SAFSTOR: On Decommissioning Vermont Yankee

Mark 1 Schematic

SAFSTOR  Safety

SAFSTOR is a method for delayed decommissioning of a nuclear plant. With SAFSTOR, fuel is taken out of the reactor and put in the fuel pool.  Then the plant remains basically intact for some years.  After some time (up to 60 years after fuel is removed from the core) the plant is fully decommissioned.

Vermont Yankee opponents are very determined that the plant should not be put in SAFSTOR. However, even the opponents are beginning to realize that Entergy's agreement about buying the plant (state agreement), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (federal oversight)  allow the use of SAFSTOR.  The opponents will not have much to say about what decommissioning methods (including SAFSTOR) Entergy chooses.

One advantage of SAFSTOR is that the workers who decommission the plant will be exposed to less radiation, because much of the radiation has decayed away.

The opponents are opposed to SAFSTOR, because they consider the "danger" of the plant (danger to them) while it is in SAFSTOR is a far more important problem than any extra radiation exposure to nuclear workers.  The opponents are personally very frightened (or they say they are).  Simultaneously, they are very willing for other people to face increased radiation.

In contrast, in an article at WCAX, Bill Irwin of the Vermont Department of Health says the plant will be generally safer after shutdown, even in SAFSTOR.

(Irwin) uses the analogy of a boiling pot: When the pot is hot and the water boiling, they're more concerned about spills. But a pot of cold water won't boil over -- though it could still leak, which is what they'll look for. But as the years go by, they will have to monitor a smaller and smaller area

SAFSTOR Facts

In this case, opponents are  not going to get what they want.  According to the Memorandum of Understanding, the agreement by which Entergy bought the plant, SAFSTOR is an option for decommissioning.  It is also the option which Entergy has always said it would choose.

In an article by Susan Smallheer in the Rutland Herald, Mike Twomey of Entergy was quoted as follows:

Michael Twomey, vice president of external affairs for Entergy Nuclear, Yankee’s owner, told the panel Thursday that while the company was leaning toward a delayed decommissioning, it’s not a given that it will take all 60 years allowed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

But Twomey said there would be little activity at the plant, except for handling spent fuel, in any event, for six to 10 years after it shuts down in late 2014. Twomey, who recently testified before two Vermont House committees on the plant’s pending shutdown, said the company had two years after the reactor actually stops generating power next year to study how much it would cost to decommission the plant, and choose a course for federal regulators.

Entergy has two years to file a decommissioning plan with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It plans to have little activity at the plant for six to ten years after the plant shuts down. For six to ten years (at least) the plant will be in SAFSTOR.

Architecture is Destiny

In terms of decommissioning, one of the things I have thought about is the position of the fuel pool at Vermont Yankee.

Once fuel is removed from the core, it must stay in the fuel pool for about five years before it can be put into dry cask storage. At Vermont Yankee,  the fuel pool is in the same building as the reactor. Therefore, it would be very hard to begin dis-assembling the reactor while maintaining the fuel pool.

The obvious schedule would be to wait about five years for the fuel to cool, and then transfer it to dry casks. After the transfer, when the fuel pool no longer needs to be maintained, the workers could begin   dis-assembling and decommissioning the reactor, the fuel pool and the reactor building.

I expect that this  is Entergy's plan. The protestors in Vermont cannot change the internal arrangement of the plant. Therefore, Entergy's plan will be the way the plant is decommissioned.

More on Decommissioning

This is one of a series of posts on issues on decommissioning Vermont Yankee.  The earlier posts:

Vermont Yankee Site Unlikely to be Used Again.  There are many vacant industrial sites in the Northeast: adding one more is unlikely to attract a new business.

Backwards reasoning about Greenfields.  Insisting on expensive "greenfield" work will not make the site more attractive to another business, and will slow down site availability.

The Formal Negotiations.  Shumlin's team and Entergy are sitting down together, in closed session.  They are discussing"issues" such as "how long fuel has to stay in a fuel pool."  (Issues? Facts, maybe..)

Backwards Reasoning About Greenfields: On Decommissioning Vermont Yankee

Field in Fairfield, Vermont

A confession: I am not immune to believing a statement if it is repeated often enough. 

For example, it took me a long time to notice that this quote is completely backwards:

Among the conditions sought by the state is a $60 million fund to ensure that the Yankee site in Vernon be returned to “green field” status, so it can be used for further economic development. 

Many plant opponents have made similar statements: "Extra money is needed for greenfielding so the site can be used for economic development."

That is backwards! The NRC standards for decommissioning get the site ready for another industry--that is the point of the standards. If Vermont imposes extra "greenfield" decommissioning requirements, these requirements will:

• increase the cost to Entergy.
• increase the time required for decommissioning the site.
• not increase how attractive the site will be to a new industry.

