Video of Interviews with Vermont Yankee People

Entergy made a short video of interviews with Vermont Yankee employees. The video was filmed on the last day of plant operations.

Vermont Yankee was a well-maintained plant. It was a plant where people worked together. A sad video. But it is an opportunity to hear the voices of the employees themselves.


Vermont Yankee Employee Thoughts on Closing from Entergy Corp. on Vimeo.

Governor Salmon Praises 42 Years of Vermont Yankee. (Guest Post)

Governor Salmon speaking in favor of  Vermont Yankee
At PSB hearing,  November 2012

Former governor tells Vermont Yankee operators: ‘you done good’

By Thomas P. Salmon

In 1958, when I moved from Boston to Bellows Falls, Vermont was something of an economic and political backwater. The economy was stagnant and political loyalties were virtually unchanged since the Civil War. More people moved out than moved in. Not until 1963 did the human population exceed the bovine.

Construction on the Interstate Highway began in 1957. Many visitors followed the freeway north to the ski resorts, lakes and woodlands of “Vermont: The Beckoning Country,” so styled by Gov. Phil Hoff and his tourism expert, Al Moulton. Of course many loved what they saw and stayed. With them came fresh energy, ideas, and human and financial capital.

As our population and industrial base grew, so did our need for reliable, low-cost, smog-free electricity. In the mid-1960’s the Legislature faced a hard choice: buy hydro power from Labrador, or build an instate nuclear power plant. I favored the former. The struggle was intense, the vote close. Vermont Yankee won. Did the “losers,” myself included, take our bats and balls and go home? No, we closed ranks behind Vermont Yankee. Politics, then, took second place to presenting a unified front for creating plentiful, low-cost, clean electricity.

As I write these words, the operators of Vermont Yankee have spent 42 years before the mast. If an informed Vermonter were to sum up in a sentence the performance of Vermont Yankee, he would say, ‘you done good:’ 42 years of baseload power; environmentally benign; never hurt a soul. Vermont Yankee provided, at a critical time in Vermont’s history, stable, steady and very cost-effective power. It’s been a good corporate citizen, with wages and benefits far beyond the norm, and always there to help the community whenever there was a genuine need.

Eight years ago, after serving as president of the University of Vermont and chair of Green Mountain Power, I began to notice the heat being turned up on Vermont Yankee. A rather fierce ideological battle from the hard left ensued. Some were Vermonters, but the vast majority lived in other states. The Vermont press was responding to their siren song. However in Windham County, a hardy band of citizens said, ‘we want to be heard on these issues.’ And so the non-profit Vermont Energy Partnership was founded to advocate on behalf of public policies that facilitate the affordable, safe, reliable, clean power, including support for a well-operated Vermont Yankee plant. It was a great honor and privilege to participate in this effort.

At the end of this month, Vermont Yankee will cease to operate, but it will remain an important member of our community for many years still to come. I salute the plant’s many dedicated professionals and outstanding neighbors who will now retire or seek work elsewhere. In the meantime, there is still important work to be done for the future of Windham County and to solve energy issues in our state. Vermont Yankee has agreed to provide assistance for rebuilding the post-shutdown economy and renewable energy, contingent upon certain regulatory approvals from the state. I look forward to working with Vermont Yankee and the community to continue solving these issues together.

(Thomas P. Salmon of Rockingham served as governor for the State of Vermont from 1973-1977.)

-----

This post has appeared as an op-ed in several newspapers in Vermont.

Employee Buyout Unlikely: Private Communications

Rod Adams and the Employee Buy Out

In March, Rod Adams visited Vermont and toured Vermont Yankee. He was impressed by the excellent condition of the power plant. He also thought about Vermont's heritage of employee-ownership, dairy cooperatives and so forth.  Rod began to think that the employees could buy Vermont Yankee, and run it as a "B" corporation that has social goals.  Such a corporation is not required to maximize profits.

