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.

Storage Pad Needed at Vermont Yankee: Guest post by Guy Page

New VY storage pad needed until feds take away spent fuel

This month the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) will consider the proposed second dry cask storage pad at Vermont Yankee. This concrete pad would support the remaining reinforced concrete and steel casks containing spent reactor fuel.

Vermont Yankee plans to self-finance the $145 million project, and is willing to begin the fuel transfer two years earlier than planned. The pad’s approval was a condition of the 2013 Entergy/State of Vermont Settlement Agreement providing $50 million of redevelopment funds to Vermont.

This pad is a very big deal for all concerned. Without it, the decommissioning cannot proceed as planned and recently found acceptable by the USNRC. A PSB denial could conceivably place at risk the Settlement Agreement and all of its benefits. Although Vermont Yankee does not produce electricity anymore, approving this spent fuel storage site is an important next step in the decommissioning process.

Ironically, this pad at Vermont Yankee shouldn’t be necessary. Thirty years ago, Congress promised Americans a national spent fuel repository. Billions of dollars have since been collected from the industry, but no repository has been opened. Spent fuel at all U.S. nuclear plants remains onsite.

Recently a faint light appeared at the end of this long, dark tunnel. Two high-level nuclear waste storage sites have been proposed in the American southwest. One or both sites could open within 5-10 years, according to State Nuclear Engineer Anthony Leshinskie. This plan merits the support of Vermont’s federal delegation. Meanwhile, the spent fuel storage site should equally be supported by the PSB.

Guy Page
Communications Director

Vermont Energy Partnership

The Vermont Energy Partnership (www.vtep.org) is a diverse group of more than 90 business, labor, and community leaders committed to finding clean, affordable and reliable electricity solutions. Its mission is to educate policy makers, the media, businesses, and the general public about why electricity is imperative for prosperity, and about the optimal solutions to preserve and expand our electricity network. Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee, is a member of the Vermont Energy Partnership.

Nuclear Spent Fuel Expert Describes Vermont Yankee Dry Cask Safety; Guy Page Guest Post

NRC illustration
Generic Dry Cask

By 2020, the spent fuel left over from all 42 years of Vermont Yankee’s operation is scheduled to be stored in huge steel “dry casks” on pads at the plant site in Vernon.

Just how strong and reliable are Vermont Yankee’s “dry cask” spent nuclear fuel containers? Consider the following dry cask testing conducted at Sandia National Lab:

• A tractor-trailer carrying a container ran into a 700-ton concrete wall at 80 MPH.
• A container was broadsided by a 120-ton train locomotive traveling 80 MPH.
• A container was dropped 2,000 feet onto soil as hard as concrete, traveling 235 MPH at impact.
• A container was subjected to a device 30 times more powerful than a typical anti-tank weapon.
• A container was subjected to a simulated crash of a jet airliner and the armament of an F-16.

In each case, post-incident assessments demonstrated that the containers would not have released their contents. All of the information shared above was reported Jay Tarzia, Principal of Radiation Safety and Control Services Inc. and chair of the New Hampshire State Radiation Advisory Committee, on March 26 to the Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen’s Advisory Panel at Brattleboro Union High School.

Dry casks are designed to resist floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, projectiles, and temperature extremes. Tipped over, they will stay intact. And of course, heavy shielding prevents radiation leakage. They also remained intact after being submerged in water for eight hours and exposed to a 1,475 degree fire for 30 minutes. There have been no known or suspected sabotage attempts or releases of radiation since the first dry cask system was licensed in 1986.

At Fukushima, 400 dry casks were exposed to earthquake and tsunami. Although knocked over and tossed around, none were breached.

The U.S. Nuclear Regultory Commission (NRC) licensing allows fuel to be stored for up to 100 years and the NRC is developing an extended storage program for up to 300 years.

After 100 years, the fuel’s radioactivity will have shrunk to about one percent of its beginning total radioactivity. Stress on the canister will be greatly reduced. But Mr. Tarzia did not minimize the long- term nature of dry cask management. After about 4,000 years, the fuel’s radioactivity will return to the level of the original uranium ore. “The fuel will be radioactive for a long time. We need to manage it,” he said. “The security doesn’t go away when the plant goes away, when there’s a long-term storage site.”

