Nuclear and the Trump Administration: Post at Nuclear Engineering International

NRC Chairman Kristine L. Svinicki and Commissioner Jeff Baran.
NRC photo from 2017 Regulatory Information Conference

Trump and Nuclear

Early this year, Nuclear Engineering International Magazine suggested that I write an article about the future of nuclear energy under the Trump administration.  (The magazine is based in Britain.)

This level of prognostication felt a little above my pay grade!

However,  I managed it, because I worked with an excellent co-author, Dr. Gilbert  Brown.  Brown is  emeritus professor/ director of the nuclear engineering program at University of Massachusetts, Lowell.  He is active in nuclear policy and was a Foster Fellow in the U.S. State Department.  Together, Brown and I wrote the article: Nuclear Power in the U.S.A.  It appeared in the March issue of the magazine.

I call the article "prognostication" because it was published in the March issue of Nuclear Engineering International, and written in February.  A  lot of things were in flux at that point. To quote the description of the article in the magazine itself:

President Donald Trump’s first few weeks in office have been a whirlwind of activity. When it comes to nuclear power, there has been some positive momentum with key industry appointments and initiatives for advanced reactors. What might the future hold? By Meredith Angwin and Dr. Gilbert Brown.

Why this article is different

Doctor Gilbert Brown

Though some parts of our article are now out-of date, most of the article is still relevant. In particular, we pushed some boundaries a little in this article. Many people who read nuclear industry periodicals expect to hear about DOE, NRC and EPA (we covered these agencies).

But many nuclear people are somewhat ignorant of FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is the commission that oversees the grid as a whole.

Dr. Brown and I covered the effects of the vacancies at FERC.  We felt we needed to expand our article past the "usual suspects."  FERC has so many vacancies on its board right now that it can't hold important meetings or make certain types of rulings.

I think you will enjoy reading our article about nuclear under Trump.  When I linked to it on Facebook, a very knowledgable man commented that it was a GREAT high-level summary article, and more such articles will be required in the future.
-------------

Endnotes about FERC:

In late March, long after we had finished the article, the Washington Examiner looked at possible FERC appointments in an article titled  The Politics of Fixing FERC.

Much of that article has an inside-baseball feel to it. Read it if you choose, but at any event, I think the title of the article ("Fixing FERC")  is an important  statement.  In my opinion, FERC has been  fast-and-free with its mandate, encountering little oversight and almost no press coverage. Most of FERC's actions have been either neutral or not-good for nuclear.

For example,  I keep meaning to write about FERC 1000, but I am every time I get ready to dive into that deep deep sinkhole, I remember that I wrote a book and I should spend  my time publicizing it.  If you want to know more about recent FERC actions, I suggest reading NESCOE's brief in its lawsuit against FERC: the suit is about FERC 1000.   Start reading the brief on page 4.

NESCOE is an association of New England states: New England States Committee on Electricity.  This association is made up of representatives appointed by the New England governors.  I consider NESCOE to be New England's attempt to defend itself against FERC.

NESCOE is rightly concerned that FERC's policy changes will cause states to be forced to pay for other states requirements for transmission lines--lines built for only for state policy purposes.  It is taxation without representation: one state votes in for a state policy, and other states pay for that policy. Before FERC 1000, states only shared the costs for transmission lines that were needed for grid reliability, not for state policy.

Oh heavens.  See what I mean?  I'm heading down the explaining-FERC sinkhole!  Okay! Done with that!  I'm climbing out now! I'll be okay!  Really...I will!

Endnotes about Nuclear Engineering International Magazine 

My most recent blog post based on a Nuclear Engineering International article is Pay for Performance on the U.S. Grid: No help to nuclear

State Control of Decommissioning Funds is a Bad Idea. Guest Post by Richard January

Vermont State House
The Golden Dome is always after more gold

I read with some concern a news report about a handful of Vermont and Massachusetts members of Congress pushing for more state control over U.S. nuclear plant decommissioning.

