A Tale of Two Meetings: Keeping NRC meetings safe for everyone

The Vermont Yankee NRC meeting: Bullying

Vermont flag

About four weeks ago, I attended the NRC decommissioning review meeting about  Vermont Yankee.  It was an unpleasant experience, to say the least. At the bottom of this post, I link to four blog posts about this out-of-control meeting.  The four posts include some shocking quotes from the NRC about how the NRC doesn't eject people from meetings, pretty much under any circumstances. Even people committing assault don't get ejected.

A few days ago, Dan Yurman of Neutron Bytes wrote a new post, based on NRC information: Closing the Civility Gap at NRC Public Meetings.  Yurman discovered that the NRC actually had a task force to improve its public meetings. The task force submitted its report in late January 2015, just a few weeks before the Vermont Yankee meeting.  (Clearly the report did very little good for Vermont.) Yurman looked up the improving-meetings report on the almost-indecipherable ADAMS data base of the NRC.  Reading the report, he learned that the NRC task force has a very good idea of what makes good public outreach, and more good ideas on why the NRC is failing at it.

The report talks about a "center of excellence" for training for public meetings, and outlines various types of training.  It does not, however, go so far as to suggest staffing or funding for this purpose. As Yurman points out, the report contains good ideas, but no real plans for carrying out those ideas.

I encourage you to read Yurman's clear and thoughtful post on the civility gap.  Brave souls can also go the NRC ADAMS citations ML15029A460, ML15029A463, and ML15029A465.

The Pilgrim NRC Meeting: Civility

Massachusetts flag

My experience is that the bullying is worse when opponents are a majority in the room.  Therefore, I was truly happy to read about the March 18 Pilgrim NRC meeting.  Many supporters attended: the headline in a local paper was  NRC: Supporters outnumber critics at annual Pilgrim performance review. It is a great pleasure to read that article.  If you don't have time to read about the good things being said about Pilgrim in the article in the Wicked Local paper, at least follow the link to see the faces of the people speaking on behalf of their local nuclear power plant.  The proponents include men, women, young people, old people, people of different races.

Also, if you pardon me saying so, the proponent's faces are open, kind and sincere. I could look at the pictures of the Pilgrim supporters all day. It comforts me to see their faces.

Alas, when I think of an NRC meeting, I see the shouting, hate-filled face of our most noisy local opponent.  I know that many nuclear opponents are good people, but in our local NRC meeting, the opponent group comes across as a mob scene. They cheer while their designated bully threatens and attacks people.  They may be sweet enough in private life: I don't know.  In the meetings, frankly, only the pitchforks are missing.

A Tale of Two Meetings

The Vermont Yankee meeting had two problems: bullies who knew they outnumbered the plant proponents, and an ineffective NRC who caved in to the bullies completely, refusing to keep order.

The Pilgrim meeting was different for one reason and one reason only: plant supporters outnumbered the plant opponents. Therefore, the opponents could not get control by bullying and shouting.  It the opponents hadn't been outnumbered, I think they would have tried to turn the Pilgrim meeting into the same kind of dangerous shambles as the Vermont Yankee meeting.  But they were outnumbered, and they didn't try.

Pizza

By the way, it is amusing to read the comments on the article about the  Pilgrim meeting.  The opponents claim the reporter is "unfair" and that Entergy "bribed" people to come to the meeting by offering pizza. (Entergy did offer pizza.  Those meetings are right after work, and people are hungry.)  Opponents think that people will give up an evening and sit in an uncomfortable room in a long meeting….just in return for free pizza!

I am always amazed at the perception gap between many plant opponents and…well…..reality.  This gap extends far beyond the issues about technical understanding of radiation.

Keith Drown of Pilgrim commented on the Wicked Local article.  I will use his words as the last statement on this blog post.  Hail to Pilgrim!

Employees volunteered to attend the meeting and show their support for Pilgrim without coercion from the company. We live in the community and understand the facts concerning the safe operation of the plant. We not only work at Pilgrim, we also live in close proximity to the plant. It appears that some within the anti-Pilgrim groups are upset that we had a pizza before the meeting. They should be upset, the pizza was wonderful and they missed out. In addition to the pizza we also had cookies and brownies, not to mention a good time just being together. 

----------

Earlier posts about the Vermont Yankee NRC meeting

I have a blog post about the NRC meeting, Bullying at the NRC Meeting.

Rod Adams posted about it and made a short, watchable video (25 minutes) from the four-hour video of the meeting.  His post Agencies should not allow creation of a hostile environment at public meetings includes his video and almost 50 comments, some of which are very informative.

Dan Yurman has an earlier post on this meeting, including his own important exchange with the NRC: NRC must do more to insure civility at its public hearings

Steve Aplin at Canadian Energy Issues compares the actions of the nuclear opponents with the actions of those in the Old South, right after the Civil War, in denying free speech and rights to newly-freed slaves.  It's a good analogy, and no harsher than the behavior deserves: Free speech, Monty Python, and Civil War reconstruction: anti-nukes are not funny

UPDATE; Bullying at the NRC Meeting: Rod Adams, Dan Yurman and Steve Aplin

On February 19, I attended the NRC meeting about decommissioning Vermont Yankee.  I didn't expect it to be fun, of course.

This February 19 meeting was pretty bad.

After this meeting, I was trying, really trying, to write a post about bullying and why a federal agency would allow citizens at a meeting to be bullied.  Not just a little random shouting: the bullies make non-stop efforts to intimidate.

I think federal agencies owe the public to run their meetings so that EVERYONE can speak at a public meeting in relative safety.  I wondered why the NRC thinks that enabling bullies is such a good idea. I wondered why the safety of pro-nuclear people means so little to them.    

But I was too close to the subject.  I have a lengthy draft of a blog post, but it still needs work.  I found it very upsetting to relive the meeting and work on the post.

Happily, Rod Adams posted about the NRC meeting.  I had posted a link to the Cable TV video of the meeting in various places (including Facebook) and Rod followed the link and took action.