The industry is running computer models now showing the outer limits of how long the canisters will last. Ultimately, a long-term storage process or facility will make dry cask storage unnecessary, he predicted.

In closing, Mr. Tarzia predicted that within decades, waste-free nuclear fusion will produce limitless electricity.

------

Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership (VTEP) is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.  This post has also appeared on the VTEP blog and on Atomic Insights blog. As usual, the Atomic Insights blog post has great comments.

Why Vermont Yankee Still Matters: Guest Post by Guy Page

As the planned shutdown of Vermont Yankee approaches, it is tempting to consider Vermont Yankee “old news”. The Big Decision – closing the plant – has been made, so the rest is just housekeeping, right?

What I learned at two Oct. 23 public meetings held on opposite sides of the Connecticut River suggests otherwise. Decisions of great importance to our economy and public safety remain.

At the first meeting, the Vermont Economic Progress Council - assigned to allocate the $2 million in annual economic development aid provided in the Dec. 23, 2013 shutdown Master Settlement Agreement  - sat for seven hours in Brattleboro, listening to five minute sales pitches from schools, museums, hospitals, business groups, and businesses. One after another, the hopeful said virtually the same thing: ‘We provide (or will if you help us) an important cultural, social, and/or employment service to Windham County and beyond. With your help, we can help make our little corner of the world cleaner, safer, healthier, and happier. Help us help others.’

At the second meeting, held at night directly across the river from brightly-lit Vermont Yankee in the gym of the Hinsdale NH High School, about 70 Granite State residents learned what decommissioning will mean to them. Perhaps the most interesting topic was Vermont Yankee’s plan to move all spent fuel into “dry casks” within six years. Dry casks are the gold standard for used fuel storage. Vermont Yankee could have just opted to keep much of the fuel in a pool at the plant– as permitted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and commonly practiced nuclear plants. But Vermont Yankee is going the extra mile, and spending the extra dollar, to respond to the public wish for maximum safety measures.

According to one expert presenter, dry casks make their contents about as secure as humanly, physically possible. Consider this: in actual tests, they have been rammed by a speeding locomotive, impacted the ground at over 200 miles an hour after being dropped from thousands of feet, and loaded onto a flatbed truck that is then rammed into a concrete wall at 80 miles per hour – and in every case the casks remained intact and their contents unspilled. They have been designed to survive the practically untestable, such as an attack by F-16s and a collision with a 350 MPH airplane. The dry casks at the Fukushima plant – perhaps the greatest “real world” test of any nuclear power plant to date – were completely unharmed.

Guy Page
with ancestor
Urban Woodbury

The Vermont Public Service Board met Oct. 29 to discuss Vermont Yankee’s request for construction of another concrete pad for dry cask storage, a prerequisite if this safety-enhancing measure is to become a reality. The PSB’s eventual yea or nay is just one of those crucial decisions looming in the future. So is any decision by any stakeholder – state, corporate, or policy advocate - that threatens to unravel the Master Settlement Agreement, on which depends not only this year’s $2 million, but an additional $8 million over the next four years.

Vermont wants economic development. We want the safest spent fuel storage humanly possible. Whether we get these outcomes depends on many decisions yet unmade. Stay tuned, and stay involved.

-----


Guy Page is the communications director of the Vermont Energy Partnership (VTEP), a coalition of about 90 Vermont not-for-profits, businesses, utilities, labor organizations, development agencies, and individuals committed to a clean, safe, affordable and reliable power policy for Vermont. Entergy – Vermont Yankee is a VTEP member.

-----
Page writes frequent guest posts at this blog.   His most recent post describes A Civilized Meeting about Vermont Yankee. 

Electricity Rates Decrease, Thanks to Vermont Yankee: Harold Bailey Guest Post

The Electricity Rate Decrease Shows the Ongoing Value of Vermont Yankee
Guest post by Harold L. Bailey

Vermonters  do not often receive good news about energy costs, so the 2.46 percent decrease in Green Mountain Power rates scheduled to begin Oct. 1 is a welcome relief. The savings largely come from Vermont Yankee’s $17.8 million "revenue sharing" payment, the outcome of a deal struck with the State of Vermont several years ago.

