Showing posts with label SAFSTOR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAFSTOR. Show all posts

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Video: Vermont Yankee people moving on

May 5 Layoff Day

On May 5, almost 100 Vermont Yankee employees will be laid off.  As Entergy spokesman Marty Cohn notes in this video: there were nearly 650 employees when he started work at Vermont Yankee: in a few days, there will be  only 150 employees. (approximate numbers).

In the 22 minute video below, Marty Cohn speaks to two employees that will be laid off.  They happily discuss what they liked about working at Vermont Yankee. In both cases, their future plans take them away from Vermont.

Yes, there are sad moments in this video.  These affected me:
  • When Larry Doucette notes that when he moved to Vermont, it took some some time to get used to the local anti-nuclear attitudes. 
  • When Becky Josey describes her life-long residence in Vernon, and how her mother was a state representative who supported construction of the plant.  Josey has deep roots in Vernon, but she plans to leave.  Her plans are not completely due to Vermont Yankee closing, however.
I  admire everyone at Vermont Yankee, because they are strong people and they did Finish Strong.  I have so much admiration for them.



About the videos

Marty Cohn of Entergy has been hosting a series of videos about Vermont Yankee: SAFSTOR Matters. This series was chosen as 2015 Best Series of the Year at Brattleboro Community Television.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Dry Cask Update and SAFSTOR Matters video

Fuel Pad Hearings This Week
To move fuel from the fuel pool to dry casks, Entergy must build a concrete pad for the dry casks. To build this pad, they need a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board.  The hearing is this week: Docket 8300.  You can see the docket and all the prefiled testimony here:

http://psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/electric/Docket8300

The hearings are Tuesday February 23 and Wednesday February 24.  They are listed on the Events page of the Public Service Board.

While the hearings are public (people can attend), the public usually cannot speak.  To speak at a hearing, you have to have your testimony approved as "relevant" by the Public Service Board.  Many factors make up "relevance." For example, following the links within the docket above, you will see that the first "prefiled testimony" under each name is usually a description of the person's qualifications (resume).

Controversy on admission of testimony
As you can imagine, the fun begins when the Board rules on whose testimony will be considered relevant to the issue at hand.  The Public Service Board cannot rule on nuclear safety matters, but it rules on  local issues.

A recent controversy before the Board concerned Ray Shadis, long-time anti-nuclear advocate. Could he testify at the Board's hearing on the fuel pad? Entergy asked that the Shadis testimony be excluded. However, the Board ruled that the Shadis testimony could be included. (Article by Mike Faher at VTDigger.)

In my opinion, the Board ruling gave Shadis many benefits-of-the-doubt. For example, the Board ruled that Shadis could not testify on the adequacy of the company's financial plans, but he could testify on the "implications" of Entergy's finances on issues relevant to the case.  (This is the kind of thing that makes me glad I'm a chemist, not a lawyer.)

Susan Smallheer's article on the Shadis controversy includes the following quote from Shadis about spent fuel storage:

“I would like to see them buy a gravel pit across town from the present site and move the spent fuel over to a new site to the gravel pit, and then put the fuel below grade, underground like San Onfre,” he said.

 SAFSTOR Matters Video

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...or rather, back with Vermont Yankee, Martin Cohn of Entergy hosts a TV show on the decommissioning process.  Once a month, he interviews someone  about the SAFSTOR process, and "SAFSTOR Matters" appears on community TV.  As a matter of fact, "SAFSTOR Matters" won Best Series of the Year at Brattleboro Community Television. 

In the most recent video, Cohn and Joe Lynch of Entergy discuss the status of the decommissioning, including the new fuel pad.  Worth watching, for some straightforward, low-key explanations.  You can see previous videos in the series at the SAFSTOR Matters page of Brattleboro Community TV.

