

Editorial about Vermont Yankee paints unfair picture, doesn’t fit the facts

By Richard January, Jaffrey NH

While presuming to claim the high ground of public safety, your editorial (“NRC backs Entergy bid to turn off emergency data system at Vermont Yankee,” May 20) throws unnecessary, inaccurate accusations.

Your editorial paints a picture of federal neglect and corporate greed that doesn’t fit the facts. You say “the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission appears ready to dismiss the health and safety of citizens in favor of keeping change in the pocket of Entergy.” If federal regulators and the nuclear industry are as cozy as you suggest, how do you explain that in the 50-plus year history of U.S. nuclear power industry has there never been a single radiation-related fatality? Just lucky? Closer to home, how do you explain Vermont Yankee’s outstanding employee and public health and safety record, earned under the scrutiny of onsite NRC inspectors and a transparent, mandatory event reporting system? The obvious answer is that clearly someone – indeed a well-trained, committed, 42 year army of dedicated professionals  – has been doing the vital job of nuclear safety extremely well. Does the Sentinel truly think that, having protected plant workers and neighbors during 42 years of splitting atoms, the NRC and Vermont Yankee will now fail to safely store cooling spent fuel?

What’s really happening here is that the State of Vermont, having already been told in two federal courtrooms they do not have credible arguments to encroach on the federal prerogative of nuclear safety, is yet trying again. At least they are consistent, as are the Federal nuclear overseers who are saying, “thanks, but we are confident in our regulations and we are satisfied Vermont Yankee will be safe.” I for one will sleep safer at night in New Hampshire knowing spent fuel storage is overseen by skilled, impartial, well-funded, successful Federal inspectors, rather than from a state capitol with little technical expertise, but with a big chip on its shoulder and an even bigger chronic budget deficit.

Which brings us to the subject of money. Your charge of corporate greed is superficial and manifestly untrue. When Entergy bought the plant in 2002, it agreed to provide Vermont utilities with constant, 24/7 four-cent per kilowatt hour power (dirt cheap) for 10 years, and to share revenue on out of state sales – yielding about $20 million to utilities last year. Over the years Vermont Yankee has averaged millions of dollars of annual cash and donations of in-kind equipment and manhours to the nearby tri-state area. In the December 2013 settlement agreement, Vermont Yankee agreed to pay the State of Vermont tens of millions of dollars for state taxes, local economic development, and renewable power – after the company beat the State in Federal court and didn’t need to offer a financial olive branch of any kind or size.
 
As if this wasn’t already proof enough of high-road financial dealing, Entergy then agreed to privately borrow $145 million to pay for the transfer of its fuel from the spent fuel pool to dry cask storage, rather than withdraw it from the decommissioning trust fund! One important reason: if decommissioning is to happen promptly, the trust fund must be left as whole as possible and allowed to grow as fast as possible. And that’s why it makes no financial sense to pay $120 million to maintain the emergency response organization at operational-plant levels. But more important it also makes no safety sense.

The old emergency response system provided a necessary tri-state response in the event of a worst-case accident at an operational nuclear power plant. In other words – it’s inappropriate! Vermont Yankee’s reactor is inoperative, the fuel is cooling in the pool, and the threat levels and response times are just not the same. In particular the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) that the Sentinel insists be maintained is to provide data regarding an operating nuclear reactor gone awry. That’s just not going to happen. Vermont Yankee's new, multi-million dollar plan is a robust and compliant emergency plan, keeps qualified emergency response officers onsite, provides for community notification, and also won’t go into effect for more than a year from now.

The professionals at the NRC, including the independent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), have, in the opinion of this retired nuclear engineer, made the safe, prudent call. Appeals may be filed. But I think the State of Vermont, and perhaps the Sentinel as well, might want to stand guard over the safe, prompt decommissioning of the plant, rather than play delaying games that do nothing for safety, cost everyone more, and push back decommissioning’s start date.

