Rubble at Vermont Yankee: Framing the Discussion

Vermont Yankee in the good days

The Future of Vermont Yankee

Nuclear opponents continue to attempt to put roadblocks into the Vermont Yankee decommissioning process. They claim that they want a quick, safe process for decomm, but several of them also claim that the land should "heal" for about two hundred years before anything is built there.

Basically, a quick safe process is the very last thing opponents would want, as far as I can tell. A successful  process would show that nuclear decomm is no big deal, and perhaps nuclear opponents should turn their attention to coal ash ponds.

Right now, rubblization is a major issue.  Here's my letter about it.

Framing the Discussion

Dear Editor:

I am well-known as an advocate for nuclear energy. I lost most of my interest in the Vermont Yankee plant after it closed down, and I devoted myself to writing a book about pro-nuclear advocacy. However, in the past six months, I began looking at the issues surrounding the proposed sale of Vermont Yankee to NorthStar.

Since NorthStar's announcement about the proposal to purchase Vermont Yankee, I have attended several public meetings and community briefings, and heard NorthStar CEO Scott State speak. In these meetings, Mr. State has answered the hard questions about about NorthStar's plan to decommission Vermont Yankee in a safe, well managed process over relatively short time frame. State has responded to questions with candor and transparency. For example, I hadn't really understood that the nuclear opponent slogan of "no rubblization" would lead to huge amounts of truck traffic taking rubble away from the site. (Yes, I should have realized this myself.) Mr. State noted that, without rubblization, heavily-loaded construction trucks would constantly pass the elementary school. This would be a safety hazard for parents and children.

Nuclear opponents have effectively framed the discussion to their own personal definitions of safety: their definitions ignore traffic safety and children's safety. Similarly, nuclear opponents are now speaking of letting the site "heal." In other words, they want to remove the Vermont Yankee site from possible use as a commercial site (with jobs) until such time as it meets their non-measurable criteria for "healing."

I'm hopeful the Public Utilities Commission recognizes the tangible safety, economic and environmental benefits of NorthStar's proposal.

Meredith Angwin,
Wilder, VT

This letter has appeared (sometimes with edits) in various newspapers in Vermont and New Hampshire, for example, The Brattleboro Reformer, the Burlington Free Press, the Rutland Herald,  and the Caledonian Record. It has appeared in other newspapers also, but I don't have the links.

------
Additional Reading:

 Rubblization of a road
Wikipedia illustration

Howard Shaffer's letter to the Brattleboro Reformer. Without rubblization, there would be over 4000 truckloads of rubble removed from the site. Specious Objections to the NorthStar Proposal. 

Patty O'Donnell in the Keene Sentinel. Why Wait 60 Years for Economic Benefits?

Guy Page in Seven Days on the....umm....incorrect statements....of nuclear opponents. True NorthStar

Bob Leach in the Times Argus on why Residential Standards are not the appropriate standard for cleanup.

Wikipedia on Rubblization, which is not a new concept.


 

Support for Ginna: Write a Comment to New York State

Ginna Station
from NRC site

To the New York State Department of Public Service:

I want to express my strong support for keeping Ginna Station operating.

I worked in energy research for many years. My background includes renewables, gas-fired plants, and nuclear plants. I have worked to improve them all. I live in Vermont, and  I am now a member of the Coordinating Committee of the Consumer Liaison Group (CLG)  for ISO-NE.  I must stress that the opinions I express here are MY OWN: they are NOT official opinions of the Committee.  I mention the CLG to explain that I have some expertise in grid issues. The purpose of the CLG is to advise the grid operator in support of the electricity consumer.

Right now, the New England grid makes almost 50% of its electricity with natural gas.  This has been a problem for grid stability, especially in the winter.  ISO-NE has had two “Winter Reliability Programs” that basically paid dual-fired generators to keep oil on hand. They used the oil during the times in deep winter when natural gas was not available to power plants.  These reliability programs have cost $70-$80 million a year, and FERC wants them to stop, because they are targeted, not market-based.  FERC may be right, but the programs have kept the lights on in New England during the winter.  These programs mainly bought oil, though LNG was also fed into our grid (though not as part of the Winter Reliability Program). Other grids are encountering the same issues, as they become more dependent on natural gas.


