Trespassing At Vermont Yankee

Clay Turnbull
Photo by Meredith Angwin from post in 2010

A Trespassing Incident

On March 4, long-time anti-nuclear activist Clay Turnbull was cited for trespassing at Vermont Yankee.  Turnbull is a trustee and staffer at the New England Coalition (NECN), a long-time antinuclear group that has been fighting Vermont Yankee for decades.

According to a Mike Faher article on the incident, Vermont Yankee security summoned the sheriff's department because a "man with a camera was within the perimeter  hiding along the inside fence line."  Turnbull claims he was not hiding, but merely crouching down to take photos.  Turnbull wanted to take pictures of the proposed dry cask storage area, to show it was more visible than Entergy claims.

Turnbull also claims that he did not know he was on Vermont Yankee property, since he had not crossed a fence. Turnbull also asserts that he has been on the site numerous times, and is "quite familiar" with the site.

Turnbull was not a lone wolf at the site.  He was alone,  but he had been sent to Vermont Yankee by his organization.  In an article by Robert Audette at the Brattleboro Reformer, Ray Shadis of the New England Coalition said that he was unsatisfied with existing pictures of the proposed dry cask storage area. Shadis said: "Clay got some photos at about 200 feet, through the old switchyard, which we assume will be gone with decommissioning, showing plainly that what Dodson (of Entergy) said was fiction. I asked Clay to return to see if there were clear views from any other vantage points along the fence. Apparently Yankee now features multiple lines of fence."

So, a man is sent by his organization to take pictures at Vermont Yankee.  The man claims to be very familiar with the site, and also completely unaware that he is trespassing.

Vermont Yankee Reacts

Well, Vermont Yankee reacted at the time of the trespass.  Spokesman Marty Cohn was quoted in the Faher article at VTDigger: Cohn said that Turnbull's actions put the plant into a high-security alert.  By the nature of security and security alerts, Cohn could not elaborate much more on the plant's reaction to the trespasser.

Meredith Reacts

In some ways, this whole incident is just plain funny.  In other ways, not so funny.  These are grown men in an anti-nuclear organization. As part of their role in that organization, one of them tells the other to get better pictures.  Their actions cause a security alert.

This is not about a little boy trying to get down to the river to do some fishing.  This is not about a casual trespass. This action was discussed and planned, within the organization.

Meredith Makes a Suggestion

My suggestion is as follows.  On the day that Turnbull is found guilty of trespass, even if he gets nothing but a reprimand---on that day, Entergy should sue the New England Coalition for the expenses caused by the security alert.  Entergy shouldn't sue for punitive damages or anything like that. That would look mean.  Entergy should  just sue for compensatory damages for the extra expenses caused by the alert.  At the same time, Entergy should ask for a restraining order against members of NECN approaching Entergy property.

I mean, the people from NECN admit that there was an organizational plan, discussed between two members of the organization, to take these pictures. Turnbull admits to being very familiar with Vermont Yankee. Then he trespassed.  In my opinion, Vermont Yankee has both the law and the facts on their side, and they should bring suit.

NECN should absolutely pay the cost of the security alert.
-----

A Little About the Two Players

In the section above, I mention Ray Shadis and Clay Turnbull.  Their names have appeared before in this blog.

In a blog post a few days ago, I shared a quote from Ray Shadis, a quote that originally appeared in the Rutland Herald.  In this quote, Shadis suggested that Entergy should buy a gravel pit across town from the plant, and store spent fuel underground at that gravel pit.

Clay Turnbull has also appeared in this blog.   In a post last year, Opponents Claim That Vermont Yankee is More Dangerous Than Ever, I quote Turnbull.  He had written that,  although the NRC plans no further meetings in Brattleboro after February 2015,  "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..."

Update: This post has been reprinted at The Energy Collective.  It currently has five comments at that site.  The Energy Collective usually has more comments than I receive on this blog.

Dry Cask Update and SAFSTOR Matters video

Fuel Pad Hearings This Week
To move fuel from the fuel pool to dry casks, Entergy must build a concrete pad for the dry casks. To build this pad, they need a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board.  The hearing is this week: Docket 8300.  You can see the docket and all the prefiled testimony here:

http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/electric/Docket8300

The hearings are Tuesday February 23 and Wednesday February 24.  They are listed on the Events page of the Public Service Board.

While the hearings are public (people can attend), the public usually cannot speak.  To speak at a hearing, you have to have your testimony approved as "relevant" by the Public Service Board.  Many factors make up "relevance." For example, following the links within the docket above, you will see that the first "prefiled testimony" under each name is usually a description of the person's qualifications (resume).