Friday, October 16, 2015

SAFSTOR MATTERS wins Best Series of Year on Brattleboro Community Television


 (l-r) Karen Wilson, show producer, Marty Cohn, show host, Sarah Burnap, show producer, and Deniz Cordell, music composer.
Vermont Yankee’s SAFSTOR MATTERS named 2015 Best Series of Year by Brattleboro Community Television

BRATTLEBORO, VT ---(October 9, 2015) --- At its annual meeting held on October 8, 2015, Brattleboro Community Television awarded Vermont Yankee’s show, SAFSTOR MATTERS, the 2015 Best Series of the Year. The program takes its name from the federal term for an extended period of dormancy that precedes actual decommissioning work.

The monthly cable television show  is not only seen on BCTV but also on the Internet through the station’s YOUTUBE channel.  It is also seen on all the cable television stations in the facility’s emergency planning zone.

“It’s something that we developed to communicate information about what’s going on with the decommissioning at Vermont Yankee to the public,” said Entergy Vermont Yankee company spokesman Marty Cohn, “And, to the best of our knowledge, is a first in the nation for Entergy.”

Cohn said, “Each month a different topic is explored with experts; from spent fuel management to the economic impact of the plant closing to emergency planning. We have repeatedly promised transparency as we shut down Vermont Yankee and work toward eventual decommissioning. The show is aimed at fulfilling that promise, and is also a venue in which Entergy can communicate directly with viewers without the opposition the company encounters in public forums.”

“From the moment the original theme music composed by Deniz Cordell plays to the rolling credits 27 minutes later, the staff at BCTV has been instrumental to the high production value of the show,” Cohn added, “We are very proud and honored to receive this award.”

Episodes of SAFSTOR MATTERS can be seen on Vermont Yankee’s web site, www.vydecommissioning.com.


--------

I plan to post episodes of SAFSTOR MATTERS at this blog in the near future.  For now, you can see the show at the VY site linked above.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Decommissioning Estimate Released Today



Site Assessment

Vermont Yankee released its decommissioning site assessment today.  It released the information earlier than any other plant has done so. It is a clear and complete report.

The faqs are good and succinct
http://vydecommissioning.com/faqs/

Summary

 The short version from the FAQs (emphasis added by blogger)

 WHAT IS THE CURRENT COST OF DECOMMISSIONING?


The case that ENVY expects to file with the NRC is a SAFSTOR case with a total cost of $1,242 million over the period 2014 to 2076.

In this case, the specific cost components are License Termination $817 million, Spent Fuel Management $368 million and Site Restoration $57 million.

In this case, the spending for preparations (to get into dormancy) is $419 million over the period 2014 to 2020.

Consistent with the Settlement Agreement with Vermont, ENVY will also provide estimates of prompt decommissioning which range from $1.3 to $1.6 billion. (There is less waste to dispose of in the SAFSTOR scenario because the radioactivity decays over time.)
......
HOW MUCH IS IN THE CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING FUND

As of September 30, 2014, market value of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station’s Nuclear Decommissioning Trust accounts was $642.6 million. That represents a doubling of the fund value since Entergy purchased the plant in 2002.

It is recognized that there will be fluctuations in the fund value over time, but we watch it closely to ensure the fund remains sufficient to meet federal regulations.

Looking forward

I note that over $400 million will be spent between now and 2020.  I am happy to see that....it looks like a softer landing for more of the current employees. However, by its nature, I believe much of the work will have to be contracted out. At any rate, expect the shouting to begin. Though Entergy never said so, Governor Shumlin said that complete decommissioning could begin (or maybe he said WOULD begin) as early as 2020.  I suspect he will do some name-calling in the near future.  I hope not, but it IS an election year....

