A Court Case with a Deadline: The Black Start Diesels

Breaking News: 

Last night, the hearing officer for the diesel docket at the Public Service Board recommended granting a certificate to allow the diesels to be installed.  This is great news!  However, as Entergy notes in its response, the PSB has not yet ruled on this recommendation, so the situation remains uncertain.  Andrew Stein article at Vermont Digger includes a link to the hearing officer statement.

---------------
A Court Case with a Deadline

On June 4, in federal court in Brattleboro, there will be a hearing on Entergy's suit against Vermont's Public Service Board.  While many court cases drag on forever, this one is likely to be resolved quickly.  Entergy needs an answer from the court by mid-June.

Vermont Yankee needs a diesel generator.  The plant must begin pouring the concrete pad for it in mid-June.

Background

Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam

In the summer of 2012, the New England System operator (ISO-NE) changed its black-start power plant requirements.  "Black Start" power plants are plants that can start quickly and re-energize the grid during a wide-spread outage. Until last summer, hydro plants were the black-start plants, but hydro plants tend to be small (Vernon Dam is 34 MW).  Gas-fired plants can also start quickly, and gas-fired plants tend to be bigger.  It would require fewer gas-fired plants to re-energize the grid.  Therefore, last summer,  ISO-NE said that small hydro plants such as Vernon Dam would no longer be black-start facilities.  That role would be assigned to larger gas-fired plants.

Vermont Yankee has a direct tie-line to Vernon Dam, and had always counted Vernon Dam as a source of emergency back-up power. When Vernon Dam was re-classified and would no longer be a black-start facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission required Vermont Yankee to replace it with another emergency diesel generator.

Supposedly, in Vermont, adding a diesel generator at a nuclear power plant requires a ruling from the Public Service Board.   That's the current Vermont requirement, and Entergy tried to comply.  In early August, Entergy announced it would ask the PSB for permission to add a diesel generator.  The Brattleboro Reformer reported on the request on August 7 (Entergy to ask for new diesel generator at VY), and I blogged about it on August 13 (Black Start, Black Out and Diesels, Some Clarity).

Trying to Shut the Plant Down

As soon as Entergy said it needed a new diesel generator,  intervenors got ready to try to stop them from acquiring one.  As Ray Shadis of NEC said in the Reformer article: "the state even today regulates certain aspects of existing emergency generators -- such as exhaust emissions, petroleum leaks and noise."  He clearly hoped that this diesel generator, a required piece of nuclear plant safety equipment, would be stopped on the basis that diesel generators are..well, they are diesels.

(sarcasm alert) We don't need no stinkin' diesels in Vermont. (end alert)

The Public Service Board Refuses to Act

Vermont Yankee began the process of asking for a new generator last August.  In general, such simple requests to the Public Service Board do not require complicated dockets, but are decided in two or three months. This type of request does not require not the same type of docket as a utility merger might require.  However, the PSB made it pretty clear that they were going to make this decision into a major issue. After months of hesitating, on December 27, they opened the investigation into the diesel with a PSB order that included these words:

As a preliminary matter, the Hearing Officer may request parties to examine the question of whether (i) the Board can and should grant permission for Entergy VY to install the generator when Entergy VY is not in compliance with existing Orders and CPGs and has not demonstrated that it is willing to comply with orders of this Board 

Orders and Implied Orders

The "orders of this Board" clause is not about something small.  It's huge. The question is whether Entergy has a right to keep operating Vermont Yankee after March 2012, when its original certificate of public good expired. In general, by Vermont law, plants can keep operating with an expired certificate, as long as they had applied for a new certificate in a timely fashion (as Entergy did).  But Senate votes and federal court cases (among other things) have muddied the waters on the certificate extension, at least in the opinion of the PSB.

I have not actually found any order from the PSB requiring the plant to shut down.  It seems to be more of an order-implied-by-the-question  that is quoted above. If someone can find such an actual PSB order, I hope they will tell me.  The last two years of PSB orders can be found on this page:  Recent Public Service Board Orders.

The PSB did issue an order recently, however.  On April 24, the Public Service Board entered a Scheduling Order on the docket, re-iterating that it wanted answers to the questions  from the December 27 order.  To put the matter rather mildly, with this statement, the PSB gave Entergy absolutely no assurance of a timely decision.

