Vermont Yankee: Three Insights from the NRC Review Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

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

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

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

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

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

--------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dice image from Wikipedia

Entergy Communications

As you remember, I had a busy Tuesday, trying to deal with every aspect of my energy life. Among other things, I

• Took over the administration of the Save Vermont Yankee group on Facebook (I was annoyed).
• Went to a Vermont Tiger symposium and practiced media relations (I apologized)
• Heard Brian Dubie speak (I was impressed)
• Talked to people about Vermont Yankee (I was depressed)
• Read a good report about renewables (I was impressed again)
• Went to a meeting about conservation (I was discouraged).

I covered the first half of this list in my post yesterday. Today I will talk about Vermont Yankee and communications.

Vermont Yankee and Communication and Depression

The Vermont Tiger Crunch Time meeting was a perfect rendezvous for Vermont Yankee supporters. Republican candidates, economists, a meeting co-sponsorship by Vermont Energy Partnership. It could have been moderately cheerful for me.

Alas, I was not cheered. In many off-the-record conversations, I heard the same thing: "I like nuclear, I even like the plant, but I can't stand Entergy."

People expanded on the theme.

• Entergy has to convince me they are telling the truth.
• It's nearly impossible to get information out of them.
• The plant is an asset to the state, but I don't want to see us sign a twenty-year agreement with those guys.

I heard this over and over again.

I found it very discouraging. I blog for Vermont Yankee because I believe nuclear is the best option for the future, and the best transition to renewables. I can't defend Entergy's corporate communication style. I know that the plant is good: it just had a magnificent breaker-to-breaker run. The reliable electric power and the statewide economics of Vermont Yankee are very good for the state.

However, Entergy's communication style can be useless to counter-productive. For example, a story of a tour of the plant. I grant you that the author of this article is president of VPIRG and an opponent of Vermont Yankee. I also grant you that the tour took place during the outage. Still, this kind of tour is no way to win friends and influence people. Don't ask questions because your guide won't be able to answer them? Be abandoned in the parking lot with no further information?

Now, I can see why Vermont Yankee would NOT want to speak to these particular people. With the anti-s, any statement that can be taken out of context and vilified WILL be taken out of context and vilified. Still, there are better ways to communicate with anti-s then to refuse to answer questions. Perhaps only answer questions afterwards in a meeting room, with recording in place? Something like that?

Sometimes I think that the best way for Entergy to get Vermont Yankee's license renewed would be to sell the plant. I find this depressing. It's good plant, but nobody trusts Entergy.

I will post about renewables and conservation tomorrow.

Miscommunication?

It's easy to use inaccurate words. I do it. For example, I have been using tritium (which is a gas) as a shorthand for tritiated water. In the wells, they are measuring radiation levels due to tritiated water which is quite a mouthful. When I write tritium levels or tritium radiation levels, I don't think my shorthand is confusing to anybody.

But it could be. My shorthand could be the cause of miscommunication.

I think miscommunication occurred in the discussion of pipes, underground pipes and buried pipes. I have used some testimony to illustrate this.

On January 27, Arnie Gunderson testified before the House Natural Resources Committee, which entered his testimony into the public record. The Times Argus expanded on his testimony in a timeline published recently. To describe the confusion of words, I quote from Gundersen below. I also want to thank Mr. Gundersen for providing Howard Shaffer (and myself) with an electronic copy of his testimony. I have added emphasis to show the difficulties of word use.

Act 189 requires that the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel evaluate: “An underground piping system that carries radionuclides."

According to Gundersen, the state Nuclear Engineer, William Sherman, responds to the panel on October 19, 2008: “…the Panel is informed there are no underground piping systems carrying radioactivity, the Panel designates the Service Water System, which has buried piping, to be evaluated.” 

On December 10, the Nuclear Engineer clarifies the statement above after speaking to David McElwee at Entergy. Sherman addresses the panel again, and his clarification includes the following terms: underground radioactive piping... the line was abandoned and the current drain is no longer buried piping...there was no buried radioactive piping.

The Oversight Panel accepted this statement and issued a report on December 22 which contains the statement that: "However, there are no underground piping systems carrying radionuclides at ENVY"

On May 20,2009, Jay Thayer of Entergy was asked about piping as part of testimony before the Public Service Board. He answered:  

I can do some research on that and get back to you, but I don't believe there are active piping systems underground containing contaminated  fluids today.

Thayer did not get back to the panel with an answer. This had consequences. On February 2, according the Entergy Fourth Quarter Earning Call Transcript, Wayne Leonard, Chairman and CEO of Entergy stated:

In May 2009, an Entergy executives testified in a hearing on the state's report that he didn't think we had any such pipes but he would get back to them. He did not get back to them. He has issued a public apology and made clear he failed to provide full and complete information he either on the witness stand or by failing to get back to them.

He has been permanently relieved of his duties in Vermont and placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the full investigation.

Back to our discussion of word use. In many of the quote above, underground and buried and piping carrying radionuclides and piping containing radioactivity are used almost interchangeably. In many cases, that would not matter. However, John Wheeler, a nuclear engineer and blogger, says that underground and buried do not mean the same thing to engineers. John states:

.... the phrases “Buried piping” and “underground piping” do NOT mean the same thing. To an engineer the term “buried” piping refers to piping that is buried underground in direct contact with the soil. Underground piping means the piping is below grade and could be located in a vault or concrete trench.

Arnie Gundersen apparently does not agree with these definitions of engineering terms. According to the Rutland Herald, he thinks these distinctions are merely semantics.

Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer and a member of the Public Oversight Panel, as well as a consultant to the Vermont Legislature, said Entergy was using semantics.

"ENVY is saying that if you die and you are put directly in the ground with dirt on top of you, you are buried. But if you die and are put in a casket, you are not buried, but you are 'underground,'" Gundersen said.

As I look at the history here, I see many opportunities for miscommunication. Underground and buried...what did these terms mean to the various players? Was Entergy asked about underground pipes, but answer about buried pipes? Did the nuclear engineer use the words buried, underground as if they were synonyms? Is John Wheeler correct about the use of underground and buried? Or is Gundersen correct in his implication that this is semantic obfuscation of a clear situation?

Were there honest communication errors?