Rod is a hero!  From the four-hour video of the meeting, he extracted a twenty-minute video of "lowlights."  He emailed the NRC, and got some really bizarre responses (The NRC seems proud that they don't take action, even when people throw manure at other people.)  Rod has those responses in his post.

I urge you to read and circulate his post. Meanwhile, I will continue to work at my own post.  (It's hard for me.)

http://atomicinsights.com/agencies-should-not-allow-creation-of-a-hostile-environment-at-public-meetings/

THIS JUST IN!

Dan Yurman posted on this subject, including his own exchange with the NRC.  Dan is a hero, too!

Yes, it is time that everyone felt safe at these meetings.  Time and past time!

Thank you,  Rod  Adams and Dan Yurman.

http://neutronbytes.com/2015/03/05/nrc-must-do-more-to-insure-civility-at-its-public-hearings/

THIS I MISSED EARLIER

Wow, I am ever OUT of it!  Steve Aplin at Canadian Energy Issues also saw my link to the meeting video, and he has a wonderful post comparing the activities of the nuclear opponents, and the non-activity of the police in the meeting, with the methods of intimidation used against newly-freed slaves during Reconstruction.

Thank you Steve!  Great comments on this post, too!

Free speech, Monty Python, and Civil War reconstruction: anti-nukes are not funny

---

I decided to embed a video of the entire meeting. The three posts above are a far better introduction, but in case you want to see it…here it is.

Opponents Claim That Vermont Yankee is More Dangerous Than Ever

The Claim: It's More Dangerous Than Ever

All the fuel has been removed from the Vermont Yankee reactor, and is now in the fuel pool. Please keep that in mind as you read the rest of this blog post.

Weather Update: I have heard that the opponent's meeting tonight in Brattleboro has been cancelled due to weather.

A Letter About the Increasing Danger

Fuel pool
Wikipedia

A recent letter in the Greenfield, MA, Recorder claimed that Vermont Yankee is Still a Public Safety Threat. The first sentence of her letter says: When Vermont Yankee nuclear plant shut down on Dec. 29, 2014, the threat to public safety did not end, in fact it may have increased

Ms. Kosterman is concerned with the spent fuel pool, the fact that Vermont Yankee is downsizing its staff, and the end of some types of planning and notification for the Emergency Planning Zone.  Of course, she mentions the terrible situation of the Fukushima spent fuel pools where...well, actually, nothing happened at the Fukushima fuel pools, but she doesn't mention that.

A quote from Kosterman's letter:

With Vermont Yankee downsizing its staff, is there enough security and oversight to protect citizens from terrorist threats? And, if we lose power due to severe weather or if the grid goes down for any reason, will the backup generators be sufficient to cool the spent fuel pool to ensure public safety? 

She recommends writing the NRC during the decommissioning comment period, and asking them to deny any request by Entergy that lowers the company's expenses for safety-related funding.

The State Says It Needs to Monitor the Fuel Pool

Well, yeah sure. That was a letter from a member of the local anti-nuclear campaign. Surely the state government takes a more realistic view?

Don't bet on it.

As I described in a recent post, the NRC allowed Vermont Yankee to downsize their data systems and staffing, now that the reactor is de-fueled. The state is officially worried about this.  An article by John Herrick in Vermont Digger quotes Chris Recchia, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, as follows:

(Recchia) said the state is evaluating an appeal to a decision by a federal panel that approved the elimination of the data system.
He said he has “deep concerns” about the safety of the plant without the state being able to monitor radiological conditions in the spent fuel pool..... Without the data management system, the state will not have real-time access to the conditions in the pool.

Apparently the state feels it needs and deserves real-time data on the fuel pool.


Gearing Up for the NRC Meeting 

On February 19, in Brattleboro, the NRC will hold a meeting on the Vermont Yankee decommissioning report. (I recommend the Entergy's VY Decommissioning web site for access to all reports.)   The opponents are gearing up for this meeting by hosting two preparatory meetings, one in Brattleboro on Monday February 9 (I have heard this meeting has been cancelled due to weather), and one in Montpelier on Wednesday February 11.

The opponents don't seem to know that the reactor is shut down.  A quote from the Montpelier meeting announcement:  With the slow motion Fukushima disaster highlighting the vulnerabilities of Mark 1 reactors, how will the state deal with the increased vulnerability of this aged reactor?

Hey guys....news flash!  The reactor doesn't have fuel in it!  The fuel has been removed!  The reactor is  no more vulnerable than any other large inert piece of metal.   Sigh. Sometimes, "respecting your opponents" can be uphill work.

With or without my respect, the opponents are getting ready to confront the NRC again.  Leslie Sullivan Sachs, a leader of an anti-nuclear campaign, wrote this letter to The Commons:  You Don't Need to be a Rocket Scientist. Her letter focuses on being heard at the February 19 NRC meeting on Vermont Yankee decommissioning.

Beyond the NRC Meeting: Gearing up for petitions and contentions

Another nuclear opponent, Clay Turnbull, wrote a comment on Sach's letter. Turnbull felt it was important to say that the February 19 NRC meeting will not be the last chance to take an important part in Vermont Yankee decommissioning.  Here's part of Turnbull's comment on the Sachs letter (I can't seem to link directly to the comment.)

Point of clarification: NRC will be holding a Public Meeting, not a Public Hearing. In a meeting there is no test of truthfulness. In a hearing everything NRC says in under oath and on the record. .....whenever NRC licensing actions involve nuclear reactors, as it the case at Entergy Vermont Yankee, an opportunity to file requests for a hearing and to file a petition to intervene comes with that licensing action. Each time Entergy requests a licence amendment or exemption from regulations is an opportunity for the public to challenge that action with all parties under oath....the public meeting on Feb 19...(should be seen) as the beginning, rather than the end, of opportunities to engage NRC... [Edited to add: The writer is a staff member of the New England Coalition, an antinuclear organization based in Brattleboro.]

Note: Howard Shaffer also has a comment on the Sachs letter.  His comment is excellent and worth reading.