This huge payout tells me two things: first, Vermont Yankee has once again proven itself to be a stellar corporate citizen that keeps its commitments. Second, Vermont stands to benefit from still more payments by Vermont Yankee - notably millions in cash for economic development. In addition to the $2 million of economic development funds already allocated for 2014, Vermont Yankee is scheduled to provide $2 million each year for 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. These payments are contingent upon Entergy and the state both fulfilling in good faith the conditions of the Master Settlement Agreement governing the closing of the plant.

In particular, Vermont Yankee will need a state Certificate of Public Good to store more spent fuel in dry casks. Let's hope our state officials appreciate the benefits, to everyone, of a smooth decommissioning of Vermont Yankee.

------------
Harold L. Bailey was the representative for Hyde Park and Wolcott in the Vermont Legislature in 2002-2004. He lives in Hyde Park, Vermont.  In the past week, this letter-to-the-editor has been printed in several newspapers in Vermont.

Moving Used Fuel to Dry Casks at Columbia Generating Station

A few words about today's video.

First, today is Friday, which is a good day for a video.

Second, Vermont Yankee will soon request permission to build more dry cask storage facilities.  (Vermont Yankee to Apply for Second Pad to Hold Dry Casks). This makes today a good day for a dry cask storage video.

Third, I recently visited Columbia Generating Station, in Richland Washington.  As I wrote earlier this month:  "I am on travel right now. I am currently in a town that has a lovely park: Leslie Groves Park. Guess the town."

The town is Richland Washington, and the people at Columbia Generating Station were wonderful hosts.  I thoroughly enjoyed visiting the station and taking a tour of the plant.   Therefore, today is a good day for a Columbia Generating Station dry cask storage video.

Enjoy!

Issues and Re-Issues on the way to a CPG for Vermont Yankee

The agreement

In December, Entergy and various state agencies signed an agreement about the final year of Vermont Yankee's operation, lawsuits, payments, and several issues concerning decommissioning.

If the Public Service Board (PSB) acts in favor of this agreement, Vermont Yankee will receive a Certificate of Public Good to operate to the end of this fuel cycle.  You can read more about this agreement in Guy Page's guest post: Reasons the Public Service Board Should Grant an CPG to Vermont Yankee, and my post The Proposed Entergy Settlement is Good for Vermont.

I hope this agreement will be ratified by the Public Service Board.

But the story is always longer and more complex than it first appears.

Issues and Re-Issues

1) Issue: The Ruling and the Timing
According to Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement, there's a March 31 deadline. If the Board does not grant Vermont Yankee a CPG that approves the continued operation of the plant through the end of the fuel cycle, and in accordance with the agreement terms, the agreement may terminate at the discretion of either party.   So we can expect to hear something from the PSB by Monday, March 31.

Re-Issue: BrinksmanshipLast year, when the Board had a deadline about a CPG for emergency diesels for Vermont Yankee, they waited till the last minute to issue the ruling. They played a game of brinksmanship, as I described in A Court Case with a Deadline: The Black Start Diesels.  Are they still playing this game, or will they rule?  We will know by March 31.

2) Issue: The Decommissioning Timing
When the agreement was announced, both sides stated that they had made an agreement on what they could agree upon, but other issues were not resolved. One particular issue is that the state wants fuel moved from the fuel pools as soon as possible, but the state also wants the "real decommissioning" to begin as soon as possible.

So the state wants the fuel to be moved, but no decommissioning funds are to be expended to move it. As I noted in The Fuel Pools: Opponents Say the Darndest Things Attorney General Bill Sorrell plans to "take legal action" if Entergy removes money from the fund in order to move the fuel rods.

Re-Issue: Pre-Emption Sorrell says the state wants a "legal opportunity to be heard on those requests."  In this case, "those requests" are Vermont Yankee requests to the NRC for permission to use decommissioning funds for fuel management. Of course, this is a traditional use of decommissioning funds.   