As a retired nuclear engineer who sat at many state of Vermont public hearings regarding Vermont Yankee, the idea of giving states control over decommissioning fills me with dread. Vermont’s state energy officials routinely lose control of the microphone to shouting agitators. Many of the “experts” testifying about nuclear safety clearly lack knowledge in depth — a fact apparent to every nuclear professional in the audience, although not necessarily to the presiding state officials.

Although at least two senior state scientists who routinely address these meetings are competent to testify, the general impression I get from state of Vermont officialdom is an anti-nuclear bias and a shaky grasp of the hard and applied science of safe nuclear power plant decommissioning.

In short, I don’t want the state of Vermont, or any state for that matter, minding the store. I much prefer continued oversight by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which for decades has ensured the safe operation of the nation’s fleet of nuclear power plants.

Also, unlike the NRC, Vermont is cash-strapped and forever seeking new funding from Vermont Yankee. In this environment, can we rest easy knowing that all of the state’s decisions would be driven solely by safety, and not by the desire for one more infusion of Vermont Yankee cash? I’m skeptical.

Richard January

-------

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.

January has had  several guest posts at this blog.  The most recent was Fear-mongering delays decomm, in June 2015.

___________

 In order to understand January's guest post, readers need to know that Vermont and other states are lobbying for the NRC to "tighten its rule-making" for decommissioning, as described in this article by Mike Faher at VTDigger. State claims it could be left with big bills for Yankee Cleanup.  The Faher article also appeared on the front page of my local newspaper, the Valley News.

I personally wouldn't say that the state wants to "tighten the rule-making."  I would say that the state wants to "get some money." The state wants, among other things, continued funding for emergency planning, even after the plant is shut down.  They also want SAFSTOR to be allowed for only 10 years, not sixty, and other expensive changes about dry cask storage.  These expensive changes would be funded by the plant, by the NRC increasing the decomm funding requirements.

As January points out, the state of Vermont is perpetually strapped for cash. Last-minute budget deals in the statehouse supposedly balance the ever-expanding state budget.  Losing Vermont Yankee funding for the Clean Energy Development Fund and for emergency planning--this undoubtedly  hurt the state's financial situation.  (Maybe Vermont should have thought of this earlier, when the governor was leading the chorus of "Shut It Down.")  In my simplistic opinion, the state doesn't want oversight: it wants money.  As January said:  the idea of giving states control over decommissioning fills me with dread.  

Indeed it does.

Why You Can't Trust the State of Vermont to Oversee the Decommissioning Fund

Crystal ball

The State Foresees the Future and Provides Insults

The State of Vermont insists that it needs to have oversight of Entergy's Vermont Yankee Decommissioning fund. They have often asked for a "seat at the table" when fund disbursements are planned. The state recently petitioned the NRC, asking the NRC to investigate Entergy's finances, and whether or not Entergy would have sufficient funds to decommission Vermont Yankee.  NRC turned down that petition, but the state is back at it.

On Friday, November 6,  groups within the state government (the Attorney General, the Department of Public Service) along with Green Mountain Power, brought a new petition. This new petition to the NRC attempts to limit usage of the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Fund.

While the earlier petition pretty much asked for an investigation, this new petition can best be described as insulting.  Here's a quote from the petition, according to VTDigger's State Ramps Up Pressure on NRC to Review Yankee Spending:

"Considered together, Entergy’s actions threaten to undermine the radiological decommissioning work that is the very purpose of the fund,” the document says. “Unless the commission intervenes, Entergy will divert hundreds of millions of dollars from their intended purpose.”

Wow.  "Entergy will divert." Crystal ball time!  Actually, what Entergy will do is that Entergy will follow all the rules and the guidelines of the NRC. But the state doesn't like that. The state could write: "Hey, NRC, we don't like your guidelines and rules." Instead, the state leads off with an insult directed at Entergy. (Vermont Business Magazine also has a lengthy article on this new petition.)

I Review the Past and Hope the State is Foiled

I found this "[Entergy] will divert millions of dollars" funny, because I have a sick sense of humor sometimes.

Let's say I was required to rank Vermont's ability to oversee projects: say I had to rank Vermont's project oversight on a scale from one to ten.  I would give the state a negative-five rating.  Vermont wants to oversee how Entergy spends its funds?  Is this a joke?