Rod didn't just "think."  He contacted people and made inquiries. He posted about this idea, and so did I.  We were hopeful about it.  (I list references at the end of this post.)

My Phone Rings: Private Communications

Information for my blog comes from reading articles in the press or attending meetings (such as Public Service Board meetings). I rarely get a phone call.  In this day and age, a phone call means "I want to tell you something, and I don't want to leave a digital trail. Don't quote me directly. This is background stuff only."

After Rod's posts, I got phone calls from all over the place: local people and nuclear supporters from other parts of the country.

When I came to summarize this "off the record" information, I realized what I heard was pretty much in the public record anyhow.  Or I heard people's opinions, things that they wanted to share with me without a record.

Oh well. They needed to call.  I needed to learn in the way that I needed to learn.  So here's what I learned.

Employee Buy Out is Close to Impossible

Here are some of the reasons that an employee buyout is close to impossible.

Employees would not benefit that much.

Most employees would not participate in a buy-out.  Most employees are focused on making their own choices between:

• getting the retention bonuses that Entergy has put in place versus 
• starting anew somewhere else.  

Most employees have very little interest in investing money and time in something that is uncertain and would not protect their families.

The new owners couldn't get licenses

In general, both the NRC and state agencies insist that nuclear plant owners have solid assets and a solid track record. A co-operative company formed by employees would not meet NRC criteria for a license or PSB criteria for a Certificate of Public Good.  This would be true even if the company was backed by a wealthy private investor.

Political and Fiscal Opposition

The current Vermont administration has been very set against continuing operation of Vermont Yankee.  They have expressed this by testifying against the plant in front of the Public Service Board, calling the plant "Entergy Louisiana" at every turn, and taxing it outrageously.

Lake Champlain

The "taxing it" part is the one that would be impossible to fight.  The state assessed a $12 million dollar "generation tax" on Vermont Yankee.  This tax only applies to plants that were "built after 1965 and are greater that 200 MW."  That is a very targeted tax, and there is no particular reason that the legislature can't increase it to $18 million or more, whenever they decide to do so.  The way the law is written, nobody but Vermont Yankee will be hurt by such an increase.

(Ummm, a completely unscientific survey conducted by Meredith Angwin reveals that most plants of this size pay a generation tax of less than $5 million dollars. Hey, as long as I am talking about "private communications," I may as well throw that one in, though tax records are public in general.)

There have been many other taxes, also, including a tax to clean up Lake Champlain (on the other side of the state from the plant) and to support Clean Energy projects. And there are other taxes. The state requires Entergy to pay the Red Cross for shelters in case of an evacuation: Entergy must pay the Red Cross a total of $700,000 over a period of four years.

It is nearly impossible for a business to fight taxes at this level. There is no reason to believe that employee ownership would lead to any less state taxes.  Vermont Yankee would still be a nuclear plant and they would be employees of a nuclear plant.  They would be worse: they would be owners of a nuclear plant.  The taxes would stay.

Conclusion

I conclude that an employee buyout of Vermont Yankee is close to impossible.

I am sorry to conclude that there will be no employee buy-out, but I thought I had better make this statement explicit on my blog.

 ---------

References:

Rod Adams

What a Waste---Vermont Yankee is in beautiful condition (March 28)

Vermont Yankee: Clean Kilowatt Cow That Deserves Saving  (May 1)

Save Vermont Yankee. If not you, who? If not now, when? (May 6)

Meredith Angwin

Saving Vermont Yankee: Rod Adams Moves Forward (May 7)

Employee Ownership (May 8)

Posts about Taxes:

Millions for education but not one cent for tribute (Meredith Angwin at ANS Nuclear Cafe, December 2013)

Vermont Yankee asked to pay $200,000 in 2014  Terri Hallenbeck at Burlington Free Press on how Vermont Yankee must continue to pay Red Cross for shelters. (Article undated, apparently early 2014)

Employee Ownership

Rod Adams

Saving Vermont Yankee

Yesterday, I wrote about Rod Adams work to keep Vermont Yankee running through an employee buy-out.  Saving Vermont Yankee: Rod Adams Moves Forward.  At the end of that post, I wrote

Imagine that  a Vermont Yankee employee asked me: "Well, should I stop looking for a new job? Will VY continue?" I don't think I would  advise her to stop looking for a new job.  There is a reasonable chance Adams efforts will succeed....and a reasonable chance they will fail. 