Does the state truly want to get into a court battle about regulating nuclear operations and safety? Didn't they learn something by losing two court cases?

3) Issue: Will the State Obey the Law?
Okay, let's assume the issues above are resolved nicely.  Let's say that the PSB rules on time, and they rule in substantial agreement with the Settlement Agreement.  Let's say that Attorney General Sorrell finally understands the term "federal jurisdiction over nuclear safety" and decides not to sue if Entergy uses decommissioning funds for decommissioning.  In other words, everything is great.

The question becomes: Will it matter? Will the state live up to its side of the bargain?

Re-Issue: The Shumlin Administration Regularly Breaks Its Own Laws

Earlier this year, John McClaughry wrote comments to the PSB: "Can Entergy Trust the State?" McClaughry explained that when the state passed a law giving the legislature a vote about Vermont Yankee's continued operation, this law was a clear breach of contract with Entergy. The law was a major and one-sided modification of the Memorandum of Understanding that Entergy had signed.  

In my opinion, the state is quite happy to break any law that inconveniences it.  This is not just about Entergy.  Governor Shumlin has been eager to pass a law for single-payer health care, and the law was passed. According to that law, the government had to propose a plan for financing the system, and the plan had to be presented to the legislature by January 15, 2013. It has still not been presented.  Estimates for the cost of the single-payer system range from $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion per year.  There are about 600,000 people in Vermont.  If the cost is $1.8 billion, that is $3000 per citizen.  A rather massive payroll tax has been proposed, and of course, everyone hates that idea.   

When Governor Shumlin was recently asked: "What else can we tax (besides a payroll tax  to finance this)?" Shumlin answered: "bubble gum and lollipops."  I encourage you to read Representative Tom Koch's Op Ed on this subject: A Governor Who is Above the Law.  I

 also recommend Rob Roper's commentary: Irreconcilable Differences in Single Payer Promises.  

Note for those who do not live in Vermont: this is not about the Affordable Care Act.  This is about a single-payer system that the state of Vermont, all by itself, plans to implement.
I don't want to get deep into the weeds of this controversy, but I just want to say that if Shumlin does not obey his own laws (the ones HE wanted to pass) about his own pet project, how is he going to treat the Entergy agreement?

Soon we will know

The PSB should rule by Monday, March 31, or the Settlement Agreement may become null and void.

• The PSB may rule for the agreement, or they may rule against it, or they may stall and not rule at all.  
• If they do rule for the agreement, the Attorney General may still sue Entergy for moving spent fuel from the fuel pool, and using the "wrong" money to do so.  
• If all is well with the PSB ruling and the Attorney General, the state may simply ignore their obligations under the contract.

Welcome to Vermont politics. Stay tuned.  Oh yes.  Stay tuned.

------

Acknowledgment: John McClaughry and Rob Roper are officers of the Ethan Allen Institute.  I am director of the Energy Education Project which is part of that institute.

Decommissioning, Governor Shumlin, and Dry Cask Storage

Did I Write "Patronizing Bunk"?

I wrote an op-ed about the state's agreement with Entergy about decommissioning. I published it on this blog, and it was also published on Vermont Digger. On Vermont Digger, the title was Entergy Settlement Before the PSB is Good for the State. It had a lively comment stream on Vermont Digger.

Governor Peter Shumlin

In this op-ed I wrote:

However, in the course of the negotiations, I suspect the state learned some facts about  decommissioning.

Two anti-nuclear commentators called my statement: "patronizing bunk." They claimed that the state was well-versed in decommissioning from the start.  The state didn't have to learn anything.

Well, I begged to differ.

Here is part of the answer I posted, with slight edits.

About Patronizing

I was not simply being patronizing. When I wrote: “the state learned something about decommissioning,” you thought I was referring to the DPS (Department of Public Service). Actually, I was referring to Governor Shumlin. I was not clear, which was my fault. But then again, I tend to use locutions like “the state” to avoid finger-pointing at individuals.

Perhaps, instead of being vaguely snarky, I should be more direct, even if it turns out a bit more pointed at one man. Frankly, this would have been uncomfortable for me to write originally, but I am writing it to show what I was thinking about.