Entergy Sues

On April 25, Entergy sued the Public Service Board in federal court, claiming the Board has no authority over safety equipment at a nuclear power plant.  It seems clear to me (and apparently, equally clear to Entergy) that the Public Service Board is willfully interfering with the purchase of  nuclear safety equipment. The Board is pre-empting and frustrating the federal role of ensuring safety at nuclear plants.  Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger has a good short article on the lawsuit. I have the Entergy complaint (document that outlined their suit) on federal-filings-page of the Energy Education Project website.

As the Entergy complaint notes, on page 25:   Vermont's refusal to authorize construction of the station blackout generator....is an aspect of the state's long-running campaign to force the VY Station to shut down by any means necessary because of radiological safety concerns....[Vermont] has no genuine, non-pre-empted state interest in preventing construction of the blackout generator.

A June 4 date has been set for the hearing.


Even Nuclear Opponents Wonder about the PSB's Choices

Pat Parentau

Pat Parentau is no friend of Vermont Yankee.  He is a professor at Vermont Law School and an advisor to the Vermont legislature on methods for shutting down the plant.  However, even Parentau appears puzzled by the Board's actions.  A recent article by John Dillon at VPR quoted Parentau:

Vermont Law School Professor Pat Parenteau said the suit puts state regulators in a difficult situation.

“The point is you have a federal law that mandates something to be done and the state seems to be frustrating that,” he said. “And that’s just not the position you want to be in.”...

“Once again, I’m concerned about how the state interacts with the federal court in this matter,” he said. “If they have a real basis to say, ‘no, we’re not going to let you do this.’ Then, okay, what is that basis? But they don’t seem to have that. Why didn’t the state just do something that would avoid this? I don’t know.”


The court date is coming soon.  It will be interesting to see how the state defends their position on the diesel generator.  I personally don't think they can defend it. "They don't seem to have that [a real basis for their statement]" as Parentau said.  So true, indeed.

The state is making arbitrary decisions on nuclear safety, and now they will be in court again.  However, every time a case is heard in court, it is a gamble.  I am not a lawyer. I  think the state does NOT have a good case, but I certainly don't think it is a slam-dunk that one side or the other will win.

I think Entergy is in the right on this, and I certainly hope for a good outcome in court.

-------

Note: You can link directly to the Entergy filing complaint filing pdf here.  It includes a timeline, including Entergy warning the PSB of the date that it would sue them, if the PSB didn't move.  The pdf is a longish document and will take time to download.

I have another document, also, about Vernon Dam.   I asked an  Entergy spokesman if VY had tried to pay Vernon Dam to continue to be available as a black-start facility.  In return, he sent me this filing that Entergy made to the Public Service Board on April 12.  Entergy had asked Vernon Dam (TransCanada) that question and been refused.  TransCanada was willing to be black-start if required by ISO-NE, but did not want to take on the liability of being contractually bound with a nuclear power plant.

All filings to the PSB are public documents, but this one does not appear on the PSB website.  I thank Entergy for sharing it with me.  Mark Potkin's testimony on negotiations with TransCanada--a relatively short pdf.

Used Fuel: Shaffer Statement at the Vermont Legislature

As I noted in my post Cheerful Wednesday, Howard Shaffer was invited to speak to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Thursday, April 25.  Robert Alvarez and Arnie Gundersen also spoke to the same committee.  (My "Cheerful Wednesday" post has many links about the Alvarez talk.) This post mostly consists of Howard's prepared remarks. But I will start with the quote from Vermont Public Radio that ended their description of Gundersen's talk.

Vermont Public Radio

Howard Shaffer

On Friday, John Dillon of Vermont Public Radio  broadcasted a report: Engineer Says State Could Face Expensive Clean-up If Vermont Yankee Closes.  The report quotes both Gundersen and Shaffer. I link to the transcript, above.

From the VPR report:

A pro-Yankee nuclear engineer said lawmakers should not be overly worried that the state will be left footing the bill if Entergy closes the plant.

Howard Shaffer is from Enfield, N.H. and worked for years in the nuclear industry. He said the federal government would not allow Entergy to walk away.

“The issue of will there be enough money is a serious one, but I also think it will be found that the federal government laws override state laws that allow somebody to go bankrupt and run away from their responsibility,” he said. “That’s Congress’ intent. And they’re going to find the original owners and make them pay.”

Shaffer's Statement

VERMONT  LEGISLATURE

House Natural Resources and Energy Committee

Storage of Used (Spent) Reactor Fuel at the 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Howard Shaffer   PE (nuclear)   VT, NH, MA 

Thank you Chairman Klein and Committee Members for allowing me to come before you today.  My purpose is to provide what I can from my experience on this important matter.  My view is positive.