There are many roadblocks to an employee buyout.  The comment stream on my post includes several of the potential problems. In my estimation, there are basically two major issues:

• Money
• Political opposition

Money

I debated calling this roadblock: "NRC" instead of "money." The group that buys the plant must not only have enough money for the purchase, they must convince the NRC that they have enough money to run the plant, replace anything that needs to be replaced, etc.  They have to be fiscally sound.

Getting that kind of money together is hard, and doing it on an ad hoc basis unlikely to be convincing.  Let's say Warren Buffet decided to buy the plant.  Buffet has had money for a long time. He could convince the NRC that he can run it.  A new entity called "Employees Purchase Group" would have a tough battle convincing the NRC that the Purchase Group was fiscally sound.

Political Opposition

If the employees own the plant, instead of "Entergy Louisiana" owning it, much of the political opposition might go away. Or it might not. If the political opposition doesn't go away, the state won't let the plant operate.  If the state was forced to let it operate, the state will do its best to tax it to death.

Maybe or Maybe Not

These are the facts here in Vermont. I think Adams is doing something worthwhile, not something completely quixotic.  Still,  buying the plant is hardly a slam-dunk.  Adams is trying to do something that has never been done before. His path is seriously uphill.

My issue is that I want to be supportive to the effort to keep VY running, but I don't want to be Pollyanna.  I want to make it clear that I think that individuals at the plant should look to their own futures, and not assume that VY will keep operating.

That said, I want to say that I support Rod's efforts to keep it running.

Saving Vermont Yankee: Rod Adams Moves Forward

Saving Vermont Yankee

Rod Adams is exploring ways to keep Vermont Yankee operating.  Vermont Yankee is a solid factory, and it makes a product that remains in high demand. As a matter of fact, the demand is high and the product (electricity) goes through periods of very high demand compared to the supply.  During the polar vortex last winter, the price of electricity on the grid soared to above 30 cents per kWh, while diesel fuel was pressed into service to meet the demand.

"Rod Adams is exploring ways..." Is this a fair description? When Luke Skywalker says: "I'll try," Yoda gives him the advice that has passed into legend:

"Do. Or do not.  There is no try."

Is Adams merely "trying"?  No.  Rod is highly committed to saving Vermont Yankee. This is not "trying."

On the other hand, despite Yoda's saying, some work succeeds in reaching its goals.  Some work does not.  With this work, only time will tell.

Adams's Program

Emotional Commitment: After the announcement that Vermont Yankee would close, I wrote a guest post at ANS Nuclear Cafe about my emotions about the closing: We Are Not Spock.  Rod Adams followed this post with a guest post at my blog in November, 2011  The first words of his guest post were: "Meredith, you are not alone in your sorrow." Rod also wrote a post about the plant at his own blog: Nuclear professionals can, and should get emotional.   This post has over 100 comments.

I am starting here, with Adams's emotions and commitment, instead of starting Adams's planning.  Because....nothing gets done without emotional commitment. Our opponents know this. I am trying to acknowledge this.

Excellent Plant: Adams took a tour of Vermont Yankee in March of this year, and quickly wrote a post about why the plant should be saved: What a Waste--Vermont Yankee is in beautiful condition. The post has over 60 comments. (Note, the comment streams on Rod's posts are usually worth reading.)