You don't have to dig very deep to come up with huge examples of inadequate project oversight by the state of Vermont. I will give a short list, along with one or two links for each example. Each of these situations has a long and well-documented history.  I could be here for two days, inserting links.

Lousy Project Management by the State of Vermont

Vermont Health Connect

This is the big one. The Shumlin administration wanted to bring single-payer to Vermont, and so it didn't sign up with the federal government for an Affordable Care website. Other states obtained and customized the federal website, and got their Affordable Care websites going fairly quickly, and at reasonable cost.  Vermont decided to build its own software, which didn't work and cost over $200 million.  At this point, we are trapped because, after all, who else can maintain this custom software?

Costs go to $200 Million.  VTDigger.
Trapped in Expensive Quicksand.  John McClaughry of Ethan Allen Institute.

Vermont Public Service Board Commissioners
Margaret Cheny, Chairman James Volz, Sarah Hofmann

Vermont Gas Systems Pipeline

This is big, also.  Basically, Vermont Gas Systems (part of Gaz Metro) proposed a pipeline that was supposed to cost $80 million dollars.  Pipeline technology is comparatively straight-forward: this is not a first-of-a-kind project. The estimated costs have now risen to $150 million, to be paid by Vermont ratepayers.  This cost increase would have put the state Public Service Board  (which approved the project) in a bind where they might have to take some action.  Instead, the administration and Gaz Metro did a de facto end run around the Public Service Board, signing a Memorandum of Understanding and getting the Public Service Board off the hook. AARP is very upset about the effect on ratepayers.

AARP accuses Vermont of End Run in MOU with state. VTDigger

Entergy funds for Windham County Development

This is not so big, but somewhat indicative. In its agreement with the state concerning the last months of Vermont Yankee's operation, Entergy promised to send the state $2 million per year, for five years (total $10 million) for Windham County economic development.  The state has received $4 million of these funds, and I believe is due to receive another $2 million sometime in the next two months.

The state is sitting on most of these funds. So far, it has awarded around $800,000. The Governor makes the final decision on all awards. The Governor says he didn't award the money because the proposals just weren't good enough. If I lived in Windham County, I might find this insulting.

Inadequate project management by the state? Or inadequate proposals? Or the state being comfortable by keeping an extra few million in the bank for a while?  Whatever reason the state has for not-releasing those funds, the funds are currently not-growing the economy of Windham County.

State Reboots Application Process for Entergy Money. Times Argus

My request to the NRC: Please don't let the state of Vermont be the project managers  for the decommissioning funds.
-----

End Note: Project Management and me

I have years of experience and interest in project management. I managed small projects at Acurex, back in the late 70s. In the early 80s, I joined the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), where my title was "Project Manager."  At EPRI, first I managed projects in the renewable division, and later in the nuclear division.  I left EPRI to go into business with a friend. The name of the business was Crescent Project Management.  I think it is still going, but my friend and I went our separate ways, business-wise. Then I started Fourth Floor Databases, Inc. As president of that company, I competed for, won, and managed many projects for utilities. I closed the company after eleven years.  Meeting a payroll in a small business is very stressful.

Nevil Shute

More recently, I have been very interested in the author Nevil Shute. He was a working engineer, a business owner, and an author. In September of this year, I gave a talk at the Nevil Shute Society conference in Oxford. All the talks at the Conference are posted here, and here is a direct link to the audio for my talk: Nevil Shute for Project Managers

My Comment to the NRC in favor of abandoning LNT and ALARA for rule making

Comment on the petition

Recently, three distinguished scientists have filed an NRC petition, asking the NRC to re-visit the radiation protection rule-making which is based on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumption, and the consequent ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) rules.

I posted about this yesterday, also.

Here's the petition in the Federal Register. The comment period is open until September 8, so you have a few days to file your comment.  Please comment.

Update: The comment period is now open until November 19.  (Yes, it surprised me, also.  See the third page of this pdf.)

My Own Comment to the NRC

I support these petitions to base radiation protection on science, not on the assumed linear relationship between harm and dose.