Controversy on admission of testimony
As you can imagine, the fun begins when the Board rules on whose testimony will be considered relevant to the issue at hand.  The Public Service Board cannot rule on nuclear safety matters, but it rules on  local issues.

A recent controversy before the Board concerned Ray Shadis, long-time anti-nuclear advocate. Could he testify at the Board's hearing on the fuel pad? Entergy asked that the Shadis testimony be excluded. However, the Board ruled that the Shadis testimony could be included. (Article by Mike Faher at VTDigger.)

In my opinion, the Board ruling gave Shadis many benefits-of-the-doubt. For example, the Board ruled that Shadis could not testify on the adequacy of the company's financial plans, but he could testify on the "implications" of Entergy's finances on issues relevant to the case.  (This is the kind of thing that makes me glad I'm a chemist, not a lawyer.)

Susan Smallheer's article on the Shadis controversy includes the following quote from Shadis about spent fuel storage:

“I would like to see them buy a gravel pit across town from the present site and move the spent fuel over to a new site to the gravel pit, and then put the fuel below grade, underground like San Onfre,” he said.

 SAFSTOR Matters Video

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...or rather, back with Vermont Yankee, Martin Cohn of Entergy hosts a TV show on the decommissioning process.  Once a month, he interviews someone  about the SAFSTOR process, and "SAFSTOR Matters" appears on community TV.  As a matter of fact, "SAFSTOR Matters" won Best Series of the Year at Brattleboro Community Television. 

In the most recent video, Cohn and Joe Lynch of Entergy discuss the status of the decommissioning, including the new fuel pad.  Worth watching, for some straightforward, low-key explanations.  You can see previous videos in the series at the SAFSTOR Matters page of Brattleboro Community TV.

Vermont Yankee Site Unlikely to be Used Again: On Decommissioning Vermont Yankee

Industry in the Northeast

In order to get new business to the area around Vermont Yankee, the area needs incentives, not further industrial sites.  The existence of a decommissioned Vermont Yankee site will not attract an employer.

In the nineteenth century, and even up to World War II, the Northeast was a manufacturing powerhouse.  Since then, industries have been leaving the area. In Vermont, there are far more industrial sites than businesses that want such a site.

Mill on the Merrimack River

If you live in the Northeast, you know this.  There are hundreds of sites in Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire that used to be industrial sites-- until the industries moved away.  There are mills that have been turned into art galleries, and there are mills that are just decaying in place.  People talk about the "old Georgia Pacific site," or the "old gear factory."  And so forth.

Getting the Vermont Yankee site ready for a new business will do absolutely nothing for the economy of the region.  Having one more site available is not going to attract a new employer.

Nuclear sites are rarely used again, except sometimes for fossil plants

Also, it is a nuclear site. A few days ago, Terri Hallenbeck of the Burlington Free Press wrote an excellent article about the fate of decommissioned nuclear sites: A Future Use for Vermont Yankee? Don't Hold Your Breath. Her article puts the "we need to decommission it quickly" rhetoric in context.

In her article, Hallenbeck shows that most of the decommissioned nuclear sites had no further industrial use, though some eventually hosted other power plants (usually gas-fired). The location of these sites usually works against their use as anything except a power plant.

Furthermore, the Vermont Yankee site is clearly not attractive for further development.  The Hallenbeck article quotes Ray Shadis. Shadis thinks the site should "probably be ... left alone" after decommissioning. He notes the Vermont Yankee site is long and narrow, which is problematic (for further development).

Despite all the fuss about "decommission it promptly," the Vermont Yankee site is unlikely to attract another employer to the area.  I will also note that many of the people who are most eager to encourage "prompt decommissioning" don't live in Windham County. They live in Massachusetts, and they live in Maine.  They will not be affected by the employment situation in southern Vermont. Their rhetoric shows their hatred of nuclear power far more than it shows any care for the economy of the region.

-------

This is the third in a series of blog posts about various aspects of Vermont Yankee decommissioning.

A State of Extortion: Conditions for a Vermont Yankee Certificate

John McClaughry
at a dinner in his honor

The Prediction: John McClaughry

Shortly after Entergy announced it would close Vermont Yankee in 2014, Governor Peter Shumlin decided that people should work together, not fight with each other.  Specifically, Shumlin said that his administration would “use this opportunity to build better relations with Entergy.”

John McClaughry doubted that statement.  McClaughry is one of the founders of the Ethan Allen Institute, and he predicted that better relations between Entergy and Shumlin were not going to happen.  Better relations weren't in the cards (to use a fortune-teller analogy).   Governor Shumlin would continue to behave the way Governor Shumlin behaves.  