Entergy Earnings

Entergy also announced an impairment charge against earnings in this PR Newswire press release this morning.  A quote from that press release:

 With VY nearing shutdown, and as a result of the new cost estimate for decommissioning, Entergy increased the decommissioning cost liability and recorded a corresponding impairment charge of approximately $0.37 per share, which will be reflected as a special item in third quarter 2014 results.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Defending SAFSTOR planning at Vermont Yankee

The post and the objection

In a recent op-ed, I wrote that the proposed Entergy-Vermont settlement is good for Vermont. Here's the post on this blog

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-proposed-entergy-settlement-is-good.html#.UwnmFSiyTAY

and here's the post as it appeared on the local news site, Vermont Digger

http://vtdigger.org/2014/02/11/meredith-angwin-entergy-settlement-psb-good-state/

There's a lively comment stream on the Vermont Digger post, with several comments objecting to my description of the plans for decommissioning.  Here's what I said in my op-ed:

You can’t begin tearing down the building while the fuel pool is still in use. So there has to be at least a five-year delay between plant closing and the beginning of major decommissioning work. Therefore, there will be a gap of several years in the economic activity around the plant.

Some comments basically  said: "I am not a nuclear engineer, but they can start decommissioning sooner."  I encourage you to read the comments themselves. I have my answer to these comments below. I have added subheadings (in bold) that weren't in my original answer.  Hopefully, these subheadings add to readability.

------

My answer to the objection

You say you are “NOT commenting on how or when decommissioning needs to be done” yet you seem to think it can begin immediately, despite the requirements of the operating fuel pool. Sounds like you actually ARE commenting on how and when decommissioning can be done.

You give the impression that if Entergy doesn’t start decommissioning areas other than the fuel pool immediately, Entergy is stalling. Actually, this is not the case, in my opinion. In general, the nuclear industry is very conservative about decommissioning. You might think: Hey, they can always start by tearing down the office building, no big deal. Actually, the industry shows itself quite reluctant to begin big deconstruction/decommissioning projects in close proximity to active nuclear plants (or actively maintained fuel pools that can’t be isolated easily). This is basically a safety precaution.

SAFSTOR for Safety

Indian Point
For example, Indian Point 1 ceased operation in 1974. It is in close proximity to the operating plants Indian Point 2 and 3. Indian Point 1 is in SAFSTOR, which is safer than attempting to tear it down while it shares the same area with active plants. Similarly, Dresden 1 was shut down in 1978, and is right next to Dresden 2 and 3. Millstone 1 ceased operations in 1998, and is close to the operating plants, Millstone 2 and 3. Dresden 1 and Millstone 1, like Indian Point 1, are also in SAFSTOR.

Considering the position of the fuel pool at Vermont Yankee, I would expect the owners to do nothing on site (except perhaps move some of the fuel to dry casks) while that fuel pool needs to be maintained. That’s the conservative way. I frankly have no particular opinion on when they move some of the fuel from the fuel pool. They can’t finish moving the fuel out of the pool for five years, and nothing much else can happen on site while the fuel pool is in active service.

Or rather, in my opinion, nothing much SHOULD happen on site while the fuel pool is in active service. Similarly, I think it would be a bad idea to decommission Dresden 1 while still operating Dresden 2 and 3 right next door.

Maine Yankee

No doubt, someone is going to say: “They dismantled Maine Yankee quickly! So what’s the problem here?” Well, Maine Yankee was a PWR with the fuel pool in the basement of a building that was comparatively easy to isolate. Vermont Yankee is a BWR with the fuel pool in a position that is not easy to isolate.

Waiting five years to begin serious decommissioning is the safest and most conservative way to proceed with the Vermont Yankee plant, and this has nothing to do with money.

Workforce issues and the nuclear opponents desire to feel good about themselves

About the workforce. Alas, decommissioning rarely uses very many members of the original workforce. The decommissioning jobs include chemical cleaning and deconstruction. These are not the same skills as running the plant. As others have noted, for decommissioning, teams of contractors with either specialized skills (chemical cleaning) or moderate skills in the building trades (deconstruction) do the jobs. In many cases, a decommissioning contractor is hired by the utility, and that contractor hires the teams. EnergySolutions is one such company, but there are others.