Fear or money? My cynical impression on all of this

I don't think the anti-nuclear groups are equally afraid of a closed plant and an operating plant.  However, I do think they are afraid of losing their funding.  Because, after all, if you successfully "eliminate the danger" by closing the plant,  people may begin to direct their donations and their activism elsewhere.  To maintain funding, you have to say that the plant is still very dangerous.

If a plant being decommissioned is as dangerous as an operating plant, then the fear goes on.  And with  the fear (with any luck), maybe their donations will go on, too.

Updated: NRC Review Meeting for Vermont Yankee Next Week

Update: Laugh Tracks
May 29, 2014

I decided not to go to the meeting.  This morning, Susan Smallheer wrote an article about it in the Rutland Herald.  This article is behind a paywall, but here's a short quote:

Activists brought "laugh track" buttons that they used whenever there was a response from William Dean, the Region One administrator for the NRC, as well as others. 

I am glad I skipped this meeting. With this kind of organized opposition, my presence would have done little good.

Okay.  I admit it.  If the plant was going to continue operating, I would have gone to the meeting anyway.

---------
The Meeting and the Findings

Next week, the  NRC will hold its annual public meeting to discuss the NRC's safety assessment of Vermont Yankee. The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 28, 2014, at 6:30 p.m. at the Brattleboro Union High School. You can follow the NRC link to the meeting information here.

From the meeting information,  you can follow links to find the assessment letter that the NRC sent to Vermont Yankee. The plant is operating well. As reported in Vermont Digger, the NRC concluded that: "Overall, the Vermont Yankee plant...operated safely during 2013, with no findings exceeding very low safety significance. As a result, Vermont Yankee will continue to receive the NRC’s normal level of oversight for the remainder of 2014..."

In other words, everything is fine at the plant.  Everything is probably not going to be fine at the NRC meeting.

The Opponents

Godzilla
This is not a picture of
 VY opponents

Some opponents think the NRC couldn't do its job without their assistance. As reported in The Commons, one opponent said: “In my experience a good number of people at the NRC want to do the right thing, they want to be vigorous and fair regulators, but they need our help..."

Well, I suppose you could call it "help."  Judging by previous years, many opponents don't actually "help."  The NRC cannot seem to keep order at these meetings in Brattleboro.

This is what happens at the meetings. The NRC staff show up.  There's a moderately civilized "science fair" until the major opponent groups show up. Then everyone goes into the meeting room. The opponents march around in costume and chant. The opponents shout at the NRC people. Then the meeting is over for another year.

I have reported on these NRC meetings several times in the past:

2012: NRC Public Meeting in Brattleboro: The Politics of Intimidation
2013: Speaking out of turn at the NRC meeting

In fairness to the opponents, not all of them march around and shout.  Some opponents get pretty frustrated at these meetings, just as plant supporters get frustrated.  Quieter voices can't get a word in edgewise.

My Plans

Will I go to the meeting?  Will I stay home?  I don't know.

These meetings are unpleasant experiences, but I always go to support the plant.  But since the plant is shutting down anyway, I am not sure it is worth the hassle.  I mean, I am sure I'll see the new costumes and masks in a newspaper article or in Vermont Digger.  It's not worth going to the NRC meeting just for the fashion show.

Do I urge plant supporters to go to the meeting?  Since I am not sure if I will attend, I would be hypocritical if I urged everyone else to go.  On the other hand, there are reasons to go. A supporter can visible and maybe have a small quote in one of the newspapers.  That is worth something.

Still,  the night of the NRC meeting is probably a great night to go out with a friend and see the movie Godzilla.   If you're going to spend an evening worrying about radioactivity, at least you can have some fun.  Afterwards, you can vote in the Nuclear Energy Institute poll:   Is Godzilla Your Favorite Radioactive Monster?   Since "radiation" makes most of the blockbuster movie monsters (and it makes some good guys, like Spider Man),  you will have many monsters to consider.

The movie sounds like more fun than the NRC meeting.

I'm trying to make up my mind.

NRC Meeting about Vermont Yankee: What Wasn't Shown

Tension at the NRC Meeting

The day after the NRC meeting about Vermont Yankee, I wrote a post Mellow Meeting of the NRC in Brattleboro.  Actually, the meeting was only mellow in comparison with last year's meeting: The Politics of Intimidation.  This year, women with Jaczko masks once tried to disrupt the meeting by standing behind the NRC people, chanting and making speeches (photo at left). Once again, the NRC members left the room and then came back into the room.  Once again, the women stood behind the NRC after the NRC came back.

However, the women didn't succeed this year.  Eventually the women sat down and the meeting proceeded.

Eventually, I took action

Um, did I say "eventually?" I should have said something stronger.  The problem is that I don't like to toot my own horn.  But I did take action that helped get the meeting back on track, and it is worth sharing that action with my readers.

At the meeting, the women were chanting, the NRC was trying to talk over them, a man from the audience shouted "It's about Democracy!" and I had personally had enough.  I went up to an open mike that was standing in the middle of the room, and I interrupted the whole thing. I said, quite loudly:

“No, it’s about diversity! It’s about whether people with different opinions and different views and different backgrounds will be allowed to talk at this meeting! Apparently not!”

Then I left the microphone. The meeting had grown quiet while I spoke (it was so unexpected) and the police soon persuaded the women to sit down.

I blogged about this incident at ANS Nuclear Cafe: Speaking Out of Turn at the NRC Meeting. On that post, I treasure a comment from a man who was at the meeting and wanted to thank me after the meeting.  Unfortunately,  I was feeling sort of shaky from the strain of doing something like that, and I left the meeting a bit early.

OMG, It Isn't There

A few days later, I found that community TV had recorded the meeting.  I thought: "Oh dear. What did it look like when I went up to that microphone?" I was scared to look at the video, but I needn't have worried.  The incident wasn't there at all.

The TV people apparently felt that the women chanting, the NRC leaving the room and coming back, the NRC trying to talk above the chanting, me making my statement, the police approaching the women..none of that was worth recording.  I don't know how they concluded this: in retrospect, it was all rather dramatic theater. But none of it is on the video.