Employee Ownership: At this point, Rod's strategy began to take shape: Employee Ownership. On May 1, on his own blog, Adams posted Vermont Yankee, a Clean Kilowatt Cow That Deserves Saving. (Once again, 55 comments.)  Some key sentences in this post are quoted below:


When I left the plant I ended up following a truck on the highway from Cabot Creamery that said “Owned by Dairy Farmers Since 1919.” That started the wheels turning.
Vermont has a deep history of cooperative businesses. ....The state is also one of several states that allows companies to incorporate as ‘B’ corporations with bylaws that enforce social goals that sometimes conflict with maximizing profits.


It is up to us to save Vermont Yankee:  In his most recent post at ANS Nuclear Cafe (yesterday, as a matter of fact) Adams discusses whether Entergy really tried hard to sell the plant....or not.  He concludes that it is up to us activists to save Vermont Yankee. Save Vermont Yankee. If not you, who? If not now, when?

In this post, he hints at his work finding financial backers for the employee buy-out plan.  He is committed to this. He may succeed or he may not, but he is not merely "trying." There is no try.

Next Steps:

Adams is contacting people, and Adams will be out in Vermont again this summer.  If you know of people who can help him (any venture capitalists in the crowd?) please contact me or Rod.  If you don't know Rod's email, write me at mjangwin at gmail and I will put you in contact.

Buying the plant should be inexpensive, I think.  The plant is also quite profitable right now, having recently shared $17 million in excess profits with Green Mountain Power. The requirement to share that money would not survive a change in ownership, by the way, and the new owner should have an even more profitable plant.  However, the new owner will have to prove that it has the resources to maintain the plant, and that is where the backers come in.  The backers would be guarantors, as I see it. I don't think they would have to invest large sums of money immediately.  I hope Adams comments on this, because I could easily have it wrong. I have never tried to buy a power plant. :-)

Beyond Vermont Yankee

Imagine that  a Vermont Yankee employee asked me: "Well, should I stop looking for a new job? Will VY continue?" I don't think I would advise her to stop looking for a new job.  There is a reasonable chance Adams efforts will succeed....and a reasonable chance they will fail.

I'm talking about Vermont Yankee here.

But looking beyond Vermont Yankee, the things that Adams learns in this attempt may well save other power plants in less vitriolic states.  Adams is highly committed to this and we should help him.  This is not a mere "try."

Nuclear Training and Questions about the Future

Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee Workers: The Question 

On my latest post, a comment posed a very important question about training at nuclear plants. Specifically, the comment raised questions about the future for people at Vermont Yankee.

Here's a quote from that comment:

Everyone even me is saddened about the loss of VY and that it is impossible to restart a shut down nuclear plant. One reason is because to keep the license, all the operators have to have continuous training. Why couldn't operators train at another reactor of the same brand? If the NRC won't allow that, why doesn't the industry try to change that? Entergy, for example, must have another GE reactor of theirs....Also, I read that a license is plant specific. Why is that? Why can it not go by maybe brand? That is like you get a drivers license but you can only drive 1 car. Again, why did the industry let that happen? Why is your industry taking this closures "lying down"? 

My Partial Answer: About Simulators

These are good questions.  Though I don't work at a nuclear plant, I made an attempt to answer the question as below:

Indian Point

There's an old saying that France has one variety of nuclear plant and 100 varieties of cheese, while America has one variety of cheese and 100 varieties of nuclear plants. That is the main problem. 

Even "sister" reactors are not totally alike. Though being a qualified operator on one reactor definitely gives you a leg up on being qualified on a similar reactor, you still have to go through a lot of training for that second reactor.

I was at EPRI during part of the ten years just after TMI. At that time, reactor training went from "generic" to very plant-specific simulators. This was a Good Thing for training and safety. 

That said, airplane pilots face this problem of the "new plant" all the time. (For a while, my husband worked at a company that did software for airplane simulators.) Anyhow, for a pilot qualified on a 727, after a certain number of hours in the simulator for a 737--that pilot can get into the cockpit of a 737, with passengers in the plane behind him.