The people at the plant will be laid off, and there will be few of them involved in decommissioning. That is what has happened at other plants also. The opponents of Vermont Yankee do not want to admit this, because otherwise (conceivably) they would feel guilty about causing their neighbors to lose their jobs. But all their sweet sayings about “hoping the good people at VY will continue to work” doesn’t change reality. Decommissioning is almost completely done by teams of outsiders, no matter when decommissioning is done, early or late. That is just the way it is.

More reading

I have more explanations and some links in this blog post, including some workforce analysis from the Maine Yankee experience. I have written other blog posts on the subject also: you can search my blog for “decommissioning” in the little keyword box at the upper left.

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2011/11/decommissioning-facts-versus-fantasy.html#.UwtoCRZ5ufQ



Monday, December 23, 2013

Updated: Breaking News: State and Vermont Yankee Make a Deal

The Deal

The State and Vermont Yankee have a deal about closing Vermont Yankee, announced this afternoon. I have read the breaking news report at WPTZ, and watched Shumlin's press conference as described in  Vermont Digger and embedded below.  Thank you to Digger for posting the conference so quickly!

The deal seems to have hard-edged parts (yes, I understand what's happening) and soft-edged parts (hmmm, open to interpretation here).  I share my opinions below, but I also share the press conference video, so you can form your own opinions.

Hard-edged parts of the deal:
  1. Entergy will file a decommissioning plan with the NRC in about a year, although it can legally take up to four years to do so. This plan will include an estimate of the total costs of decommissioning.
  2. Entergy will pay $2 million dollars a year for the next five years, some of which will go into the Clean Energy Development fund, and some of which will go into helping displaced workers in Windham County (or at least, something about Windham County--unclear).
  3. Entergy will put another $25 million dollars into the decommissioning fund.
  4. Entergy will attempt (it can't promise) to move all fuel into dry casks within about seven years. 
  5. When the money in the decommissioning fund has grown to the level needed for decommissioning (see #1 above), Entergy will start decommissioning activities within three months. It will not just keep the plant in SAFSTOR for sixty years or so.
  6. The state and Entergy drop all lawsuits against each other.
Update: According to the Brattleboro Reformer, "lawsuits are over" does not apply to the generation tax lawsuit which will be heard in Vermont Supreme Court.
http://www.reformer.com/ci_24783693/entergy-and-state-reach-grand-bargain

Second Update: An article in my local paper seems to have a different take on the generation tax--that Entergy will pay the tax-to-date and the state won't expect the tax going forward?  I am sorry, but we will have to wait till after the holidays to get this straight.  Here is the article, originally from the Rutland Herald, but it may be behind a paywall.
http://www.vnews.com/news/state/region/9934425-95/shumlin-vt-yankee-reach-deal

Soft-edged parts of the deal:
  1. Entergy agrees that it will "Greenfield" the plant. Actually, Entergy agreed to this in the memorandum of understanding when it bought the plant in 2002. "Greenfielding" means site remediation beyond what the NRC requires for decommissioning.  However, what does greenfielding mean in practice?  Level and reseed the ground? Entergy had always agreed to do that.  Or  does it mean "dig up every foundation to a depth of 40 feet, at great trouble and expense"? Entergy has never agreed to that.
  2. Who is agreeing here? I mean, I think it is great to see Governor Shumlin up there explaining the deal, but what about the PSB? Will they be willing to agree to this?  Will they be annoyed that their quasi-judicial process isn't processing?
  3. Who is not-suing here?  I can practically hear the howls of "Shumlin betrayed us" from the intervenors.  I suspect more lawsuits will come from that direction.
  4. Did the state promise "no clever new taxes on the plant or fuel"?  If they did, I didn't see it in the press conference.  
My Current Opinion:

It seems to me a good-enough agreement.
  1. Entergy didn't promise anything it can't perform (such as promising to decommission within ten years or something like that).  
  2. Entergy supplied enough Danegeld to allow Shumlin to tell his supporters he made a great deal for the people of Vermont, so he doesn't lose face and he may abide by the agreement.  
  3. But Entergy didn't provide too much Danegeld.  After all, the state wanted $12 million a year to make up for the generation tax, though they knew they couldn't actually obtain that amount.
I am sure we will hear more about this, and I bet some intervenors are getting their legal briefs ready, even as I post this.