Ginna Station and other nuclear stations make low-carbon electricity and increase the diversity of the New York grid.  Please value that diversity! Grid diversity contributes to system reliability and price stability.  Without the nuclear plants, the grid will move more and more to natural gas, which emits greenhouse gases.  Also, putting all your eggs in one basket (having only one predominant fuel supplier for the grid) is a very bad idea. Supply crunches and price rises are not only likely: they happen, and they will happen more if the grid goes mostly to natural gas. The amount of “subsidy” given to Ginna to keep it operating will be only a small amount, compared to the amount you can expect to pay for winter reliability programs or if there is a price rise for natural gas.

For the sake of your consumers, keep the grid diverse and keep Ginna (and other nuclear plants) operating. For the sake of the planet (greenhouse gases), keep Ginna (and other nuclear plants) operating.

----------
Who Digs Deeper, and For What Do They Dig?

A friend on Facebook alerted me to the opportunity to support continued operation of Ginna Station in New York.  Thank you, Michael Mann!

I just posted the comment above on the New York State Department of Public Service site. The Department is asking for comments on a case to allow a "reliability support services agreement" for Ginna Station. This agreement would give Ginna slightly increased pay on the grid, in return for the reliability and support that the plant gives to the grid.

An upstate New York newspaper has an article headlined Regulators examining plan to prop up Ginna plant.   The first sentence says that consumers will have to "dig deeper in their pockets" to keep the Ginna plant operating.

Old steam locomotive
Best I could do for "steam"
Wikipedia

This really annoyed me.  When our local grid reached into our pockets for a $70 million dollar Winter Reliability Program, and used that money to buy oil.….hey, nobody asked me if I wanted to dig deeper for imported oil! But keeping a nuclear plant going and getting away from such oil-based emergency programs: that is the sort of thing that leads to a catchy headline about "propping up. "

Sometimes you can almost see the steam coming out of my ears.

Don't Just Steam, Take Action

Write your short letter about Ginna here:
http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Comments/PublicComments.aspx?MatterCaseNo=14-E-0270

It doesn't have to be long, but make sure it is personal.  Make sure it is clear that the letter is your personal opinion.  If you live in New York State, that's a great reason to have a pro-Ginna opinion.  If you live elsewhere, compare the issue to something in your area: coal plants shutting down, electricity price rises, whatever is going on.  Make it personal.

As an example of what NOT to write, look at the existing letter collection.
http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=14-E-0270
Approximately a thousand letters all say the same thing.  They all start:

Dear Secretary Burgess:
I am writing to oppose a consumer subsidy for the Ginna nuclear power reactor, owned by Exelon.
Ginna is one of the oldest nuclear reactors in the U.S. Propping up this uncompetitive reactor …..

Not very convincing!

When you have finished your note to the New York regulators, please consider also sending it as a comment on this post. The more examples of letters that we have, the easier it will be for the next person to post a letter to the New York State regulators.

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.

Shaffer to Testify: Cheerful Wednesday

Anti-Nuclear and Nuclear on the Committee Schedule

Last Thursday, anti-nuclear activist Robert Alvarez spoke to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee at the Vermont State House.  This Thursday (tomorrow), Arnie Gundersen will speak to them.

However, Howard Shaffer will also be speaking to the Committee tomorrow!  That's the cheerful news.

Well, it isn't perfect news, of course.  Alvarez spoke for an hour, and Gundersen is also scheduled for an hour or more. That's two hours.  Shaffer will have slightly more than an hour, according to the schedule. Still, Shaffer will be able to share some facts about spent fuel. His facts will counter the Alvarez scare stories.

Howard Shaffer

As of yesterday, it appeared that only Alvarez and Gundersen would be testifying to the legislative committee.  At that point, I was very annoyed, and I sent a letter to the editors of the local papers.

Today, I am very happy that Howard will testify.  However, everything in my letter remains true.

My Letter to the Editor: Why Alvarez? 


On April 18, Robert Alvarez spoke to the Vermont House Natural Resources and Energy Committee about spent fuel storage at Vermont Yankee.  I attended a large portion of that meeting and I also collected his handout.  The legislature is considering a tax on spent fuel.

Committee with Alvarez testifying

At the meeting, Alvarez spoke at length about the dangers of spent fuel. He advised that, for safety, much of the spent fuel should be taken out of the fuel pool and placed in dry casks.  He also spoke about taxing the fuel, and about decommissioning.

In other words, he gave the standard anti-nuclear talk.  Upon questioning, Alvarez admitted that the organization he works for is opposed to nuclear energy, and further admitted that he has no technical degree, though he has been a politically-appointed “policy advisor” in the Department of Energy.