If you look at the video below, a man from the NRC refers to the incident with some statement like: "if there is more disruption, we will have to take a break."  The video cameras follow the women walking peaceably around the "science fair" part of the meeting and then you see them sitting peaceably in the chairs during the question period.  In the video, you see me and my friend Guy Page (frequent guest blogger) speak to the NRC once the meeting was underway. Our remarks start at about the 11 minute mark on the video.

The TV video makes the situation look darn mellow.  That is not how it happened, my friends.  That is not how it happened.

Mellow Meeting of NRC in Brattleboro

Low Attendance, Mellow Meeting

Last night's NRC meeting about Vermont Yankee was relatively mellow.  The meeting took place at Brattleboro High School, and was lightly attended.  The first part of the meeting was a science-fair set up, in which people talked and looked at exhibits. As  you can tell by the two pictures, there weren't many people there.

As they did last year, the Shut It Down Affinity Group (aka Raging Grannies) came in again, wearing costumes and masks. Once again, they walked single file around the room.  I hope you can tell (despite my lousy photography) that they were wearing tie-dyed shirts and wore masks of former NRC commissioner Jaczko.

Later, when the more formal presentation was supposed to start, the women once again stood behind the NRC people. The women refused to sit down, and delayed the start of the meeting. They read long letters and repeated quotes from Jaczko about how all nuclear plants must be shut down.

However, unlike last year, the crowd did not swarm up and surround the NRC people in solidarity with them. (There wasn't much of a crowd, anyway.) So the Jaczko impersonators  eventually sat down and the meeting proceeded.

Vignettes from the meeting

Being Friendly: During the open house, Cheryl Twarog (plant supporter), Mike Mulligan (plant opponent) and myself had a very friendly and upbeat conversation about children, the Navy, where we grew up, high school experiences, and so forth.

Aside: My husband was a baby during WWII, but later served on a destroyer (a "tin can"). I remember urging Cheryl and Mike (both associated with Navy nuclear) to read this book about destroyers in a major battle in WWII --  The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.  I also recommend it to the readers of this blog.

Being Unfriendly:  During the meeting, a woman with a heavy German accent (I don't know her at all) gave the usual anti-Vermont Yankee spiel, including lots of comments about Fukushima.   She ended it with the question: "How did you [addressing the NRC people] ever become so contemptuous of other human beings that you encourage nuclear power?" (I didn't record the question, but this was the gist of it.)  At that point, the NRC people began talking about what happened at Fukushima and what we have learned. She interrupted them to say: "I had ONLY ONE question: how did you became so contemptuous of your fellow human beings?" This woman sure had an advanced case of self-righteousness!

Update: My blog post on the meeting is up at the ANS Nuclear Cafe today: Speaking Out of Turn at the NRC Meeting.  The post is about how I spoke out of turn, and how that helped the meeting get back to order.

Further Reading:

• Annual assessment letter for Vermont Yankee from NRC.  All green.
• NRC announcement of the open house and the annual assessment: includes many links to more detailed information.
• March 2013 Nuclear Performance Monthly from NEI, including this quote: For the third time since 2007, Vermont Yankee ran continuously during 2012 and part of 2013 before shutting down for refueling on March 9 (a 493-day run). The unit also achieved continuous runs during 2006-2007 (547 days) and 2009-2010 (532 days).
• NRC Hears Concerns about Vermont Yankee (article by Susan Smallheer in the Times-Argus).

----------
One of the people in masks was kind enough to stop and pose while I took a picture, but I did a bad job of taking that picture, and so it isn't on the blog. I apologize.  My camera is old and is getting unreliable.

Earnings, Lawsuits, NRC Meeting: Playing Catch-up

So much action, so little time!  In the past few days or coming up soon:

• Entergy filed its first-quarter earnings report.
• Entergy sued about the state delaying permission for Vermont Yankee diesel generators.
• Yearly NRC meeting on Vermont Yankee is scheduled for Tuesday, April 30 in Brattleboro.  

Frankly, each of these could be its own blog post, but that is not going to happen very quickly.  So here's a little catch-up!

More catch-up soon on Howard Shaffer's presentation yesterday to the legislative committee, but that will be its own blog post. His presentation went very well.

First Quarter Earnings

In late March, I wrote a post about Vermont Yankee Financial Analysis: The Write-Down and More.  In this post, I noted that Entergy had taken a "write-down" (decreased the official valuation) on the Vermont Yankee power plant in April 2012, and that an analyst report said that the plant was quite likely to be closed by Entergy.  However, that same report considered the rise in natural gas prices to be "recent rally" caused by some kind of "perceived supply constraint."  The report claimed that this natural gas supply constraint would be easily remedied by FERC and ISO-NE actions. 

At the time, I wrote that I didn't see anything in the Entergy's reports or the analyst report that showed the merchant-generator nuclear plants to be operating at a loss.  Also, I said I didn't believe the rising price of natural gas was a "recent rally" that would be easily fixed. In other words, I believed that the merchant plants were running profitably 

Well, yeah.  I was right.  (Note. I am not in the stock-evaluation business. I just like to boast when I'm right.) 

 The Entergy press release on its first quarter earnings show that earnings went from  $0.44 a share first quarter last year to $0.94 cents a share first quarter this year.  The press release also mentions Vermont Yankee's breaker-to-breaker run.  

Lots more information is available in the earnings report and the earnings call transcript at Seeking Alpha.  The regulated utility business earned $0.69/share (as-reported figure) and the merchant plants earned $0.46/ share. In other words, the merchant plants made a very significant input to Entergy's profitability.

Basically, the rise in gas prices led to these increased profits. Nationwide, gas prices doubled this year: gas prices went from below $2 MMCF in April 2012 to above $4 MMCF in April 2013. Also, there were local supply constraints (very few pipelines). During the cold weather, pipeline constraints led to amazingly high local natural gas prices, and therefore to high grid prices and high earnings for the merchant plants.  No surprises there.  

Most of the earnings call ignored the merchant plants (except for discussing the tragic accident in Arkansas and its implications). The call focused on a planned merger or spin-off or something (I didn't follow it) of part of Entergy's regulated transmission business in the South.