Below, I have written something more accurate, more pointed, and with references. Perhaps I should have written the material below, instead.

About Governor Shumlin

What I should have written:

And, it looks like over the years, Governor Shumlin himself is learning something about decommissioning. Here’s one of his press conferences from 2011:

http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/03/govs-presser-on-video-shumlin-praises-school-boards-rails-at-gop-and-entergy/

The title includes SHUMLIN SAYS SAFSTOR WASN’T PART OF DEAL WITH ENTERGY. The article includes Governor Shumlin arguing with reporters who quote the MOU at him. It’s kind of funny, if it weren’t sad.

From the same press conference, but this time a direct quote from Shumlin:

http://truenorthreports.com/shumlin-talks-about-uvm-vermont-yankee-and-taxes

“The jobs gap doesn’t really happen for about 16 years,” he said. “Five to six years for the plant to cool down, gotta keep all the systems running, that requires a number of employees, several hundred. And ten years of decommissioning. So the jobs cliff, despite what they tell you in those 30 second advertisements, is not as significant as long as they keep their promise on decommissioning the plant whenever it shuts down.”

The Governor is Learning

Recently, the Governor has had to eat his words and acknowledge SAFSTOR is allowed. He has had to acknowledge that the plant will not keep running for five or six years with several hundred employees. It is nobody’s fault but his own that he said these absurd things at a press conference. Nobody forced him to make such a fool of himself.

You gotta give the man credit, though, Shumlin is learning. Maybe the learning didn’t happen at the negotiations, maybe it did. Maybe it happened before. I should not have said “when” it happened, because I don’t know. But he’s gone from myth-based “hundreds of people for five-six years” to “everything will be in dry casks within seven years.” He has more of a grasp of reality now. I don’t know and should not have said exactly when he learned these things. But he is learning.

I want to say something though about his advisers. Where were they? Surely someone could have told him the facts of life about the M O U and what happens during decommissioning. Apparently, nobody did. People just let him go out there and say a bunch of things that simply are not true. He is learning, for sure. Are his advisers learning?"

Updated: The Dry Casks.  Vermont Digger Special Report on Decommissioning

I wrote a draft of this a few days ago, but I didn't post it because I was busy with our daughter's book launch.

Yesterday, Vermont Digger published a special report on remaining areas of disagreement between Vermont Yankee and the state agencies in Vermont.  John Herrick wrote Despite Recent Agreement, State and Entergy Remain at Odds Over Funding for Dismantling Vermont Yankee. 

According to this article, the state is concerned that Entergy may use decommissioning funds to move used fuel from the fuel pool to dry casks.  Attorney General Sorrell says that If Entergy elects to remove money from the fund, Sorrell said the state will take legal action.  Mr. Sorrell apparently thinks that moving fuel  to dry casks is not part of decommissioning: the state wants the decommissioning fund reserved for "tearing down the plant."

Umm...last I looked, only the NRC could say what a decommissioning fund can or cannot be used for.

Sigh. I thought the state had learned that the federal government, not the state, is responsible for regulating decommissioning and nuclear safety.  Oh well.  

Maybe they are not learning as fast as I thought they were learning.

High Level Waste and Legal Wrangles at Vermont Yankee

High Level Waste is a (legal) Question At Vermont Yankee

Low level waste is a success story, but high level waste is a legal question at Vermont Yankee.  High level waste storage has become a central issue as the federal court case begins the appeals process.

Spent Fuel as Pretext

In the past, the Vermont legislature attempted to shut down Vermont Yankee on several pretexts.  One pretext was that the original Memorandum of Understanding allowed Vermont Yankee to store spent fuel produced while that memorandum was in effect, through March 2012. The legislature claimed that spent fuel produced AFTER March 2012 was a different story.Vermont Yankee had no right to store that fuel.

In January, Judge Murtha ruled that Vermont could not shut down Vermont Yankee over spent fuel storage, because spent fuel is regulated at the federal level. That seemed clear enough, but the Public Service Board (PSB) seemed to take the attitude that Murtha meant the Vermont Legislature couldn't refuse to allow spent fuel storage but surely the PSB could refuse to allow it.