My first reaction was to wonder why the Vermont legislature had invited Alvarez to testify.  My second reaction was to try to figure out what he was trying to say. Why did he talk about safety?  Has safety got something to do with taxation? The NRC regulates safety at nuclear plants. Hopefully, Vermont does not plan to spend more money trying to regulate nuclear safety and then losing court cases.  If the legislature was trying to figure out how to tax Vermont Yankee, it seems they need a tax expert, not someone who would tell them scary things about radiation in the spent fuel pool.

Why was our committee listening to these scare stories, with no engineer to testify in rebuttal?  Anti-nuclear activists claim the spent fuel pools burned at Fukushima, but they didn’t. The new NRC commissioner, Allison MacFarlane, visited Fukushima in December and walked all around the unit 4 plant.  She could not have done this if there had been fires and criticalities in the fuel pool.

And what does any of this have to do with taxation?

I would like our legislature to be more than a bully pulpit that gives anti-nuclear activists an opportunity to get press coverage.

Background about the Alvarez Appearance

My post about his appearance: Shaffer Knows about Spent Fuel, Alvarez Talks About It

Alvarez's statement: (It's the last pdf in the list) YesVY downloads

NEI blog post about his appearance: Vermont Yankee and the Ink on the Rubber Stamp

NEI  blog post follow-up, on his appearance: The Ink on the Rubber Stamp, Redux

Letters and Inspiration

The Safe and Green Campaign is part of the Sage Alliance, dedicated to shutting down Vermont Yankee.  Recently, Safe and Green did us a favor (sort of).  They have been annoyed at all the letters in favor of Vermont Yankee that have been published in local papers recently, and they want their supporters to answer these letters.  So they put a bunch of pro-Vermont Yankee letters on their website, with links to the letter as it appeared in the local paper.

I looked at the page and thought---wow!  How convenient! All these good letters in one place! I wish I had thought of that.

The Letters Themselves

Here's a link to Sage and Green web page with the letters.  If you prefer, you can look at the list below, the same letters, instead of visiting an opponent website.

• Nuclear Fuel: The Win-at-any-cost philosophy of anti-nuclear activists.  Let's shut down Yucca Mountain and then complain there's no place to store spent fuel!  Jim DeVincentis in the Brattleboro Reformer
• Vermont Yankee helps in the fight against climate change.  Without nuclear power, there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "Mother Earth will not be shouted down by nuclear opponents"  Harriet Green in the Brattleboro Reformer
• Economic Impact of Vermont Yankee.  Up to 1500 well-paying jobs in the local area, due to Vermont Yankee. Michelle Joy in the Brattleboro Reformer
• The Vermont Yankee Economic Benefit Zone. Opponent signs always call the "Emergency Planning Zone" the "Evacuation Zone."  Wrong name.  Whatever you call that zone, though,  the Vermont Yankee Economic Benefit Zone is much bigger.  Richard January in Vermont Digger
• Trojan Horse about Energy:  It's the Fossil Fuels.  Opponents brought a "Trojan Cow" to the plant's gates, and pulled fake solar panels from within it.  Trojan Horses (or cows) are the symbol of deceit.  In this case, the deceit was that VY would be replaced by renewables if it closed.  It would be replaced by fossil fuel plants. Meredith Angwin in the Brattleboro Reformer.

Not really a favor

Of course, Sage and Green had no desire to make things better or easier for us.  They placed those letters on their website because they wanted to inspire their followers to write counter-letters.  I guess I should be worried.  Letters may flood in.

However, I have seen responses to these letters in the website comment streams, and these responses have not worried me.  For example, my letter was in the Burlington Free Press, and one comment there said that I claimed "there was as much tritium in a banana as leaked from the plant." Even when they make up a fact (tritium in a banana?) they get it wrong.

The actual facts are on our side.  The factual facts, so to speak.

I hope that some of the people reading this blog in Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire will be inspired to write a letter in favor of VY to their local paper. If you plan to write a pro-VY letter and want some fact-checking, please email me at mjangwin at gmail. I will be happy to hear from you and to help. (If you are writing an anti-VY letter,  just go ahead with business as usual and make up your own facts.)

Let's keep those pro-Vermont Yankee letters coming!

Why Nuclear is Regulated at the National Level

On Sunday, March 4, my local paper, the Valley News, published a letter to the editor about nuclear safety and Vermont. The letter was written by David C. and Shirley J. Montgomery. I quote part of their letter below:

"For about 60 years, we've been subjected to a seemingly endless Republican advocacy in favor of "states rights."....a decision to run the aged Vermont Yankee reactor above its rated capacity for another 20 years could be seen as indifference to events (such as Fukushima)...The legalistic arguments seem to have carried the day to date (as far as we can see, the Vermont state government is being dismissed for being concerned about the well-being of its citizens)...Where are the states righters when something as concrete as this is at stake?"