Virtually my entire career has been in nuclear power. My resume is attached.

Background

Missing from the nuclear debate has been clarity about the overall design philosophy of US nuclear generating facilities.  From the beginning, every aspect of the program -- hardware, training, management and regulation-has been designed, not on the belief that accidents MIGHT happen, but on the certainty that accidents WILL happen. Experience with human performance proves that there will be mistakes.  If the benefits were to be enjoyed, then all possible means to first, prevent accidents, and second to deal with the consequences of accidents had to be developed and put in place.

A key part of the design process is asking “What if..?”  scenarios for all imaginable events that could happen.  The design and licensing process continues and asks “How could this happen” and “How long does this take to happen?” and “What are the odds that it will happen?”  Fast-breaking events require controls that respond instantly and automatically, while longer-term events include actions by trained nuclear operators.  For example, the Design Basis pipe break initiates a series of automatic programmed shutdown responses for the first ten minutes.  At that point, the nuclear operations team takes over the process.  The operators are the first responders.  At Fukushima, the operators worked diligently until the accident was under control.  It took more than a day before there was any release, and the order to evacuate residents in the vicinity came hours before that.

Used (spent) fuel storage

One-third of the nuclear fuel in the Vermont Yankee reactor is replaced every 18 months. The fuel that is removed from the reactor and stored on-site continues to be a valuable resource because only about 10% of the energy contained in the fuel has been used and 90% of that energy can be reclaimed through recycling and used to create more electricity.

The solid ceramic fuel pellets in the fuel bundles that have been removed from the reactor as spent fuel

and stored in dry casks, are air cooled by natural circulation through the cask. The pellets have been stored in water for more than five years and are generating very little heat.   With the shielding in the 100-ton storage casks, the used fuel is very secure.  Even if a cask was broken open and the pellets scattered on the ground, they would just lie there, continuing to be air cooled.  Radiation dose to the offsite public would be insignificant.

Used fuel in the pool is also very secure.  The reactor building and radioactive waste storage facilities are designed for the maximum Design Basis earthquake and 360 mph winds from a tornado with 300 mph winds advancing at 60 mph. The fuel pool and the entire cooling system are in those buildings.  The system is powered by two redundant emergency backup diesel generators when normal power is lost.  There also are backup water supplies to the spent fuel storage pool.  Post 9-11 and based on hypothetical spent pool fire studies, the fuel is stored in the pool in a checker-board pattern, with the fuel most recently removed from the reactor, which generates the most heat,  surrounded by older fuel(which has been cooling in the pool for up to 35 years) that will absorb heat.

There was an event this February at Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts, a plant like Vermont Yankee. This event illustrates the design margin.  During storm Nemo all offsite power was lost for two days.  The reactor scrammed and emergency backup diesels started automatically, as designed.  The reactor was brought to cold shutdown by the Pilgrim reactor operations team in 10 hours, and fuel pool cooling, which can be suspended for a long time due to the large volume of water in the pool, was  restored after 21 hours!

Understanding the Nuclear Debate

I’ve struggled to understand how the debate over nuclear power got to be so politically polarized.  Starting with the famous book “Soft Energy Paths”--the author wants to do away with nuclear weapons (don’t we all?) and he concludes we must do away with all nuclear power generation--a source of 20 per cent of the US electricity supply--in order to do this.  This means finding and developing economically-viable technologies to replace the 24/7 base-load power generated by nuclear plants without massive increases in the use of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, it also has led in some quarters to doing as much as possible to discredit nuclear power.  Some supporters of nuclear power call this spreading FUD – Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

Using examples that increase fear of radiation is a common tactic.  For example the warning that an element has a “half-life of millions of years” implies that it will be harmful or dangerous that long.  The opposite is true.  The longer the half-life, the more slowly the radiation is given off and the lower the dose each year.

Implying that radiation comes only from the generation of electricity with nuclear power,  and nuclear weapons is also false.  Radiation is natural.  The Uranium in the granite in this statehouse building was radioactive millions of years ago, and will be radioactive in millions more.  This is a natural part of our environment, and we all get low doses of radiation continually.

The sun’s light, heat and other radiation comes from nuclear reactions.  We could even say  “Solar Power is Nuclear Power.”

Here is an example of a peaceful use of radioactive material.  (Hold up EXIT sign)

Thank you.

Tritium-containing Exit Sign