New Lawsuit

Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam

Also in March, I wrote about Vermont Yankee's need for a new diesel generator: Black start, Intervention and some links.  Vermont Yankee needs the generator in  order to meet the NRC's black start requirements when Vernon Dam is no longer considered a black start facility. (Black start facilities are charged with re-energizing the grid after a major regional power outage.) Vermont Yankee applied to the Vermont Public Service Board for permission (Certificate of Public Good) to install this generator.  I wrote that intervenors had been allowed on the docket, and were complicating and delaying the granting of this certificate.

Well, on Wednesday, the PSB issued a scheduling order which showed that the docket will not be resolved until considerably AFTER the date that Vermont Yankee needs to begin constructing the pad for the diesel. On Thursday (yesterday) Vermont Yankee sued the state in federal court. Entergy said that the PSB was interfering with nuclear safety, a federal mandate. Andrew Stein of Vermont Digger has a good article on this issue: Entergy files new lawsuit against Vermont, this time over diesel backup power permit. 

Update: The Digger article now has a link to the Entergy filing.  Interestingly, Entergy asked TransCanada to keep Vernon Dam as a blackstart facility.  That is, Entergy asked TransCanada to contract with Entergy to keep the dam blackstart-ready (Entergy would pay for this, no doubt). However, TransCanada refused to make this contract.  This info is on page 15 of the document linked above.

NRC Meeting

On April 30, at Brattleboro Union High School, the NRC will hold its annual meeting to discuss its Vermont Yankee safety assessment. The meeting will begin at 5:30 with an open house and follow with a question and answer period. Here's the NRC announcement.

Last year's NRC meeting was very unpleasant, in an atmosphere close to mob rule.  I wrote about it at ANS Nuclear Cafe, with the title NRC Meeting in Brattleboro: The Politics of Intimidation.

Yes.  I am going again this year.  I believe in showing up.

NRC leaving meeting, 2012
Police protecting them from protestors
that had surrounded their seats at the
front of the room

The opponents will show up also, I am sure.  Or not.  I am not so sure. A letter by Nancy Braus in The Commons (Brattleboro newspaper) claims the NRC doesn't listen and is "not our voice."   It claims we have wasted our time preparing questions and sharing our education with  the NRC. The letter is described as follows: This letter is written on behalf of the Safe and Green Campaign, an antinuclear organization comprised of people who live in the evacuation zone around Vermont Yankee.

Personally, I can assure you that the NRC listens to everyone--the letter-writer here seems to think that "listen to us" means "obey us." Oh well.  

Anyhow, the fact that the letter was written "on behalf of" the major local anti-nuclear campaign makes me wonder whether some of them will boycott the meeting, and maybe there will be less intimidation this year.    I hope so.

Update: Whoops. I was wrong. It's the opposite of a boycott.  I just looked at my home-town paper, and the campaign is running a carpool from White River Junction to Brattleboro for the meeting.  So I expect a big opponent presence at the meeting. There may have been carpools other years, but if so, the carpools weren't announced in my local paper. 

Guest Post on San Onofre by Nuclear Engineer Ken Schultz. Steam generators not a safety issue

Combustion Engineering steam generators
are similar to this Westinghouse version

I recently blogged about how I "told you so" about the San Onofre Steam Generators: Steam Generator Thoughts and Future. I told you so. I noted that the new steam generators have problems, and I referenced my previous predictions that the SONGS plants will be restarted with lower water speeds and lower power output.

On October 9, the NRC held a public meeting near the plant.  (Here's the L A Times report.) At the NRC meeting, a set of panelists expressed their views on the steam generator issues, followed by questions from the audience.  One of the panelists was Ken Schultz, who is a nuclear engineer and a registered professional engineer in the state of California. Dr. Schultz has graciously allowed me to use his opening statement as a guest post.  A summary of his statement might be: "Steam generator tube ruptures at San Onofre will not be a safety issue."

Remarks to NRC Pubic Meeting, Tuesday 9 October 2012 on San Onofre Steam Generator Tube Leakage

Dr. Kenneth R Schultz, Ph.D., P.E.

Hi, I’m Ken Schultz and I live in Leucadia about 25 miles downwind of San Onofre.  I am a Registered Professional Nuclear Engineer and retired a year ago after a 40 year career at General Atomics, working on a variety of nuclear projects.  I have never worked for Southern California Edison nor for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.  I have no financial ties to either of them and am not being paid to attend this meeting, something I’m get used to being retired.  My knowledge about SONGS comes from my general training as a nuclear engineer and from the press.  I am the chair of the local Section of the American Nuclear Society, which is the professional technical association for people working in all aspects of nuclear energy.  Our members include people throughout Southern California, including people working at SONGS.  My remarks today are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent positions of the ANS

We are here to discuss the NRC’s current regulatory oversight status of SONGS.  I have interacted with members of the NRC during my career and have always found them to be technically skilled, extremely conscientious and critical of all data and conclusions given to them.  In my interactions with them on advanced nuclear reactor designs, they were always interested in new designs with improved safety characteristics, and encouraged their investigation.  I have no doubt that the NRC staff are applying the same skills and dedication to their oversight of San Onofre.

I am concerned that the press is saying the NRC thinks this may be a long investigation.  I think it’s important to keep perspective that the size of the investigation is consistent with the size of the risk.  A case in point is the SONGS steam generators situation.  These are clearly important pieces of equipment and cost a great deal.  They appear to have been incorrectly designed and to be wearing out prematurely.

Now, everything in a nuclear power plant must be investigated from a safety perspective, but the steam generators appear to not be a serious safety issue.  Based on the tiny radiation dose that resulted from the failure of the Unit 3 steam generator tube, I estimate that even if all the 515 steam generator tubes that are affected by the premature wear problem were to fail simultaneously, the radiation released to a person standing at the worst place on the site boundary for the full duration of the accident would result in a dose of less than 1 µSv.  Let’s put that in perspective. Low doses of radiation are a natural part of our environment.  Life on earth evolved in the constant presence of low level radiation.  Every year each of us living in Southern California receives about 3,000 µSv of radiation from cosmic rays, radioactive minerals in the earth and our food, and from medical and dental x-rays.  If we live at higher elevation, like Denver, we’d receive about 6,000 µSv/year.  If we fly a lot we’ll get an extra 2,000 µSv/year.