Meanwhile, the press conference that announced the deal:

Monday, December 2, 2013

SAFSTOR: On Decommissioning Vermont Yankee

Mark 1 Schematic
SAFSTOR  Safety

SAFSTOR is a method for delayed decommissioning of a nuclear plant. With SAFSTOR, fuel is taken out of the reactor and put in the fuel pool.  Then the plant remains basically intact for some years.  After some time (up to 60 years after fuel is removed from the core) the plant is fully decommissioned.

Vermont Yankee opponents are very determined that the plant should not be put in SAFSTOR. However, even the opponents are beginning to realize that Entergy's agreement about buying the plant (state agreement), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (federal oversight)  allow the use of SAFSTOR.  The opponents will not have much to say about what decommissioning methods (including SAFSTOR) Entergy chooses.

One advantage of SAFSTOR is that the workers who decommission the plant will be exposed to less radiation, because much of the radiation has decayed away.

The opponents are opposed to SAFSTOR, because they consider the "danger" of the plant (danger to them) while it is in SAFSTOR is a far more important problem than any extra radiation exposure to nuclear workers.  The opponents are personally very frightened (or they say they are).  Simultaneously, they are very willing for other people to face increased radiation.

In contrast, in an article at WCAX, Bill Irwin of the Vermont Department of Health says the plant will be generally safer after shutdown, even in SAFSTOR.

(Irwin) uses the analogy of a boiling pot: When the pot is hot and the water boiling, they're more concerned about spills. But a pot of cold water won't boil over -- though it could still leak, which is what they'll look for. But as the years go by, they will have to monitor a smaller and smaller area

SAFSTOR Facts

In this case, opponents are  not going to get what they want.  According to the Memorandum of Understanding, the agreement by which Entergy bought the plant, SAFSTOR is an option for decommissioning.  It is also the option which Entergy has always said it would choose.

In an article by Susan Smallheer in the Rutland Herald, Mike Twomey of Entergy was quoted as follows:

Michael Twomey, vice president of external affairs for Entergy Nuclear, Yankee’s owner, told the panel Thursday that while the company was leaning toward a delayed decommissioning, it’s not a given that it will take all 60 years allowed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

But Twomey said there would be little activity at the plant, except for handling spent fuel, in any event, for six to 10 years after it shuts down in late 2014. Twomey, who recently testified before two Vermont House committees on the plant’s pending shutdown, said the company had two years after the reactor actually stops generating power next year to study how much it would cost to decommission the plant, and choose a course for federal regulators.

Entergy has two years to file a decommissioning plan with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It plans to have little activity at the plant for six to ten years after the plant shuts down. For six to ten years (at least) the plant will be in SAFSTOR.

Architecture is Destiny

In terms of decommissioning, one of the things I have thought about is the position of the fuel pool at Vermont Yankee.

Once fuel is removed from the core, it must stay in the fuel pool for about five years before it can be put into dry cask storage. At Vermont Yankee,  the fuel pool is in the same building as the reactor. Therefore, it would be very hard to begin dis-assembling the reactor while maintaining the fuel pool.

The obvious schedule would be to wait about five years for the fuel to cool, and then transfer it to dry casks. After the transfer, when the fuel pool no longer needs to be maintained, the workers could begin   dis-assembling and decommissioning the reactor, the fuel pool and the reactor building.

I expect that this  is Entergy's plan. The protestors in Vermont cannot change the internal arrangement of the plant. Therefore, Entergy's plan will be the way the plant is decommissioned.

More on Decommissioning

This is one of a series of posts on issues on decommissioning Vermont Yankee.  The earlier posts:

Vermont Yankee Site Unlikely to be Used Again.  There are many vacant industrial sites in the Northeast: adding one more is unlikely to attract a new business.