There are very few biological systems that have linear responses between levels of dose.  For example, selenium is both a dreadful poison and an element necessary for life and reproduction.   The effect depends on the dose.  It is not a linear straight-line relationship in which selenium is always harmful but gets more harmful as the dose gets higher.  At low levels selenium is beneficial.  At high doses, it is harmful.

Similarly, the effect of radiation on biological systems is not straightforward.  People living in the mountains, or on granite bedrock, have no more cancer or birth defects than people living with less background radiation.  There is some evidence that radiation is beneficial at low doses: for example, recent experiments in which low doses of radiation extend the life of fruit flies.

(Fruit flies are often used for experiments on genetics.  Example of recent work: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-weak-doses-prolong-life-female.html   )

Whether or not this type of effect (hormesis) is present for humans is still unclear, in my opinion. But it is clear that, at normal background levels at least, a little more radiation does no harm. The linear-no-threshold hypothesis is unproven, useless, and unreasonable.

What the linear non-threshold assumption (for that is all that it is) has done is simply add to expense and anxiety. It leads to ALARA, which is very bad rule-making.

Imagine that all regulations were based on ALARA.  Let's say my town water supply meets all the criteria for purity that such water supplies must meet.  I could go to my select board and insist that they lower the concentration of a certain contaminant by 50%.  They would say that the town supply met all the requirements for water purity.  I would respond that they are being unREASONABLE.  With an ALARA-regulated water supply, if they CAN lower the concentration REASONABLY (and I get to decide what is reasonable), they are required to do so!  It doesn't matter that the water is already safe to drink.  If they were just willing to spend more money, it could be even…well, not safer, but certainly more expensive water!

In short, ALARA must be rescinded.  The very word "reasonable" is unreasonable.  "Reasonable" according to whom?  How much money is it "reasonable" to spend to achieve yet-lower results? And whose money gets spent this way?

Society has many problems and limited resources to address these problems.  I recently read an article showing that NOx (nitrogen oxides produced in combustion processes, and a precursor of ozone and smog) can hide out in soot deposits and re-emerge later, in a more virulently active form.  Perhaps cleaning the soot from city buildings might make city air more wholesome! http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33970233

We have many real gains in public health available, if we can spend the money.

Spending money on radiation ALARA (make it lower and lower and lower) is completely unreasonable.  Unless you are prepared to decide to evacuate Denver for its high background radiation, I hope you will stop insisting on regulation according to LNT and ALARA.

Linear No Threshold: Comment to the NRC

Filing a Petition to the NRC for Reasonable Radiation Rules.

I am a member of S.A.R.I., Scientist for Accurate Radiation Information.  Recently, three distinguished members of SARI have filed an NRC petition, asking the NRC to re-visit the radiation protection rule making which is based on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumption, and the consequent ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) rules.  These rules force the nuclear industry (and any other industry using radiation) to assume that ANY radiation is harmful, and protection against radiation must be constantly increased.

Here's the petition in the Federal Register. The comment period is open until September 8, so you have a few days to file your comment.

Update: The comment period is now open until November 19.  (Yes, it surprised me, also.  See the third page of this pdf.)

The Problem with ALARA

Sunrise in Denver

Due to LNT and ALARA, you can't say: the radiation here is so low that the radiation is not a problem.  Since LNT and ALARA claims that all radiation is harmful, it's a constantly escalating fight against any radiation.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that radiation at the standard background level matters in terms of cancer or birth defects. There is not more cancer in areas with high background radiation (such as Denver) and less cancer in areas with low background radiation (such as the Mississippi Delta).  As a matter of fact, the situation is rather the opposite.  People in Denver tend to be healthier and live longer and so forth.  However, that is more likely to be due to socioeconomic factors than background radiation factors.

There is some evidence that low doses of radiation are protective. This is called hormesis. From what I have read, I have come to think that low levels of radiation are protective, by a sort of vaccination effect. I am also aware that this idea is very controversial.  I am not a biologist, so I don't like to get into the weeds on this.

However, it is completely clear to me that the relationship between cancer and radiation is not linear, or we would have to evacuate Denver posthaste!