So that extra µSv from a steam generator accident would be like spending less than a day in the mountains, or taking less than one airline flight.  I don’t see this as a safety issue.  Further, there is growing scientific evidence that low level doses of radiation are not only not harmful, but may be beneficial in stimulating the body’s cellular repair systems. Again, I don’t see the steam generator problem as a safety issue and urge the NRC to proceed with their investigation.

MOX and Hearings in Chattanooga

Plutonium pacemaker battery,
circa 1974

MOX and Meetings

Today in Chattanooga, the NRC is holding hearings on the possible use of MOX (mixed-oxide) fuel in Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power plants.  MOX fuel consists of plutonium and uranium oxides.  In the Tennessee reactors, the plutonium in the fuel will come from warheads: they will be blended down to reactor fuel.  The Megatons to Megawatts program that did the same sort of thing with uranium in warheads. Similarly, using MOX fuel in power reactors will move us toward non-proliferation and sustained peace.

MOX fuels have been used all over the world, for at least twenty years. Widespread use of MOX fuels began in the 1980s: currently, thirty reactors in France are using MOX fuel (data from the World Nuclear Association).  Also, as Howard Shaffer points out, all light water reactors use MOX fuel: some plutonium is made and used within the reactor, even though the fuel started as 100% uranium.

Naturally, some people are against using MOX.

The MOX fuel hearing in Chattanooga may be contentious, and the American Nuclear Society has encouraged its local members to come to the hearing and tell the fact-based, pro-nuclear side of the story.  They will be tweeting about it using the hashtag #MOXchat.  I will be doing a lot of retweeting this evening!

More about MOX

Dan Yurman writes about the meeting and the issues at Idaho Samizdat: Calling Out Red Herrings about MOX fuel.

ANS Nuclear Cafe has a Call to Action about the meeting:

David Pointer of the ANS Public Information Committee has a post on ANS Man vs the Anti-Nuclear Zombie Plague.  Pointer is the cartoon character in the post, as well as the superhero.  I mean, when he's Pointer in the illustrations, he has his actual red mohawk hair.  When he's ANS Man, he looks more like a conventional superhero. (Pointer went to school in Tennessee).

At Atomic Insights, Rod Adams posts about Plutonium Power to the People.

There's a video about MOX fuel at the ANS Nuclear Cafe post: Dr Ivan Maldonada presents ANS comments to TVA 

Areva has been making MOX fuel for French reactors for twenty years or so.  Areva has a very informative post: Can you talk MOX? Ten things you should know about MOX Nuclear Fuel.

William Tucker at Nuclear Townhall on MOX on the Witness Stand in Chattanooga.

Happy reading!  Happy weapons-to-clean-power transformations!

Sending my support and respect to my nuclear friends in Tennessee!

American Nuclear Society Awards to Shaffer and Angwin

Howard Shaffer and Meredith Angwin
receive Presidential Citation Awards from
ANS Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen

The Awards

On Monday, June 25, Howard Shaffer and I received Presidential Citation Awards from the American Nuclear Society President, Eric Loewen.

Howard's plaque says:

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.

My plaque says:

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.


How do we feel about it?

Well, you can see us grinning in the picture above! It was a wonderful thing to be honored this way, We have both worked hard to support nuclear energy in general and Vermont Yankee in particular. It felt amazing to have our work honored at this meeting, and to have people congratulating us in the hallways, at the lunch tables, and so forth.  You can read the ANS Nuclear Cafe blog post about us here.

Other people also received honors and awards, and some were made Fellows of the American Nuclear Society.  You can see their pictures, and read links to their stories, at this Honors and Awards post at ANS Nuclear Cafe.

What did we learn?

The main thing, for me, was learning we are not alone.  I had many conversations with other people who are also working hard to dispel the fear, uncertainty and doubt surrounding nuclear power.  I realized that building a community of nuclear supporters is the true aim.

I remember when I started my own efforts, and someone asked me "what  do you hope to accomplish?"  They asked rather aggressively, and I don't know what they expected my answer to be.   I said I wanted make it possible for people support nuclear power--and feel safe about saying they support it.

The importance of community

Some people advocate raising school taxes and others disagree. Both sides feel fine about expressing their views in public forums.  Both sides know that plenty of people disagree with them, but they also know that most people are going to keep it civil, and those who don't keep it civil will not be supported in their rudeness.

In contrast, people supporting nuclear power in Vermont are likely to feel intimidated by the opposition.  Opponents shout at meetings. They drive NRC officials out of the room or throw manure in their water glasses. There was arson at Vermont Yankee's office building.  (The office building is not on the plant site.)  The people who do these things are applauded by the other opponents.

In my opinion, one of the reasons that the opponents can get away with this type of action is that so few supporters bother to show up at hearings and so forth.  If there were more of us at the meetings, less intimidation would be possible

As I learned at the ANS meeting, pro-nuclear people are beginning to show up.  This is happening all over the country. Nuclear supporters are beginning to form communities.  Mutual support and community among people in favor of nuclear power is essential.  In my opinion, it is happening.

107th Carnival of Nuclear Energy at Idaho Samizdat

The 107th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Idaho Samizdat.

Brian Wang of Next Big Future blogs about the restart (within about two months) of some of Japan's nuclear reactors.  The prime minister has said that it is necessary to restart some of the reactors.  You are unlikely to read about this in the popular press.

Eric McErlain of NEI Nuclear Notes discusses that bluefin tuna: "I once caught a fish story this big!" Meanwhile, Rod Adams shows that myths about nuclear accidents lead to real illness and disruption. Dan Yurman of  Idaho Samizdat reports on up to $452 million  (cost-shared) for small modular reactor development from the Department of Energy.  Les Corrice of Hiroshima Syndrome covers events in Japan, with what could be called a "critical review" (very critical) of some official Japanese statements.