States Rights in Vermont

Many anti-nuclear protesters carry Vermont flags to the protests. (They wrap themselves in the flag?) They claim to stand for Vermont though they often live in Massachusetts. As I noted in an earlier blog post, states rights is no longer a dirty word to some people in Vermont.

Here is my letter that was was published in the Valley News on March 9.

--------------

Why the Feds Regulate Safety

A recent letter from David and Shirley Montgomery inquires why Vermont Yankee is regulated at the Federal level. The letter-writers would prefer state control.

Some complex technologies are regulated at the federal level by federal law. Airplanes (inspection, pilot licenses, mechanics licenses) are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. New drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Nuclear plant safety and inspections are in the charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Determining the safety of airplanes, drugs and nuclear plants takes significant specialized expertise. Also, it is best that important safety rules be applied on a nation-wide basis, not just locally.

It Could be a Race to the Bottom

However, these laws can be changed through our democratic process. If Mr. and Mrs. Montgomery want individual states to test drugs, inspect airplanes, or inspect nuclear plants, the federal laws can be changed. However, the probable result will be a race to the bottom. The states with the least oversight will get the most business. Drug approval and aircraft maintenance would move to "friendly" states, and nuclear regulation could vary widely between states.

This type of differentiation already happens in other areas. For example, Delaware's laws are welcoming toward corporations, and many American companies are incorporated there. Poorly-maintained ships fly the Liberian flag (flag of convenience).

In general, small governmental units are not well equipped to regulate complex subjects. The current system of federal regulation is better and safer. State regulation would be a change for the worse.

A Little About States Rights Advocates

Perhaps an aside, but I wanted to say this. The writers also claimed that "for sixty years, we've been subjected to a seemingly endless Republican advocacy in favor of 'state's rights'.." This is not correct. The state's rights segregationist movement was run by Democrats, not Republicans. The infamous State's Rights governors Orville Faubus and George Wallace ran and served as Democrats.

----

Endnote: After the letter was published, I received a note from a friend that Delaware is not mainly a pushover for corporations. Delaware's main attraction is that it set up an effective chancery court for civil lawsuits that involve companies in different states and different countries. I live and learn!

-------

Podcast: Yesterday, I was proud take part in this Atomic Show Podcast A Year After Fukushima. Rod Adams, Steve Aplin, Suzy Hobbs, Gwyneth Cravens and I talked about the accident, the coverage of the accident, and the implications for nuclear power. It was great to be on a program with such knowledgeable people!

Nostalgia Time: Shumlin in Favor of Vermont Yankee in 1998

Shumlin and Vermont Yankee: The Old Days

In 1998, Peter Shumlin was President Pro Tem of the Vermont Senate, and Vermont Yankee was owned by a consortium of utilities. In 1998, Shumlin sent a letter in support of Vermont Yankee to Mike Empey, a Vermont Yankee supporter. Mike Empey just sent the letter to me and gave me permission to post it. Shumlin writes that he fought an effort to prematurely close Vermont Yankee, "I can assure you that as long as I am one of the people in charge of the leadership of the Vermont Senate, no such provision will become law under our watch. Vermont Yankee contributes tremendously to the economy in Windham County, not to mention our power needs." Yes. Shumlin wrote this and signed it.

Mr. Empey works at Vermont Yankee, but he is not any type of official spokesperson. This posting of a 14-year old letter is not an official Entergy statement. Seems to me that official Entergy statements are never this amusing....

You can double-click to enlarge the image.

Hearing and Letter-Writing on Seabrook Power Purchase

The Seabrook Deal

In May, Green Mountain Power made a deal to buy around 60 MW of power from Seabrook Nuclear Plant in New Hampshire. There was general rejoicing: Liz Miller, the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, said "GMP has struck a deal for a price that looks good... Keeping costs down for Vermonters is great for the state's economic development."

Ms. Miller was appointed by Governor Peter Shumlin. Shumlin has been trying to shut down Vermont Yankee, despising its low-cost power and in-state job creation. Therefore, this hearty embrace of nuclear power from a neighboring state depresses me. In my blog, I have discussed this purchase in terms of:

• NIMBYism
• local job and tax loss
• spiritual bankruptcy
• ineffectiveness in filling the electricity gap if Vermont Yankee goes off-line.