Remember that next time you hear talk about the necessity of extra money for "greenfielding" to ensure "economic development."  

(Quote is from an article by Susan Smallheer in the Rutland Herald: Vermont seeks $60 million fund for Entergy plant to keep running.  This article is about Vermont granting a Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee, the Certificate to be valid only through the end of 2014.)

--------

This is the second of a series of posts about Vermont Yankee decommissioning.  

The first post was about negotiations The Formal Negotiations: On Decommissioning Vermont Yankee.

Legislators visit Vernon and are shocked to find economic pain.

Quotes and Comments

On Monday, October 28, two legislative committees went to the Vernon Elementary School to listen to local companies and residents discuss the next steps after Vermont Yankee closes.  They had an afternoon session in which business groups addressed them and an evening session open to public comments.  The two committees were the Natural Resources and Energy Committee, and the Commerce and Economic Development Committee.

On the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook page, I have seen this visit described as a "dog and pony show"  and that the legislators "couldn't care less."  Other comments were less flattering.

So I thought I would devote this blog post to quotes from the newspaper articles about the meeting, along with some commentary about the quotes.

Where the Money Comes From

In the afternoon meeting,  the various business groups presented their issues and questions. This meeting was reported by Terri Hallenbeck of the Burlington Free Press. Windham County asks state for help as VY prepares to shut down.

A quote from that article:

Meanwhile, the Legislature should be wary of forcing Entergy to pay more taxes and fees without knowing where that money is coming from, Tom Buchanan, chairman of the Windham Regional Commission’s Vermont Yankee Study Committee.

There is a risk if lawmakers levy a new tax on Vermont Yankee to pay for spent fuel, for example, that that money could come from the plant’s decommissioning fund, he said. That would simply slow the decommissioning process, he said.

Blogger comment: Very true.  Later in the article, Mike Twomey of Entergy explains some of the things for which the decommissioning money can be used.

In my opinion, the legislature saw Vermont Yankee as the ultimate cash-cow (Money for the Clean Energy Development Fund. Town of Vernon shares property taxes with the state, etc.).  Perhaps as the plant closes, the legislature will come to their senses and recognize that their golden goose is leaving town.

This issue reminds me of the time when Entergy first filed a federal lawsuit against Vermont.  Shumlin immediately arranged for the legislature to pass a law that Vermont Yankee would pay for the state's costs in defending against that lawsuit!  The law was never enforced (Attorney General of Vermont Acknowledges "Shaky Concept" in Charging Entergy for Vermont's Expenses) but it gives an idea of the legislature's ideas on what they think they can do---just by  passing a law.

The Legislature Has Responsibility

Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger wrote Windham County Seeks $2.2 Million in State Aid to Recover from Vermont Yankee closing.  A quote from that article:

Martin Langeveld, a Vernon resident, told the legislators that they should feel responsible for mitigating the impact of Vermont Yankee’s closure.

“In this situation, the governor and the Legislature did the exact opposite of what you usually do,” he said. “Instead of trying to preserve jobs, instead of trying to attract and support a large employer, they actively sought to close one down. That is unique. That is what makes this one different.

“I suggest you need to consider what the Legislature’s responsibility is now that it has gained that objective it sought for so long,” Langeveld said. “In this case, you have a special responsibility to permit a mitigation effort to go forward and to generously fund that mitigation effort.”

Blogger comment: Langeveld said it well.

Tony Klein Notices Real People

Susan Smallheer at Times Argus wrote State Catches Heat for Vermont Yankee Closing.  The final two paragraphs of that article:

Rep. Tony Klein

Rep. Tony Klein, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, and a leading Yankee opponent, told the gathering he had a “greater appreciation of what’s going on down here. That’s a big accomplishment.”

“You’re not just a nondescript face any more,” he said. “We have heard it first-hand and we have a greater appreciation of what needs to happen.”

Blogger comment: Oh puh-leeze. Klein has been a determined foe of Vermont Yankee.  I have heard him say that the presence of Vermont Yankee could destroy the Vermont "brand." (On the other hand, Klein is a great supporter of wind turbines.)

Around the time of the famous vote in the Senate (2010), many people from Vermont Yankee came up to talk to the legislators.  They reported that the legislators avoided them, ran into the committee rooms to hide, wouldn't look the plant employees in the eye, etc.  I did not blog about this because I didn't know which legislators did what.  I try for accuracy on this blog.  Sometime I think I try too hard for too much accuracy.

Well, for Tony Klein, I think it IS a "big accomplishment" that the people of Vernon are not "nondescript face(s)."  People in the nuclear industry should be grateful for whatever progress we make with anti-nuclear committee leaders. Right?

Okay.  Time to end this post. I'm getting snarky...