Here's a reasonable drawing of the possible shapes of a low-dose radiation effect curve:

• linear response is curve B 
• hormesis protection is curve D, 
• low-dose radiation is worse-than expected is curve A
• low-dose radiation is not-as-bad-as expected is curve C  

As far as I can tell, nobody knows which of these curves is correct.  A and B are least likely to be correct. All the curves agree at high dose, and the effects are very hard to measure at low dose.

From Lawrence Berkeley Lab
Different hypothesis for radiation dose response

The Comments

I will post my own comment as a separate blog post tomorrow.

Please comment if you can.  Here's the link, and then you have to follow the "submit a formal comment" button.  

It took me a while to comment, because I kept thinking---well, I'm not a biologist etc etc. But just look at the opponent comments!  As you can imagine, a lot of the opposition comments are barely one step above: "Are you frigging crazy!  All radiation is dangerous!"

I decided I could comment.  I figured I could do a little better than that.

Some more background

Petitioners:

The three people who submitted petitions to the NRC are:

Dr. Carol S. Marcus, Professor of Radiation Oncology at UCLA
Mark L. Miller, Certified Health Physicist
Dr. Mohan Doss, Associate Professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center

Rod Adams post:

Rod Adams post on pro-nuclear people receiving flak on this (because we are over the target).

NIRS Firing Flak at Pro-Nuclear Fanatics

A couple of random articles I found, plus a link to the S.A.R.I. website, which has more articles

Drosophila Melanogaster

Fruit Fly article the first: Weak radiation doses prolong life in fruit fly females

Fruit fly article the second: Low doses not linear response

(A friend wrote me that he didn't LIKE fruit flies, so what's with the fruit flies?  My answer is one type of fruit fly is frequently used for genetics experiments, and has been for at least fifty years.)

S.A.R.I. http://radiationeffects.org

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.

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

Entergy Uses Decommissioning Fund: State Officials Are Very Upset

Entergy Keeps Its Promises

In terms of decommissioning, Entergy has kept every one of its promises to the state of Vermont, and even gone beyond its promises.  Here's a list:

1) PSDAR: Entergy said it would finish its PSDAR (Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activity Report) by the end of 2014, although the NRC allows two years (till December 2016) for the report.  Entergy completed and released the PSDAR on December 19, 2014.
2) Fund Payment: Entergy signed an agreement with the state for the last few months of the plant's operation. This agreement required Entergy to send various payments ($2 million for Windham Country economic activity, for example) to the state.  All such payments have been made promptly.
3) Spent Fuel Management Loan: Entergy took out a $143 million dollar loan for spent fuel management, because the state wanted the fuel removed from the fuel pool very promptly.  Strictly speaking, decommissioning funds are not supposed to be used for spent fuel management.  The federal government is legally required to manage the spent fuel.

(Short pause here.  Time to let people get off the ground after the laughing fit. No, this post is not about Harry Reid. Are you standing up now? Onwards.)

Senator Harry Reid
 image from his website

Obtaining spent-fuel management funds from the federal government can be slow.  The company has to sue the federal government, win the lawsuit, and finally obtain the money. Entergy said it would remove spent fuel from the fuel pool very promptly.The state wanted the spent fuel out of the fuel pool ASAP or sooner than ASAP.  Entergy doesn't need to comply with "ASAP" but it is doing so.

Amazingly, Entergy has arranged to borrow $143 million dollars for spent fuel management and moving the spent fuel into dry casks. This borrowed money will be repaid after Entergy sues the federal government.  Note that taking out this loan was not in any agreement that Entergy signed with the state.   Entergy decided to do this to speed up the process.  It is possible that Entergy (with NRC permission) might have been able to borrow this money from the decommissioning fund itself.   Of course, that would have depleted the fund and slowed the decommissioning.

Entergy needs some reimbursement

Entergy has done lots of planning, written reports, taken the fuel out of the reactor, arranged loans.  All activities concerned with decommissioning the plant.  So it requested permission from the NRC to obtain $18 million from the decommissioning fund.  The NRC is in charge of the fund, and of decommissioning, and of ensuring that fund moneys are properly expended.