In March, Murtha clarified the situation by ruling again. (Ruling is here).  I quoted the ruling in an earlier blog post, as follows (emphasis added by me):

Therefore, Defendants are enjoined, pending the appeal of the Court’s final judgment and Merits Decision to the Second Circuit, from addressing the storage of spent fuel ... from bringing an enforcement action, or taking other action... to compel Vermont Yankee to shut down because the “cumulative total amount of spent fuel stored at Vermont Yankee” exceeds “the amount derived from the operation of the facility up to, but not beyond, March 21, 2012.”

That seems like that statement was pretty clear.

Expeditious Hearings

Of course, the state doesn't give up so easily. Recently, the state asked for "expedited oral hearings" in the federal appeals process, mainly due to the spent fuel storage issues.  Several days ago, the circuit court judge ruled in their favor about the hearing schedule. There will be expedited oral hearings, because maybe, just maybe, the state actually does rule spent fuel storage, and all that Federal prerogative stuff isn't very important (sarcasm alert).

As noted in the Brattleboro Reformer article, the state... argued that an expedited resolution is necessary to determine what will be done about the storage of spent nuclear fuel produced by the plant.  The judge granted their request for an expedited hearing.  Here's a link to the State argument for expedited hearings, the Entergy response, and the Judge's ruling allowing expedited hearings.  

To me, it seems clear that it is a federal prerogative to regulate spent fuel.  Nevertheless, the issue will  be heard in court once again.  The state will get its hearing in the federal court, with "expedited oral" arguments.

----
Note: you can link to many filings in the Federal and Public Service Board dockets at this page at the Energy Education Project website: Dockets for Public Service Board and Courts

Catching Up: $21 Million, Author Tour and Waste Confidence Rule

In honor of summer
and catching-up

You Loan Twenty-one Million and What Do You Get?

Well, if you are a Vermont ratepayer who loaned money to Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS), you do not get the money back.

Ratepayers were supposed to get the money back if anyone bought CVPS.  Green Mountain Power bought them, but there was a decision that that money-back idea was just silly, when the money could go to a fund. People can borrow from the fund for efficiency improvements. That would the same thing as getting the money back, if not better! (heavy sarcasm alert)

Gaz Metro is now owner of Green Mountain Power and CVPS. Gaz Metro doesn't have to return the money to the Vermont ratepayers.

 I have many posts on this, including Money Settles into Gaz Metro Pockets Dust Settles Under the Dome.  In mid-June, the Public Service Board approved the merger, without any direct refunds to ratepayers.

In completely un-related news, the former Vermont House majority leader has taken a new job with Green Mountain Power. In general, the House Democrats have supported Governor Shumlin on everything connected with this merger. As Randy Koch commented on the Vermont Digger article about Lucy Leriche's new job: It’s really nice to know that what sorta looks like disgusting corruption à la New Jersey is actually just neighbors working for neighbors, working for Vermont, all on the up and up.  (Second sarcasm alert in one post.  This might be a record for me.)

Author Tour with Nuclear Supporters in Attendance

A few days ago, we posted about an anti-nuclear author that was touring the area for the Hiroshima anniversary.  The author's name is Cecile Pineda, her book is The Devil's Tango, How I Learned the Fukushima Step By Step, and the tour was sponsored by the local anti-nuclear umbrella organization, the Sage Alliance.

Mainly due to Howard Shaffer publicizing this tour, there were pro-nuclear people at three of the author's events. In Brattleboro, Vermont, Richard Schmidt handed out his Vermont Yankee fact sheet.  On Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Dr Sam Martin, an ANS Northeast Region member, asked some questions about the rebuilding of Hiroshima (the author did not answer).  Here at the Howe library in Hanover, New Hampshire, near his home, Howard Shaffer attended.  Shaffer's post about this tour is up today at ANS Nuclear Cafe: Vermont Yankee Supporters at Anti-Nuke Book Tour.  

Showing up is the first thing that nuclear supporters need to do.  This post is about the author-- and about three people who showed up. Read it and be inspired!