Seabrook

It would be good if the nuclear industry had something similar. People get too locked into their jobs IMHO. Maybe the nuclear industry does have this....as I say, I don't work in a plant and I am not an expert on nuclear simulator training. 

However, you make a good point that such operator flexibility would be good for the industry.

I encourage people who work at nuclear plants to enter this conversation.

SROs and Others

I know people (such as Howard Shaffer) who held responsible positions at more than one

Duane Arnold

nuclear plant.  I don't know how easy or hard it is to do this.  I would think a plant chemist would need almost no re-training, but an SRO might need months or years of training to qualify at a new plant.  But I really don't know.

I hope knowledgeable people will comment on this post.

Also, if as a nuclear worker, you moved between plants in the past, it would be great if you could comment on this post.

Thank you.

Layoffs Possible at Vermont Yankee

Illustration of "Okuns Law"
A relationship between
GDP and unemployment rates 

Lay-offs Possible at Vermont Yankee

A few days ago, a reporter called to ask me if I had heard anything about layoffs at Vermont Yankee.  I hadn't.

However, within a day or so, a different reporter, Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger, had written an article about the (probable) impending layoffs: Vermont Yankee owner: 'Expect workforce reductions'. Using leaked internal documents, Stein concluded that Entergy workers were "essentially being asked to reapply for their jobs" including filling out an 18 page form.  Apparently, this is part of  Entergy's "Human Capital Management Initiative."  Stein  estimated a 10% reduction in force, which would be 65 layoffs among the work force of 650 people.

When the Stein article appeared, I also received an email from Entergy. It was apparently the same Entergy statement that was quoted in the Stein article. The statement included the words: "workforce reductions will be one result of this initiative."

So I guess layoffs will happen at Vermont Yankee.

Reactions

For Vermont, this Vermont Yankee announcement comes closely behind an announcement of layoffs at IBM: the Essex Junction IBM plant is laying off 419 people. IBM is one of the state's largest private-enterprise employers.  In the Vermont Digger article on the IBM layoffs, Governor Peter Shumlin is quoted as saying that businesses in Vermont are desperate to hire the great workers now being laid off at IBM.  I hope that is the case.  However, to me, Vermont seems more hard-scrabble than Shumlin claims.

The Vermont Public Radio article on the Vermont Yankee layoffs quoted two people who are opposed to the continuing operation of Vermont Yankee.

• The state is advocating against Vermont Yankee receiving a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board. Geoff Collins is the state's lead lawyer in the hearings.  Collins said that the layoff  "would appear to have an impact on the magnitude of the economic benefit that they’re (Entergy is) claiming." He wouldn't speculate on the amount of effect the layoff would have on the economics for the state.
• Ray Shadis, a long-time plant opponent, asked if Entergy was "asking permission to go ahead and lose money for another 20 years?"    

In Context

For once, I don't have cheery upbeat things to say.  I wish these layoffs weren't happening.  However, it doesn't mean Entergy is going to shut the plant down.  If anything, it shows a commitment to keep operating the plant.

Entergy's "Second Quarter Earnings Guidance" press release listed various reasons for revenue shortfall.  In my experience, companies almost always arrange a layoff when revenue drops.  They announce the layoff,  and then the company's stock usually goes up. A few months later they are hiring again.  That's my experience in working for big companies, anyhow.

In Context With Other Nuclear Plants

However, I think Entergy will try to continue to run this plant lean, and will not hire again very rapidly.  I tried to analyze plant staffing, and I came to the conclusion that Vermont Yankee has been at the high end of the staffing curve.

Vermont Yankee is a stand-alone plant, which means it has to have its own security, chemistry lab, and many other things. It cannot share these relatively fixed costs  with another unit.  For example, a chemistry lab needs about the same equipment and staff to serve a double-unit power plant instead of serving a single unit plant. So a chemistry lab is a higher overhead cost for a single-unit plant.

I did an ad-hoc financial review of plant staffing: how many people does a plant employ per MW?  With a short investigation, this is what I found.