The state objected.  No, really, it did!  Vermont wants decommissioning very quickly but Vermont believes it has approval rights to determine exactly what the decommissioning funds are used for. In short: Vermont thinks the NRC needs state permission to release decommissioning funds. 

(Short pause here. Vermont has challenged the NRC's authority over nuclear power plants before.  On this subject, how many lawsuits has Vermont won?)

The state is upset!

DPS Commissioner
Chris Recchia

The first thing that I noticed about the state's attitude toward the withdrawal was a Vermont Digger article by John Herrick: Entergy Makes First Withdrawal from Decommissioning Fund.  In this article, Vermont Department of Public Service Commissioner Chris Recchia is quoted: “I am probably more OK with the actual withdrawal than I am with the process….I don’t get to see it in advance.”

Indeed, the attorney general of Vermont and others in state government wrote the NRC to object to this withdrawal. Their letter claimed that the state has the right to review expenditures of decommissioning funds, and the funds should not be released, pending state review of the request.

The state letter is posted in the Document Library of Entergy's VY Decommissioning website. The Document Library is a great boon to anyone who wants to follow this process.

Though the state letter is quite long, the main basis of the letter seems to be the  Memorandum of Understanding under which Entergy purchased the plant in 2002.  A great deal of that memorandum is about decommissioning funds.  The agreement states that, AFTER decommissioning is complete, Entergy must share 50% of whatever decommissioning funds are left over with the state. However, in the recent PSDAR, Entergy does not claim that there will be enough decommissioning funds available until the near the end of sixty years of SAFSTOR.  The funds will grow, and full decommissioning will commence close to 2070, when the funds have grown enough to support it.

In other words, concern with sharing excess funds with the state is a bit early and a bit theoretical!  However, the Memorandum agreement that excess funds "will be shared" seems to have given the state the idea that the state has authority over how the funds are disbursed.

But the state doesn't have authority. Yes, the state does have some limited say over how the funds are disbursed. If you look at item 7 in the Memorandum, the state must approve IF the funds are used for anything other than "qualified expenses."  There is no reason to believe that Entergy's first request to NRC was for not-qualified expenses.

My Conclusion: The Bank of Entergy is Still Closed

Attorney General William Sorrell

Once again, the state is over-reaching.  The state hasn't figured out yet that harassing Entergy with letters to the NRC and so forth will do no good.  The decommissioning funds are the only funds available now for Vermont Yankee (except for the loan, of course). The NRC determines if the decommissioning funds are being used correctly.

To me, this whole thing has unpleasant echoes of the time when the Vermont legislature tried to shut Vermont Yankee. They held a legislative vote  that was basically all about safety. Entergy sued the state, and the legislature reacted swiftly to the lawsuit.  They passed a law that Entergy had to pay the State's expenses in defending against Entergy's lawsuit.

Of course, that law was illegal and nobody in the Attorney General's office would even try to enforce it.  I wrote a blog post about this: Attorney General of Vermont Acknowledges "Shaky Concept" in Charging Entergy for Vermont's Expenses  The Attorney General acknowledged that the the law was unenforceable.  The Bank of Entergy was closed to the state.

It's time for the state to acknowledge that that Bank of Entergy is still closed. I hope they acknowledge this before taxpayers (like me) once again fund a hopeless exercise in which Vermont attempts to change the role of the federal government and the NRC.

These state-sponsored exercises are expensive.

Two Recent NRC Decisions in Favor of Vermont Yankee

We Move Forward With Lessons Learned (First decision)

The Great Wave Off Kanagawa 

Well, the first question might be...why is this even a decision?  Of course, we always move forward with lessons learned.  We learn lessons when problems occur (like tsunamis at nuclear plants). We implement fixes. How else would technology advance?

Various groups are attempting to accelerate the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  (Yes, these groups call  themselves "nuclear watchdogs" and environmental groups, but I calls them as I sees them.) These accelerator groups wanted all GE Mark 1 reactors shut as a response to Fukushima.

In April 2011, one of these groups filed an "emergency enforcement petition" to the NRC to shut all such reactors immediately.  As reported by NucNet, on January 23, 2015, the NRC rejected this petition.  It stated that lessons-learned were being implemented, including a huge FLEX program of backup power equipment.