Other bloggers cover the history of Knolls Research labs (Will Davis, Atomic Power Review), advances in nuclear medicine (Robert Hayes, Science and Technology), contentious NRC meetings (me at ANS Nuclear Cafe) and NRC granting license extensions to Pilgrim and Columbia stations (me at my own blog).  Charles Barton at Nuclear Green discusses the Green party...opposed to nuclear, opposed to genetically modified grain, opposed to...well, luddites maybe?  Brian Wang also discusses China, which is once again on track to install a lot of nuclear capacity.

Reunion

I was out of town for a few days at a high school reunion. I went to University of Chicago Laboratory High School (U-High, U-High, high and mighty.  Looking for a basket, we'll find it. Win this game...).  The reunion was terrific.  Transformative, really.  I find it hard to write about this reunion.

Due to the reunion, I had to rethink "who I am" in at least one important way. My internal story about my life is that I started out as a nerd and I stayed a nerd.  In this internal story,  it's odd and unusual that I speak so often in public places. Because, after all: "I'm just a quiet type."

However, when I met the people who knew me in high school, some of them were aware that I went to college and majored in chemistry.  But many of them remembered me from high school, not as a nerd, but as one of the female leads in the senior class play.  They remembered me from the drama club and the various plays.

Until this reunion, I had forgotten my early love of drama, of being on-stage, of being part of a group effort, of speaking in public, and, yes, of receiving applause.  My inner ham-bone! All of a sudden, the Energy Education Project, speaking and debating--it  didn't seem like such a weird departure from anything I had ever done before.  After the reunion, my involvement in the Energy Education Project had a feeling of wholeness to it, a feeling of being a true part of me.

I am grateful to the reunion for giving me this insight.

More about the reunion. One of my classmates, Irving Wladawsky-Berger, has written a fabulous blog post about his personal history, his plans to come to the reunion, and his experience at U-High.  I recommend it.  If you don't read the whole thing, at least read the part about escaping from Cuba with some money hidden in a tube of talcum power....

Happy reading, of both the Carnival and Irving's blog post!

Blaine Hall at Lab School, from Wikipedia.

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.

Carnival 106 of Nuclear Bloggers at Atomic Power Review

Will Davis of Atomic Power Review has posted the 106th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers.  It's been an exciting week in nuclear, with Jaczko resignation and the nomination of his successor, and it is great to see the blog Carnival go up.  I also want to give Davis a lot of credit for devoting his time to this work during this beautiful and solemn weekend.

Several posts (Atomic Insights, Neutron Economy, Idaho Samizdat, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Next Big Future) discuss Jaczko's departure and the marginal qualifications of his nominated successor. Nuke Power Talk discusses "electricity too cheap to meter"..would that be a good thing? Hiroshima Syndrome describes the Japanese government shooting itself in the foot by objecting the World Health Organization numbers on radiation releases. Yes Vermont Yankee attends an NRC review meeting that has the characteristics of a mob scene.  Canadian Energy Issues describes world-wide CANDU construction projects, and what they have learned from the Canadian experience.  Next Big Future also debunks the latest "nuclear winter" scenario.

A good Carnival, and worth attending!

Planned Disruption at NRC Meeting

Disruption at the NRC review meeting last night was carefully planned.  This video shows a lot of it, but not all.  It doesn't show the noisemakers and whistles in use, or the group chanting.

I have a cameo appearance in this two-minute video.
I also recommend this morning's Brattleboro Reformer article about the meeting.
Update: This Keene Sentinel article describes some of the noisy chanting.  Also describes how the one person who spoke in favor of Vermont Yankee was shouted down.

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.

May 23 NRC Meeting. Show Up for Vermont Yankee

"Ninety percent of life is just showing up."  Woody Allen

On May 23 the NRC will hold its annual "Report to the Public" meeting at Brattleboro Union High School.  The NRC will discuss the plant's 2011 performance.

As described in the NRC meeting notice, there will be an Open House from 5:30-6:30 p.m. This will give meeting attendees an opportunity to talk one on one with Region I staff members.

From 7-8:30 there will be a Public Q &A session.  No formal presentation is planned.

What You Can Do

1. Attend for whatever portion of the time you can.
2. Wear pro Vermont Yankee and pro nuclear power buttons.
3. Ask leading questions.  The NRC tends to answer what is asked and does not try to resolve the underlying issues.  Ask them questions they can answer in a positive manner.
4. Dialogue with plant opponents.  Remain calm.  If and when they get emotional, don't join them in getting emotional.
5. Introduce yourself to elected officials.  Elected officials and their representatives attend this meeting.  Introduce yourself.  Let them know your feelings and beliefs. Show them that nuclear energy has supporters.

Some history: For many years, one particular opponent has continually interrupted these meetings with outbursts.  Last year I had enough.  I sent in the feedback form, complaining that my right to speak was taken away by the outbursts chewing up time.  I also sent the form and a letter to Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, my senator.  The Senator is on the Committee that oversees the NRC and I worked on her election campaign.  I got a response from her office.  We'll see what effect this may have on the meeting.

Possible Questions

1. Isn't the NRC's legal mandate from Congress to have nuclear power safely, but to have nuclear power?  Safety could be assured by not having nuclear power at all, but then the benefits Congress wants would not be received.  With planes, we could be safe by just never flying.  Then there would be no accidents, but also no benefits.
2. Some opponents of nuclear power say the NRC does not listen to them.  Isn't it true that the NRC listens to opponents, and understands what the opponents want, but the NRC's answer is "No.  We disagree.  If you want to change national policy on nuclear power, you have to get Congress to do it."
3. Opponents of nuclear power charge that the NRC has never turned down a license renewal.  Isn't true that filing a formal renewal application is expensive, and plants can talk to the NRC staff informally?  Isn't it true that if a plant thinks they won't get a renewal, or it will be too expensive, then they don't bother applying?  Isn't it true that this has happened?
4. Does the NRC regulate on the basis that"any amount of radiation is harmful?"
5. Does the NRC regulate on the expectation of perfection in hardware and human performance?
6. Isn't it true that used fuel in Dry Casks can't melt down in air, so that if terrorists blew them open the fuel pellets would just lie there, cooled by air as they are now?