Backwards reasoning about Greenfields.  Insisting on expensive "greenfield" work will not make the site more attractive to another business, and will slow down site availability.

The Formal Negotiations.  Shumlin's team and Entergy are sitting down together, in closed session.  They are discussing"issues" such as "how long fuel has to stay in a fuel pool."  (Issues? Facts, maybe..)



Sunday, September 8, 2013

Governor Shumlin's Unlikely Olive Branch to Entergy: Guest Post by John McClaughry


Just over a year from now Vermont Yankee will go offline, putting an end to 42 years of safe, reliable, competitively priced baseload electricity delivered to the New England power market.  The anti-nuclear forces that have ceaselessly agitated against Vermont Yankee for decades have jubilantly declared victory. And in truth, they are entitled to congratulate themselves for the plant’s final closure, since it was they who created the poisonous anti-nuclear atmosphere in Montpelier that contributed in some measure to Entergy’s decision to shutter the plant.

 In his remarks about Entergy’s announcement, Gov. Shumlin went out of his way to say that he would “use this opportunity to build better relations with Entergy.”  Anyone who has watched the Shumlin mode of operation should take this olive branch with a boulder of salt.

Peter Shumlin founded his political career on opposition to Vermont Yankee, and accelerated it when
Governor Shumlin
Vermont’s utilities sold the plant to what he calls “Entergy Louisiana” in 2002. He ardently supported, though he did not initiate, the extortion of $28 million from Entergy in return for allowing an unexceptional uprate of the plant’s power output in 2003.

He supported the continued extortion of Entergy to extract another $28 million in 2005 in return for allowing Entergy to store spent fuel rods in concrete casks at Entergy’s expense on its own property.

He strongly supported the two judicially overturned acts of the legislature that put 180 politicians – the great majority of them anti-nuclear Shumlin supporters - in charge of whether Entergy could be allowed to continue operation of the plant beyond its scheduled closing date of March 22, 2012.

 When Entergy applied for Public Service Board authority to extend the plant’s operation, Shumlin notoriously tried to extort it again to sell power to Vermont utilities at below market prices. This is not rumor. This was found to be fact by the Federal District Court in its 2012 ruling against the state.

 He rarely if ever passed up the opportunity to advise us that “Entergy can’t be trusted” – when it was the legislature, not Entergy, that broke the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding. And of course he strongly supported attorney general William Sorrell’s costly but futile efforts to persuade a court to allow the legislature to have total control – with no appeal – over Vermont Yankee’s future.

With this long, outspoken, and unbroken record of opposition to the nuclear plant and its corporate owner, can we expect Peter Shumlin to now seek “better relations” with Entergy? It’s far more likely that he, his regulators and lawyers, and his legislative friends will spend the rest of his time in the Governor’s office extorting every last dime out of Entergy to fund their own pet projects, and when that is pushed as far as it can go, forcing Entergy to spend as much as possible through more of the “cumulative regulation” that Entergy says contributed to its decision to close the plant.

In return for agreeing to allow Entergy to operate one more year, look for Shumlin’s Public Service Department to side with the anti-nuclear advocates to insist that the site be “greenfielded” by digging down forty feet to remove ordinary (non-radioactive) concrete foundations, instead of just covering them over with a few feet of dirt. This pointless digging, trucking and burying would require millions more in decommissioning dollars and possibly, along with other cost-inflating demands, force Energy to contribute tens of millions of dollars more into the Decommissioning Fund.

Look for the Department to push for Entergy to begin decommissioning immediately, instead of the more sensible practice of “Safstoring” the plant for twenty years, when it will be a lot easier and safer to dismantle. (Shumlin has emphatically but wrongly denied that the state ever agreed to allow Entergy to choose to Safstor.)

John McClaughry
at a dinner in his honor
The only reason for such a foolish demand is to pander to the anti-nukies’ desire to return the defiled Vernon site to the way it was when the Abenakis roamed it, so that aging demonstrators can assemble each year to celebrate the triumph of  their glorious crusade. (Let’s hope they aren’t unnerved by the concrete spent fuel cask farm, which will remain until the Federal government provides a permanent storage facility.)