This first pro-Vermont Yankee decision can be restated: We fix problems, we don't throw away technologies.

• Yes, this does seem obvious.  
• No, I don't know why it took the NRC over three years to make this ruling.

If It's Not Dangerous, You Don't Need a Warning System (Second Decision)

Entergy has removed all fuel from the reactor, and it is now in the fuel pool, cooling.  According to Entergy and NRC calculations, after fuel has been out of the reactor for about a year, the fuel pool is no longer in danger of having a fuel pool fire (not that there was very much danger in the first place).

However, the state of Vermont requested a hearing asking the NRC to  make Entergy "either keep its ERDS (Emergency Response Data System) operational or provide a new, equally effective monitoring and warning system" as long as fuel remains in the fuel pool. (Quote from article by Nuclear Street.)  On January 28, the NRC ruled against the state. The NRC ruled that Entergy can stop staffing and supplying an emergency warning systems after fuel has been in the fuel pool for a year and three months. MassLive has an article which links directly to the ruling itself.  As a matter of fact, I have embedded the ruling at the end of this post.

Areva Central
Fuel Pool

Yes, once again, this seems obvious. When there is no danger, you don't need a warning system. Still, if  you go to the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning web site and then go to the Document Library for NDCAP (the local decommissioning panel), you can see a summary of the comments that have been filed with the Vermont Public Service Board.   As the summary states: By far, the most common request in the received comment sets was the retention of the current 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) beyond the planned “hot wet” spent fuel storage period (i.e. beyond April 2016). In a total of 41 public comment sets, 32 sets requested retaining the current EPZ at least until all spent fuel is moved to dry cask storage.

Accelerator groups and fear

Meditation Room Kyoto

Many people in carbon dioxide accelerator groups apparently still feel endangered by Vermont Yankee.    This is true even though there was very little danger when the plant was operating, and negligible danger now.

I understand fear.  I am myself a cowardly person.  So I have some advice.  I have used this advice on many occasion--- for myself.

When I have an exaggerated and unreasonable fear, there is one person in charge of reassuring me and handling my emotions. That person is me. 

Vermont Yankee 012815 Ruling on Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene

Employee Ownership

Rod Adams

Saving Vermont Yankee

Yesterday, I wrote about Rod Adams work to keep Vermont Yankee running through an employee buy-out.  Saving Vermont Yankee: Rod Adams Moves Forward.  At the end of that post, I wrote

Imagine that  a Vermont Yankee employee asked me: "Well, should I stop looking for a new job? Will VY continue?" I don't think I would  advise her to stop looking for a new job.  There is a reasonable chance Adams efforts will succeed....and a reasonable chance they will fail. 

There are many roadblocks to an employee buyout.  The comment stream on my post includes several of the potential problems. In my estimation, there are basically two major issues:

• Money
• Political opposition

Money

I debated calling this roadblock: "NRC" instead of "money." The group that buys the plant must not only have enough money for the purchase, they must convince the NRC that they have enough money to run the plant, replace anything that needs to be replaced, etc.  They have to be fiscally sound.

Getting that kind of money together is hard, and doing it on an ad hoc basis unlikely to be convincing.  Let's say Warren Buffet decided to buy the plant.  Buffet has had money for a long time. He could convince the NRC that he can run it.  A new entity called "Employees Purchase Group" would have a tough battle convincing the NRC that the Purchase Group was fiscally sound.

Political Opposition

If the employees own the plant, instead of "Entergy Louisiana" owning it, much of the political opposition might go away. Or it might not. If the political opposition doesn't go away, the state won't let the plant operate.  If the state was forced to let it operate, the state will do its best to tax it to death.

Maybe or Maybe Not

These are the facts here in Vermont. I think Adams is doing something worthwhile, not something completely quixotic.  Still,  buying the plant is hardly a slam-dunk.  Adams is trying to do something that has never been done before. His path is seriously uphill.

My issue is that I want to be supportive to the effort to keep VY running, but I don't want to be Pollyanna.  I want to make it clear that I think that individuals at the plant should look to their own futures, and not assume that VY will keep operating.