The Waste Confidence Rule

The NRC is now required to write Environmental Impact Statements for spent fuel storage. This is leading to the possibility of licensing changes (no new licenses will be granted until the NRC has set up plans for such statements) and a great deal of speculation.  Of course, I must blog about how this affects Vermont Yankee.  (It basically doesn't affect Vermont Yankee, for now at least.)

For today, however, I will direct people to the Forbes article Nuclear Waste Confidence, NRC Ruling No Big Deal by James Conca, and (compare and contrast!) the Vermont Digger article Nuclear Regulator Commission Halts Nuclear Power Licensing Decisions.  The Digger article includes many interviews with nuclear opponents.

Dry Casks, the PSB, the Judge and My Useless Soundbite

The Public Service Board Is Confused

The Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) may need to issue a Certificate of Public Good in order for Vermont Yankee to continue to operate. Meanwhile, in a January 19 ruling about Vermont Yankee, Judge Murtha enjoined "the Legislature" from closing down Vermont Yankee by regulating dry cask storage of spent fuel. You can read the entire ruling here: the last few pages contain the relevant injunction against shutting down the plant by regulating dry cask storage.

The Judge showed that "the Legislature" was attempting to regulate nuclear safety issues. These are regulated solely by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

On March 9, Howard and I attended a PSB hearing. The Public Service Board couldn't figure out how it was going to control dry cask storage if the legislature didn't give it authority to do so. Apparently, the PSB looked at the Judge's ruling and said "Who, me? Surely the Judge didn't mean that we can't regulate dry casks. He's talking about the Legislature, not us."

What Part of No Don't You Understand?

At that point, Entergy asked the Judge for a ruling that would clarify the situation. On Monday, the judge ruled, and you can link to it here. As Judge Murtha wrote:

a denial of authorization to store fuel, on the basis of statutory provisions that this Court has held were enacted with a preempted purpose, would force Vermont Yankee to shut down, .....Therefore, Defendants are enjoined, pending the appeal of the Court’s final judgment and Merits Decision to the Second Circuit, from addressing the storage of spent fuel ... from bringing an enforcement action, or taking other action... to compel Vermont Yankee to shut down because the “cumulative total amount of spent fuel stored at Vermont Yankee” exceeds “the amount derived from the operation of the facility up to, but not beyond, March 21, 2012.” (emphasis added by me)

My translation: legislating spent fuel storage is a "pre-empted purpose" and you can't shut the plant down on that basis.

In other words: PSB, what part of "no" didn't you understand?

My Soundbite and How It Fell Flat

I'm a kind of geeky person and I tend to give long-winded explanations. But when I was in the hearing room on March 9, I thought of a soundbite. I even told it to a couple of reporters. They didn't quote it but still, I liked it. The hearing was Friday the 9th and the ruling was Monday the 19th, so my soundbite predicted what the ruling would be.

I said:

"Whatever they think about it, PSB has no authority to regulate dry casks. No judge will let them regulate it. Radiological safety issues are pre-empted to the federal level. A spent fuel cask is just a concrete cylinder with some ceramic pellets inside. Without radiological concerns, there is nothing to regulate."

Okay, okay, it was long for a soundbite, and it didn't deserve to be quoted. Still, I kind of liked it, and I tried to get it out there in the press.

A dry cask is a concrete cylinder with some ceramic pellets inside. One gets tired of the "tons of waste on the banks of the Connecticut" descriptions. In my opinion, my own description is just as close to the truth. Maybe closer.

--------

Further reading includes

Shumlin and the Public Service Board and A Crabby Public Service Board, both on this blog.

Back to the the Vermont Public Service Board: Square One or Before by Howard Shaffer at ANS Nuclear Cafe

State Can't Shut Vermont Yankee Over Waste Issue. Dave Gram, Burlington Free Press.

Update: Not sure how I missed this, but the PSB also realized that it couldn't rule on spent fuel, but only because the Judge said so. A rather complex statement from the PSB (deliberate obfuscation or just fuzzy thinking?) is near the bottom of this excellent Vermont Digger article by Randolph Holhut of The Commons and Alan Panebaker of Vermont Digger. Murtha Gives Entergy Okay to continue operating Vermont Yankee. Well, my soundbite on those casks was still first and earliest....