I guess that pretty much covers it! Nuclear power is clean and reliable, but why should we substitute out-of-state power for in-state power?

Luckily, there is now a way to make our thoughts known on this subject.

The Public Service Board Hearing AND Email Addresses

Go to the Hearing: On Wednesday night, August 10, the Public Service Board will hold a hearing on the Seabrook power purchase. The hearing is being held by interactive TV, all over the state. You can go to TV stations in Bennington, Lyndonville, Montpelier, Springfield, White River Junction of Williston at 7 p.m. Here's the PSB web page with the meeting information, prefiled testimony to read, and so forth.

Send an Email: You can email your opinion to the PSB. This information is not on the website, but I emailed Sarah Hofmann of the Public Service Board for information.

Hofmann wrote: To submit electronic comments to the Board they should go to PSB.clerk@state.vt.us and the DPS email is vtdps@state.vt.us

(I gather you should send your comments to both addresses).

Send Snail Mail: You can also send comments by snail mail.

Hofmann wrote: The comments go to the Public Service Board with a copy to the Department of Public Service. The Board's address is: 112 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05620-2701. The Department's address is the same but with the zip code of 05620-2601.

I think email would be easier than sending two letters.

Share your opinion with the Public Service Board.

It's Not About Seabrook

I was a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) specialist in my career. I'm not against Seabrook, a perfectly lovely PWR.

But why substitute it for Vermont Yankee?

Letter about the Caldicott Show

Yesterday, April 9, my local newspaper ran a letter to the editor under the heading A Voice Against Nuclear Power. Sighing, I settled in to read. I discovered it wasn't an anti-nuclear letter at all! The letter was a strong critique of Helen Caldicott's recent presentation at Dartmouth.

I quickly looked up the author in the phone book and asked if I could print his letter in my blog. He agreed and thoughtfully sent me a digital copy, including the "note" which was not printed in the paper. Dr. Trebitz is a chemist, now retired. I had never heard of him until I read his letter.

This incident illustrates some things which we should all remember. Depending on the poll, 30-40% (in Vermont) to 60% (nationwide) support nuclear power. Nuclear supporters are not a fringe group. We may be a minority or a majority, but we are mainstream.

Enjoy the letter, and don't forget the Caldicott Satire Contest!

The Editor, Valley News:

NOTE: In its Thursday 4/01 issue, Valley News provided a lengthy coverage of anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott’s visit to the Upper Valley. Unfortunately, the article contains very little information regarding the contents of Caldicott’s presentations. In my comments, below, I’m discussing some of the speaker’s statements.

When I went to Caldicott’s speech at Dartmouth I thought I’d get a balanced presentation on nuclear energy and its problems. I was disappointed.

Caldicott’s strategy in fighting nuclear power is based on raising fear. At one time she stated: “I would not live within a fifty miles radius of VT Yankee”. In her presentation she painted a frightening picture of nuclear Armageddon, always presenting her “facts” in a worst case scenario. As a physician, no doubt, she has an understanding of health effects related to radiation exposure, including cancer and birth defects. Yet, when she linked these to nuclear power generation, she ignored other (natural and manmade) causes, often carrying significantly higher risks.

A scientist is trained to observe cause and effects and place these into a meaningful relationship with the surrounding natural environment. Caldicott seems to have abandoned that process of realistic assessment a long time ago. Not surprisingly, she denies the possibility of solving the problem of nuclear waste. She deplores the fact that spent fuel is stored in vulnerable water tanks at VT Yankee (and other nuclear power plants), but offers no concept of how to deal with the submerged fuel rods when decommissioning the plant at the end of its lifetime. For her, re-processing the waste into a second generation of nuclear fuel is not a solution. And she dismisses Nevada's Yucca Mountain for underground storage as an unstable depository site riddled with geological faults.

In the end, the evening was just another rally against nuclear power generation and specifically Vermont Yankee. And, as the Valley News Staff Writer in his report on the event observed: “The crowd sounded nearly uniformly in agreement with her stances…”.

There were almost no Dartmouth students in the audience, a fact also noted by the speaker. If they had been interested in a meaningful scientific discourse, they did not miss very much.

Heinz Trebitz

Don't forget. I'm still running the Helen Caldicott Satire Contest. Why cars, toothpaste and paper (so far) are terribly dangerous. Get your entry in soon. Contest ends April 15. Enter early and often!

Fountain pen image from Wikimedia.