In early September, a few days after Shumlin's announcement, McClaughry wrote an op-ed which was published many places in Vermont:  Governor Shumlin's Unlikely Olive Branch to Entergy. Here's the quote with the prediction:

With this long, outspoken, and unbroken record of opposition to the nuclear plant and its corporate owner, can we expect Peter Shumlin to now seek “better relations” with Entergy? It’s far more likely that he, his regulators and lawyers, and his legislative friends will spend the rest of his time in the Governor’s office extorting every last dime out of Entergy to fund their own pet projects, and when that is pushed as far as it can go, forcing Entergy to spend as much as possible through more of the “cumulative regulation” that Entergy says contributed to its decision to close the plant.

The Pondering: State Weighs Conditions for Entergy

When Entergy announced it was closing the plant, the state "weighed the conditions" they would put

Commissioner Recchia
from DPS site

on Vermont Yankee's continued operation for a final year. 

The Public Service Board was still considering a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for Vermont Yankee when Entergy announced it was closing the plant.  Entergy quickly filed an amended petition with the Board, asking for a CPG for through the end of 2014, instead of through 2032.  Under Shumlin's administration, the Department of Public Service (DPS) had opposed the 20-year extension.  Would they also oppose a one-year extension? 

When Entergy filed for a one-year extension,  Chris Recchia, commissioner of the department, said the department was considering its options about the one-year extension. Here's a quote from Andrew Stein's article in Vermont Digger. 

“The options are to support it (the one-year certificate) with conditions or oppose it unless there are conditions,” he (Recchia) said.

The Prediction Fulfilled: Also Known As The Shake-Down

First, we have to admit that the state learned some very expensive lessons in various courts.  The DPS considered recommending a time-table for decommissioning, or recommending how the plant should handle spent fuel.  But then they thought better of it. Recchia noted that these areas fall under the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  

“We felt we needed to focus on areas where we have jurisdiction,” Recchia said.  (From Oct 25 article Terri Hallenbeck in the Burlington Free Press.)

If DPS tried to regulate safety, they could lose in court. Gathering money from Entergy seemed a more reasonable tactic.  DPS recommended that the Public Service Board should extract money from the plant in return for a fourteen month CPG.  Specfically, DPS recommend that Entergy must

• Put $60 million dollars in a separate trust fund for decommissioning within 21 days of receiving a certificate of public good from the state (Anne Galloway article in Vermont Digger)
• Put $4.65 million dollars into a fund "for the state to disburse" for dislocated worker assistance (Terri Hallenbeck  article). 

Another justification given for Entergy contributing $4.65 million to the state is that the state will lose its "generation tax" revenues when Vermont Yankee stops generating power.  As Galloway wrote in Vermont Digger:

"Once the plant closes, that source of state revenue (the generation tax) will disappear. Recchia says Entergy should be required to continue to make some kind of payment to the state to make up for the economic impact of the sudden, unplanned shutdown."

In other words, McClaughry predicted the situation accurately.  The scenario (extract money and attempt to make decommissioning as expensive as possible) is unfolding exactly as McClaughry predicted it would unfold.

Note from blogger: "Sudden unplanned shutdown"?  Huh?

Second note from blogger:  Will these "generation tax" substitutes actually be used for Vermont Yankee employee assistance?  Your guess is as good as mine....

The Good News and the Bad News


Good News:  This is the state's final chance to extract money. In Andrew Stein's article in Vermont Digger (State Weighs What Conditions to Place on Vermont Yankee Closing) Stein quotes Ray Shadis, a long-time plant opponent.

"It is unclear at this point if Entergy VY, if it closes in 2014, will ever have to appear before the VPSB (Vermont Public Service Board), or for that matter, any state regulatory body ever again,” he (Shadis) wrote to the board. “Chopping the proposed period of extended operation really appears to narrow that possibility and proportionally heightens the need for the VPSB and the parties to ‘get it right.’”

Bad News:  It's not really bad news. More like "major uncertainty."  If the Public Service Board puts tens-of-millions-of-dollars of conditions on a certificate of public good, and Entergy had planned to operate the plant only for a few more months--what will Entergy do?  

It may not be worthwhile for Entergy to litigate in the hopes of merely several months operation.  Also, if Entergy doesn't sign the new CPG, they don't have to abide by its multi-million dollar conditions.  In other words, Entergy might quite reasonably decide not to sign, not to litigate, and simply to close the plant a few months earlier. 