Your own questions will probably be better.

Hope to see you there, if I make it.  We are traveling for a family wedding and may not be back in time. I will try to be there.

A Note from Meredith

This post was written by Howard Shaffer.  Your usual blogger, Meredith Angwin, expects to be at the NRC meeting.

She also suggests two links:

• All NRC assessment findings were green: the NRC letter to Vermont Yankee on March 5, 2012
• Her blog post about last year's NRC meeting: Opponents requested that NRC not answer their questions. They didn't want the NRC to "take up" their question-asking time by providing answers. 

The Commerce Clause, the Role of Vermont Yankee, and the Troubles with NRC Meetings

I rarely do a post which is mostly about links to other sources, but here goes. Three important articles, none written by me.

The Commerce Clause and the Shakedown Attempts: When I read the Judge's ruling, I was astounded at the directly-illegal stuff that the Vermont legislature did. As Cavan Stone noted in his guest post on the Control-H defense: what kind of legislature goes on the record with a statement with "Okay, we have to find another word for safety"?

That's all about the pre-emption part of the ruling.

Then there's the part of the ruling about the commerce clause. John McClaughry quotes from the Judge's ruling on that section. The legislature wrote letters to Entergy that could have been written by an assistant to the Godfather. It was basically a shakedown of Entergy. Read McClaughry's post: The Other Part of the Yankee Decision. Reading his post is like watching a gangster movie.

A Victory For Vermonters: The local headlines on the ruling tended to be statements like "A Stinging Defeat." In True North Reports, Guy Page explains why the Murtha Decision was a Victory for Vermonters. Workers, ratepayers and the environment all benefit. He puts Vermont Yankee in context with Vermont power needs, Vermont revenues, ISO-NE and grid stability. A very rational report.

NRC Public Meetings Need Improvement. In July, I wrote about the difficulties of getting on the agenda to speak at the NRC meeting in Brattleboro. Yesterday, at ANS Nuclear Cafe, Suzanne Hobbs Baker wrote of attending an NRC meeting in South Carolina. Her experience had many similarities to my experience in Brattleboro. The NRC has got to make some improvements about how they sign up speakers! Read How to Survive an NRC Public Meeting, and read the comments, too.

BREAKING NEWS AND A FOURTH LINK:

VOGTLE REACTORS APPROVED BY NRC TODAY!

NEI has links and videos!

--------

For the record: I head the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute in Vermont, and John McClaughry is vice-president of that Institute.

Vermont Yankee: Three Insights from the NRC Review Meeting

Two nights ago, June 22, I went to the NRC meeting reviewing Vermont Yankee's 2010 performance.

About 200 people came to the meeting. The NRC planned to spend half an hour on its own presentations, and two hours "addressing public questions." Here are some insights that I had about the opponents, the meeting and the NRC.

1) Fact: Vermont Yankee opponents do not want to listen to the NRC.

Forty-four people submitted questions or comments to the NRC. Many of the questions were multiple questions, and many of the comments were harangues. The NRC people soldiered on, attempting to explain what they could. NRC staff said things such as: "That's a very good question, about water in the cable pipes, and I made this issue my project for the year. Pipes were drained...."

The crowd was visibly annoyed with the NRC responses. Eventually the crowd had had enough information. One woman told the NRC not to respond to her; she didn't want to hear their answers. After that, a shout came from the audience that they had had enough NRC "tongue-wagging" and it was time to let the audience "have a chance." The audience clapped its approval of this statement.

My Insight: Opponents don't trust the NRC and won't even listen to what the NRC says. The NRC review meeting is just another chance for an anti-nuclear rally.

----------

2) Fact: According to Vermont Yankee opponents, the non-existent deaths from the nuclear accident are the most important thing that happened in Japan.

At the beginning of the meeting, the NRC asked for a moment of silence for the tens of thousands of people who lost their lives in the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

Later, one person had her turn to comment: she said was "personally offended" by the silence for the earthquake victims. She was upset that the NRC had forgotten the Fukushima victims. Another comment was: "earthquakes and tsunamis have happened and will happen. The real tragedy is the nuclear tragedy. People will die and the land is ruined forever."

The audience clapped in support of the woman who was offended by the moment of silence. They also clapped and hooted in positive response for anyone who said that they were "very frightened" about nuclear safety, or that their children were not safe, or that the NRC didn't keep people safe, etc.

My Insight: Opponents of nuclear energy are kind people--as individuals. In this audience, they showed themselves cruel and indifferent to other people's suffering (hey, tsunamis happen) but exquisitely attuned to their own fears.

--------

3) Fact: Signups for speaking were a mess, two years in a row.

Nearly two hundred people came to the Vermont Yankee review meeting this year, and about 45 (including myself) signed up to ask questions. Since there were less than three hours for questions and responses, this was not going to work. Some people were not going to have an opportunity to ask their questions. But which people?

Last year, the NRC had multiple sign-up sheets for questions. You might be the first one to sign up, at the top of a sheet...but be twentieth in line to speak. This made people angry.

This year, you handed in a card. The NRC collected the cards and decided the order in which people spoke. The NRC had elected officials speak first. Next came prominent anti-nuclear activists such as Paul Blanch and Ray Shadis. At that point, one man from Vermont Yankee tried to speak, saying he was an elected union official. The NRC wouldn't let him speak because he wasn't a "real" elected official. The NRC's choices seemed very arbitrary. Not everyone was able to speak.

My Insight:. When running a meeting, you should announce in advance the order in which people will be allowed to speak. The NRC does not do it right. They have lots of practice running meetings so I don't understand the problem. Frustration and anger about speaking must happen at NRC meetings all over the country.

For another overview of the meeting, I recommend this article by Olga Peters of The Commons of Brattleboro.

Dice image from Wikipedia