There are many more issues that will be raised in the coming year, not the least of which is Shumlin’s extraordinary claim that “decommissioning is a job creator”. That is the governor’s desperate effort to convert into some kind of “jobs program” his  now-successful decades-long campaign to shut down Vermont Yankee, lay off most of its 630 well-paid employees, and kiss off their income tax payments. Stay tuned.

-------

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org). The Energy Education Project (directed by Meredith Angwin) is part of the Ethan Allen Institute.



Friday, September 6, 2013

Looking Back Toward Decommissioning

Picture of Dry Casks at Maine Yankee
From 3Yankees website
Let me start with a fact:

Entergy can use SAFSTOR or Prompt Decommissioning, their choice.  With either type of decommissioning, the current workers lose their jobs.

Meanwhile---Current Posturing about SAFSTOR

Currently, a great deal of posturing is being published about decommissioning Vermont Yankee.

Here's an example.

The Windham Regional Commission published a position paper in The Commons newspaper: What's in our best interests when VY closes?  The author, Chris Campany, answers his own question in the paper's subheading: "Now more than ever, our region needs to attach conditions to Entergy’s CPG."

A quote from this article above:

"We asked that whether or not a Certificate of Public Good is granted, the Public Service Board consider the following.....Require the prompt and complete decommissioning and site restoration of the VY station after shutdown (whenever that occurs) and prohibit the use of SAFSTOR."

This request is pretty much nonsense on the face of it.  As Tim McQuiston wrote in Vermont Business Magazine: Vermont Yankee, the Decommissioning Dilemma:

"The new battle will be over SAFSTOR, or Entergy's plan to postpone dismantling the plant right away, and take up to 60 years to do so. Furthermore, since this is a federal issue, the state may have little to say about it."  (emphasis added by blogger)

McQuiston also noted that Vermont might have achieved prompt dismantling  of Vermont Yankee if they had bargained for it as part of a new 20-year Certificate of Public Good. But they didn't.

 In my own opinion, once Entergy announced it was closing Vermont Yankee, Vermont lost almost all its bargaining power with Entergy.  "We're going to shut you down three months sooner than you planned to shut down anyway" is not a very credible threat.  Entergy has little to lose in its bargains with the state, once it decided to shut down the plant.

Looking Back at My Blog Posts about Decommissioning

I have three blog posts about decommissioning, and I will reference and summarize them here.

Entergy can use SAFSTOR or Prompt Decommissioning, their choice.  With either type of decommissioning, the current workers lose their jobs.

1) SAFSTOR is in the contract, whether Governor Shumlin likes it or not

The first post is In Vermont, Our Word is Our Bond, so We Don't Honor Contracts.  In this post, you can see Governor Shumlin accuse reporter Terri Hallenbeck of "working for Entergy." This is his answer when Hallenbeck reminds him that the state signed a purchase agreement, and the purchase agreement allows Entergy to use Safstor.

Here's the link to the purchase agreement itself, the Memorandum of Understanding.   The use of SAFSTOR is explicitly allowed in item 9, page 5 of this document, which is a total of eight pages long (plus some signature pages).

2) SAFSTOR and Prompt Decommissioning are both jobs cliffs. They do not protect current workers.

In Decommissioning, Facts Versus Fantasy, I show that 80% of the workers are gone within one year with SAFSTOR.  With prompt decommissioning,  50% are gone in one year, 80% in two years.  Both methods are a jobs cliff.

Most decommissioning work is done by teams of contractors. Wayne Norton, who was president of the Three Yankees during decommissioning, wrote the following in a paper he presented to industry.

Another advantage to early and aggressive downsizing is that it opens up opportunities to bring in workers with skill sets that are more suited to a decommissioning environment. Also, if these workers are contractors, they tend to be more accustomed to completing a given scope of work and moving on to another job.