Seabrook Station

• Vermont Yankee is 620 MW and employs 650 people.
• Indian Point (two units) is 2050 MW and employs 1,100 people (from Wikipedia)
• Duane Arnold is 615 MW and employs "more than 500" people (from Wikipedia) or 600 people (Duane Arnold fact sheet) 
• Dresden Station (two units) is 1734 MW and has "approximately 800" employees (Exelon description)
• Seabrook Station is 1244 MW and has 1,100 people in its workforce (Seabrook fact sheet)

Single or Double

The double units (two units on one site) have less than one employee per MW: they have closer to one employee per two MW.  Therefore, the double units have a clear cost advantage.  The single units run slightly less than one employee per MW. Vermont Yankee is running slightly more than one employee per MW, which is why I said it was at the high end of the staffing scale, as far as I can tell.

By the way, people knew about the economies of scale at the time these plants were built. Both Vermont Yankee and Seabrook were supposed to be one part of a two-plant site.  That didn't happen, unfortunately.

I am not happy writing about layoffs.  Getting a job is never easy, and losing a job is always hard.  But I decided to write this because I don't want to be Pollyanna.

Layoffs as Part of Business

There will be layoffs at Vermont Yankee.  I hate it and I hope that none of the people that I know are laid off. (That is selfish of me, but there it is.) However, from my analysis, these layoffs do seem to be a business decision, and will only bring the staffing down to the levels (employees per MW) at other stand-alone plants.  The "will they be able to run the plant safely?" and "are they about to go out of business?" stuff strikes me as just the usual negativity from people who hate the plant.

That said, I hate the fact that there will be layoffs.  I just hate it.

Young Workers in Windham County: Guest Post by Lindsay Rose

Lindsay Rose
Recent Graduate
Vermont Yankee Employee

Good evening commissioners,

My name is Lindsay Rose, and I would like to first thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I’m from Hinsdale, New Hampshire and graduated from UNH in 2010. About a year after I graduated I got a job at Vermont Yankee where I found an exciting opportunity, a well-paying job, and a company with good community values.

It’s a fact that the demographics in Windham County are changing. From 2000 to 2010, the number of older workers, or the baby boomer generation, increased, but the number of young workers, aged 25 to 44, declined.  Basically Windham County’s future workforce is leaving.

Vermont’s future workforce will be looking for opportunity: A steady job, a well-paying job, a company that gives back to their community, and an industry that’s contributing to the overall good and health of our country. VY provides these jobs: more than 600 of them. It was ranked among the Best Places to Work for the last three years in a row by Vermont Business Magazine; VY management encourages volunteerism in our communities; and the nuclear energy industry is contributing to a clean, safe, reliable energy future.

Vermont Yankee is a company that brings professionals to Vermont. These professionals include recent graduates like me, and our country’s military veterans with nuclear experience who are ready to bring their skills and experiences to Vermont. Vermont Yankee is an essential economic driver and is a business that provides career opportunities that keep people in Vermont.

At Vermont Yankee I have a steady, well-paying job, I’m encouraged to learn and take on new activities and experiences, and I’m given opportunities to help the community by participating in VY’s many volunteer activities. This year I joined my co-workers and helped remodel the Brattleboro Drop In Center, I’m supporting Project Feed the Thousands, and I have begun volunteering for Big Brothers Big Sisters.

I’ve chosen to stay in the area specifically because of my job at Vermont Yankee and I enjoy living in the area. The opportunities that I’ve described are what keep me working at VY, and are what keep me in the area. If I didn’t have these opportunities at Vermont Yankee, I would find them elsewhere. This is a great place to live if you have a good job, but I couldn’t live here without one. Thank you for considering my comments.

----------

This is the second in a series of posts which share statements made in favor of Vermont Yankee at the Public Service Board hearing on November 7, 2012.

Ms. Rose spoke on behalf of herself as a personal statement.