That said, I want to say that I support Rod's efforts to keep it running.

San Onofre Closing Wasn't Necessary

I was a project manager in the Steam Generator Owner's Group at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).  In other words, I am a steam generator expert.

Which led me to a bit of an email battle yesterday about the Southern California Edison decision to close the San Onofre nuclear plants (SONGS). The question under debate was whether the NRC was being reasonable in saying they needed a year to determine whether SONGS would be able to re-open.   My friend said that the delay would improve safety.  I felt the NRC was being unreasonable.

Here is my email to my friend.  I include background and links at the end of the post.

---------

Well, let's say that I am not sure about the existence of "technical questions of safety."  The tube wear issue was caused by an unexpected vibration mode in the steam generators, and changing the power to 70% changes the vibration pattern.  Changing the power output should put the SONGS steam generators into an operational mode in which that type of vibration will not happen.

Also, unless quite a few steam generator tubes break at once, a tube break is not a safety issue that should affect anyone outside the plant. Operating at a lower power is less likely to cause a tube rupture in the first place, and SONGS was going to check the condition of the tubes after six months of lower-power operation.  I would bet a bunch of money (if I could) that the tubes would be fine after the six month test. Then they could run the plant longer.   I don't know why the NRC needs over a year to look at the safety implications of operating a plant at lower power.  It seems excessive to me, and I don't mind saying so.

Look, I am not saying it's a just a public-relations problem or that the utility or the steam generator supplier did everything right and they are being picked on by the NRC, etc.  I am just saying that we have forgotten some basic facts about how steam generators work.

And we may have forgotten some basic facts about the NRC, which may yet lead to closing more plants and never licensing new ones.  The NRC takes insane amounts of time to do anything, and is very vulnerable to intervenor pressures.  For example, they reviewed the Duane Arnold relicense in about two years, and they took over five years for Vermont Yankee. These two are sister plants, but

Los Angeles Smog, 2005

the Arnold plant is not in Vermont.  We have more intervenors, so the NRC takes more time. If you don't believe this is part of the issue in CA, you are naive.

Oh by the way.  Some of the first engineering  projects I worked on were funded by CARB and EPA, about trying to cut NOx pollution in the LA basin.  Gonna be fun, replacing SONGS with gas-burners in that neck of the woods.  I absolutely hate it.  It didn't have to happen.

--------

SONGS Background

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station  (SONGS) consists of three separate plants, two of which were operating and one was retired. The two operating plants added up to more than 2000 MW of capacity. In January 2012, after excessive tube wear was discovered in newly-purchased steam generators, Southern California Edison took SONGS off-line for more inspections and possible changes. The wear was due to an unexpected form of vibration, which caused some tubes to rub against each other.  Edison submitted a plan to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for restarting one of the reactors: the unit would run at lower power (70% power) which should eliminate the vibration.  It would run at this power for five months, and then be carefully inspected.

After a request by anti-nuclear groups, the NRC determined that the proposal to limit SONGS Unit 2 to 70% power would require the plant to obtain a license amendment. The license amendment process requires public hearings and would take more than a year. The NRC made this decision in May.

Faced with this delay and uncertainty about the NRC process, on June 7 (yesterday), Southern California Edison said it would permanently close the two SONGS units.

References:  

Matt Wald of the New York Times on closing San Onofre

Will Davis at ANS Nuclear Cafe on closing San Onofre: Excellent overview and links

Will Davis blog post on Steam Generator Design, at his blog, Atomic Power Review

My post on Steam Generator Design and Testing, also at Atomic Power Review

Bloomberg news on regulatory battles on shut-down costs
Nuclear Energy Institute blog post on the need for a predictable regulatory process

Let me finish with a quote from Will Davis at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  He sums up the situation beautifully:

Some might quickly respond that it was technical problems that killed the plant. Perhaps in the bigger picture, this is correct; but in the earlier days of nuclear energy, quite a large number of technical problems were encountered in nuclear plants and overcome after testing periods. 

As I said above: This shutdown didn't have to happen.