-----

Richard January recently retired from his position as Senior Lead Engineer at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.  His 42 year career started at Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation designing new fossil and nuclear plants.  He worked 35 years at Vermont Yankee.

Straight facts about Vermont Yankee: Guest post by Martin Cohn

Clip art courtesy of
Jim Scherrer

A recent editorial in the Keene Sentinel claimed that Vermont Yankee is still a danger to its neighbors.  The editorial, NRC backs Entergy bid to turn off emergency data system at Vermont Yankee, begins with the following sentence:

Once again the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission appears ready to dismiss the health and safety of citizens in favor of keeping change in the pocket of Entergy Nuclear Corp.

Several Vermont Yankee supporters wrote letters answering this editorial.  This blog is proud to feature some of their letters.
------------

Vermont Yankee 

by Martin Cohn

Decommissioning a nuclear power facility is very complicated. Given all the filings submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it is understandable that the media, as well as the general public, can be confused.

This is clearly the case in your recent editorial (“NRC backs Entergy bid to turn off emergency data system at Vermont Yankee,” May 20). The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled on May 18, 2015, against the State of Vermont’s request to have a hearing on Entergy’s license amendment request (LAR) to reduce emergency planning requirements at Vermont Yankee.

This decision was reached because “neither in its pleadings nor at oral argument was Vermont able to articulate a challenge to any aspect of the LAR — independent of Entergy’s exemption request — that set forth sufficient factual support or raised a genuine dispute with the application.”

This decision has nothing to do with another filing written in the editorial about Vermont Yankee’s Emergency Response Data System, a system that was not used in the hostile-based action drill conducted last week by Entergy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and all three states. This drill was praised by all involved.

The facility is in a permanently defueled status. This means that there is no fuel in the reactor. Around April of 2016, once the spent fuel has cooled for 15.4 months, it is unnecessary to maintain the same level of emergency planning as when the plant was operating.

Safely decommissioning Vermont Yankee is a top priority of Entergy — not only for our employees but also our surrounding communities. We invite representatives of the Keene Sentinel editorial board to tour Vermont Yankee to help them better understand the process.

------
Martin Cohn is Senior Communications Specialist at Vermont Yankee Decommissioning.
His letter appeared in the Keene Sentinel on May 27.  With BCTV (Brattleboro Community TV), Cohn has started a series SAFSTOR Matters, about Vermont Yankee decommissioning.  You can watch the first episode here, and the second episode here.

Intimidation as a Tactic: NRC Meeting on Vermont Yankee

Last week, the NRC held its yearly meeting to review Vermont Yankee.  I describe this meeting in my post today at the American Nuclear Society blog, ANS Nuclear Cafe.  

My post is  NRC Public Meeting in Brattleboro: The Politics of Intimidation.

In the picture at left, NRC staff are leaving the meeting  while the plant opponents have taken over the front of the room.   There's a short video of this meeting at the post Planned Disruption at NRC Meeting. Full coverage is at the ANS blog.

Local Opinions On the Meeting

I would like to share two local opinions that were published after the meeting.

Newspaper op-ed: The Keene Sentinel wrote: Democracy is More Than Making Noise: "But we don’t share any belief that such protest performances will have constructive material effects, nor do we share the conviction by some participants that the disruptive tactics represent something larger than they are."

Plant opponent letter: In the Brattleboro Reformer leading plant opponent (Gary Sachs) wrote:

"Then about four years ago the NRC was here to tell us how great Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee was doing. I think it may have been another annual assessment meeting, and a dear friend tossed a handful of compost to the NRC delegates here...Swear words and compost are not toxic and they do not cause cancer like radiation can."

Does Intimidation Work?

As we can tell from Sachs letter, nuclear opponents in Vermont embrace the politics of intimidation and feel justified in using them.  They have used intimidation for many years.

Disruption and intimidation. It works at some level.  Still, I can't imagine an undecided person watching this meeting and thinking:"Wow. these anti-nuclear people are right. They have convinced me.  I want to get out there and chant and shout too!"

Intimidation is fun, but it is not a convincing strategy.