3) There's no local jobs bonus.  Long-distance truckers and waste disposal sites get most of the money.

In my post, There is no Jobs Bonus.  Decommissioning Helps Long-Haul Truckers and Destroys Communities,  I try to follow-the-decommissioning money very closely.  Let's just say I don't like what I see.

Only Someone Like Our Governor Could Love Decommissioning

I will undoubtedly be posting more on this in the future, but I thought I would start with a summary of my older posts on this subject.

Decommissioning is a miserable situation for the workers and the local people.  It's the kind of situation that only our current governor could love.




Friday, March 4, 2011

In Vermont, Our Word is Our Bond, So We Don't Honor Contracts



The Memorandum of Understanding

I began blogging on January 1, 2010. With my first substantive post, on January 3, 2010, I began discussing and linking to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU is a key document in the story of Vermont Yankee. Only nine pages long, the MOU describes the terms of purchase when Entergy bought Vermont Yankee in 2002. It includes the cost of power, the decommissioning fund, decommissioning options, and other issues about the purchase. The MOU was signed by Entergy (the buyer), utility representatives (the sellers), and the State of Vermont, in the person of the Commissioner of the Department of Public Service. As far as I can tell, it is as binding as any other document the state has ever signed.

Shumlin doesn't like it. The MOU includes the option to use SAFSTOR (delayed decommissioning) for the plant. Well, fine, Shumlin doesn't have to like it. However, Shumlin goes further: he repudiates it as a binding document because "Here in Vermont, Your Word is Your Bond." He doesn't feel the SAFSTOR option was discussed enough in committee. Therefore, in his opinion, the contract does not have to be honored. In Shumlin's opinion, SAFSTOR was a matter of Entergy "sneaking" some words in among "thousands of pages" of documents.

In the video clip above, you can hear Shumlin answer Terri Hallenbeck, a veteran reporter for the Burlington Free Press. Shumlin said that SAFSTOR wasn't discussed enough in the committee. At around 2 minutes and 40 seconds into the video above, Hallenbeck asks Shumlin why the discussions in the committee rooms would matter more than the document the state signed. Shumlin's answer: "You working for Entergy today?"

There is almost nothing I can do to comment on such an outrageous statement. A reporter's question means she is working for Entergy. If you question me, you are against me!

Okay. So Shumlin is being outrageous. He is in a world of his own. If a person asks a question, and the question indicates that reality doesn't always fit Shumlin's plans---that person is in league with his enemies.

Nineteen Eighty Four

What makes this interchange so Orwellian ("War is Peace" from 1984) is Shumlin's constant use of the phrase "In Vermont, Our Word Is Our Bond" while he explains that the contract is not something he plans to honor. A contract isn't a contract, a contract is whatever Shumlin thought the contract was.

"Our Word Is Our Bond." I find this far more frightening than if Shumlin said: "Yeah, it's in the contract, but Vermont is going to do its best to break that thing down. I don't like it, and Vermont has lawyers on staff. We'll bust it." That would at least acknowledge the existence and validity of a signed contract.

War is Peace. Signed contracts are the work of sneaky people from Louisiana. Vermonters don't have to honor such things, because in Vermont, Your Word Is Your Bond. War is Peace.

Acknowledgements:

I need to thank two excellent reporters for the information in this post. First, Anne Galloway of Vermont Digger who posted the YouTube above in her article on Shumlin's press conference. Terri Hallenbeck of Burlington Free Press for her incisive follow-up blog post which includes links to the history of other power plants in New England that have had delayed decommissioning. I also want to thank Howard Shaffer, whose short comment on the Hallenbeck article gave me the crucial idea for this post. I believe that the other reporter whose voice you hear on the video is John Dillon of VPR.


The Big Brother Image from Wikimedia commons is not exactly right for this post, but I can't find a DoubleThink Image. I can't even imagine what a DoubleThink image would look like. Or perhaps the video is the illustration?