I hope this would not happen, but it could. 

"Building better relations with Entergy" indeed!

------------

You can link to the complete, 50-page DPS filing from the Vermont Digger article.  I link to it here for convenience. I am always grateful when Vermont Digger links to the original documents. 

John McClaughry, the man who made the prediction, is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org). The Energy Education Project (directed by Meredith Angwin) is part of the Ethan Allen Institute.

Hot Potato Continued: Federal Court Turns Down Entergy Injunction Request

Plant Opponent Tries a New Court

On November 29, the Public Service Board (PSB) issued a "strongly worded" but "narrow" ruling against Entergy.  In this ruling, the PSB refused to take the "requirement to have a Certificate of Public Good to operate after March 21, 2012" off the original 2002 Sale Order for Vermont Yankee.  The Board also said, however, that it  did not reach any conclusions concerning the merits of modifying or extending Entergy VY's obligations under existing Orders and CPGs.

Yes, it was a confusing ruling. A long-time plant opponent, the New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution (NEC), looked at this ruling and used it as a basis for a suit filed  in Vermont Supreme Court.  NEC filed in Vermont Supreme Court, although active hearings were on-going at the Public Service Board and in Federal Court. In other words, NEC was trying their luck with suit in a third court.

I blogged about this opponent filing in The Very Latest Lawsuit: Opponents Will Probably Lose. I had some evidence for this.  The Vermont Department of Public Service has joined other NEC lawsuits against the plant, ever since Shumlin was elected. To my surprise, the Department of Public Service asked the Vermont Supreme Court to deny the NEC request for an injunction.  Then the Public Service Board itself asked the Vermont Supreme Court to deny the NEC petition.

One of the issues is that the Public Service Board's November 29 ruling could be read as an endorsement of third-party suits against Vermont Yankee. I wrote about this in Hot Potato and the New Request: Entergy Asks for an Injunction against PSB and Shumlin in Federal Court.   In other words, the November 29 PSB ruling could be interpreted as tossing the hot potato: Let's you (NEC) and him (Entergy) fight, and leave us (the PSB) out of it!

Entergy Tries an Old Court

As I noted in my Hot Potato post, when NEC filed in Vermont Supreme Court, Entergy filed an injunction against NEC in Federal Court. Entergy filed in the same court  that ruled for Entergy in the original case about Vermont's pre-emption of the federal prerogative to regulate nuclear safety.  The same judge (Gavan Murtha) heard the request for the injunction against NEC.  Yesterday, Murtha ruled against Entergy about the injunction.

Basically, Entergy claimed that the NEC Vermont Supreme Court filing was an end-run around the Federal Court ruling that the Public Service Board should not take action to shut down Vermont Yankee during the federal appeals process.  Judge Murtha did not explicitly agree or disagree with this analysis. However, Murtha noted that NEC was not a party to the federal suit, and that the federal court does not take action against those not involved in federal suits.  Also, the federal court usually does not interfere with state court issues.  Bob Audette at the Brattleboro Reformer describes the Judge's reasoning, including the fact that NEC asked to be a party to the original suit, but was not granted standing by the federal court.

Meanwhile, Ray Shadis of NEC issued a press release that was quoted in the Reformer: "We hope this federal rebuff will serve Entergy as an inoculation of anti-arrogance serum, but we suspect that booster shots will be needed before Vermont Yankee is history and we can move to the details of decommissioning."

Other statements by NEC echo the idea that this federal ruling is not the final "shot" in these battles. Lawyer Margolis of NEC told the Reformer that he expects Entergy to "run to the district court" if the Vermont Supreme Court orders a plant shutdown.

Vermont Supreme Court 

Ignoring the rhetoric, I interpret these statements as: "It's not over till it's over."

Indeed, it is not over yet.

The Future

The next event in this saga will be the Vermont Supreme Court hearing on the NEC request.  As noted above, both the Department of Public Service and the Public Service Board have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to dismiss the request.   (UPDATE: Entergy has also asked for the NEC request to be dismissed.  I have put the November 29 PSB statement and the Entergy request to the Vermont Supreme Court on a new page Vermont Supreme Court Filings, at the Energy Education Project.) As far as I can tell, only NEC wants the Supreme Court to take the case, and the two Vermont commissions have asked it to dismiss the case.  The Supreme Court has scheduled at 30-minute hearing on this case on Wednesday, January 16, at 2:30 p.m.

Howard Shaffer Testimony to VSNAP: Perspective on Vermont Yankee Errors

Errors at Vermont Yankee Reported to the NRC

Recently, Vermont Yankee announced that it had reported two personnel errors to the NRC. The first error occurred during the refueling outage in October. A worker flipped a circuit breaker on the shut-down cooling system, causing the water temperature to rise briefly and an alarm to sound. The plant was off-line at the time. The second error, in December, was taking both of the plants diesel generators out of service at the same time. This error (the generators were not in use) lasted for about 2 minutes before the mistake was noticed and corrected. As the NRC spokesman noted: Vermont Yankee has other backup systems as well (as the generators), including batteries and a tie to a nearby hydroelectric plant.

Naturally, the opponents have commented. In the Rutland Herald, Ray Shadis was quoted: “They were Homer Simpson moments...The two screw-ups are part of a continuum of ongoing, goofy, inexplicable stuff”. Shadis further noted that he expected the next three months to be the most dangerous in the plant's forty years of operation. In the same article, Arnie Gundersen said that the Public Oversight Panel (he was a member) identified similar issues three years ago.

Yesterday, the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP) met in Vernon, Vermont. The mission of this panel has never been clear to me. According the VSNAP web page, it "considers issues" and writes an annual report to the governor and the legislature. At VSNAP meetings, most of the meeting time is spent on public comments. Vermont Yankee opponents generally show up in force. One of the public comments about the plant was from George Harvey, as reported in the Brattleboro Reformer. "These people have a history of lying....They’re clearly operating out of self-interest. They’re not interested in our making informed decisions, they’re only interested in making money."

Neither Howard Shaffer nor I could attend the VSNAP meeting, due to other obligations. However, Howard sent VSNAP the testimony below, which I am very happy to share.

-----------

Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel

From: Howard Shaffer PE (nuclear) Vermont, NH, MA, IL
Startup Engineer and Support Engineer for Vermont Yankee


The two personnel errors at VY open the discussion to consideration of the initial design of the whole nuclear power program, and all our technologies.

In all my Navy Nuclear power and submarine training it was emphasized that the greatest care is required. You must communicate and double check before taking action. Yet it is acknowledged, and proven by experience, that people make mistakes. Therefore, designs must include backups and consideration of "what ifs."

Nuclear Power Plant Design

In nuclear reactor plant design, of all types, it seems to have been considered that there will be failures of hardware, and people. People include Operators, Managers, and Regulators. In addition, it was believed that in spite of all design, training, and precautions, some day, somewhere, a reactor core would be damaged and melt. The radioactive products were assumed to get out of the vessel and piping. Therefore, a backup was needed. It is the Containment. I call it the "garbage can over the tea kettle." It worked at Three Mile Island. At Fukushima the containments worked for a while, until the lack of cooling for the fuel caused melting and releases. It has been forgotten by the media that the Japanese government ordered an evacuation on the first day of the event, long before releases began.

We, the world nuclear power community, have organizations to communicate lessons learned, in addition to the regulatory agencies. These organizations are the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations in the US, and the World Association of Nuclear Operators. Airplane regulators communicate world wide too.

Human Interaction

Comparing nuclear power to perfection is a political ploy. What in human endeavor is perfect? Try comparing airplanes and cars to perfection. The certainty of error is no excuse. Every accident is investigated and lessons learned incorporated. This is true of the flooding after hurricane Irene, the fire in downtown Brattleboro, house fires, plane and train crashes, car accidents, and nuclear power plant accidents and errors. If you are against something politically, compare it to perfection, and demand zero errors.

In my Navy nuclear power training, I had to read the book containing reports of all the errors that had happened to date. By then, 1963, the book was thick. As years went by, the book got too thick to manage. Errors were being repeated. The book was replaced with a manageable volume of the "classic errors." Why were errors repeated? Errors are repeated in spit of all efforts, because people are human. There are always new people, people changing jobs, rules changes, design changes, and time and other pressures.

NRC licensees are required to have a formal program to document, report, investigate, learn from, and take corrective action on, Human Errors. It is always appropriate to ask if any events constitute a pattern.

Conclusion

The nuclear power program, and Vermont Yankee, should be compared to the available alternatives. On this basis, using the measures the EPA uses: deaths, injuries, accidents, and environmental degradation, it appears that in the 1950's Congress made a very wise decision in choosing nuclear power as a replacement for coal.


Footnote

In a recent press release on the Cross Border Air Pollution Regulations, the EPA stated that:

Pollution from Coal Burning is responsible EVERY YEAR for

34, 000 early deaths due to asthma
$280 billion in health costs
15,000 non fatal heart attacks
19,000 acute bronchitis cases
400,000 cases of aggravated asthma
1.8 million sick days