Yucca Mountain and Vermont: Scofflaws in High Places

Yucca Mountain

Last week saw two court decisions that favored the nuclear industry. Both were about groups (the Vermont legislature, the NRC) that had taken actions that were illegal for them to take.

 The first court decision was the appeals court victory for Vermont Yankee. The Vermont legislature cannot regulate nuclear safety.  This decision was discussed in my post Vermont Yankee Wins in Appeals Court.

The second decision was a Writ of Mandamus about Yucca Mountain. With this Writ, a federal Court required the NRC to continue the license review process for the Yucca Mountain repository.  Billions of dollars have been spent on building this repository for high-level nuclear  waste in Nevada. However, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is determined to keep the repository from opening.  So far, he has managed keep it closed.

Jaczko in Brattleboro, 2010

Former NRC Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko was appointed to his NRC position in order to please Senator Reid.  As Commissioner, Jaczko stopped the Yucca Mountain license review process when it was nearly complete.

Jaczko had no legal right to stop the review process, but he did it anyway.  Jaczko also refused to release the Safety Evaluation Reports which were due to be released to the public.

Winning the Lawsuit

 A consortium of groups brought a lawsuit against the NRC to force them to continue the Yucca Mountain review; the plaintiffs included the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.  They won. This week, the Circuit Court in the District of Columbia ruled in their favor, issuing the Writ on August 13.

The Wall Street Journal described the legal outcome in  Problems with Authority: Lawless Regulators and the White House earn a Judicial Rebuke.  A quote:  In a  major rebuke on Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unusual writ of mandamus, which is a direct judicial order compelling the government to fulfill a legal obligation. This "extraordinary remedy"(was taken in a case that)..."raises significant questions about the scope of the Executive's authority to disregard federal statutes."

The Lawsuit Explained

ANS Nuclear Café has an excellent review of the case, written by one of the petitioners: Court Finally Rules on Yucca Mountain NRC License Review, by Robert L. Ferguson. Ferguson has also written a book on the subject.  Also, this video clip is short but clear.




And Yet, Scofflaws Are Still Scofflaws

Writ of Mandamus or no Writ of Mandamus, it doesn't look as if the license review will continue. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Yucca Mountain's chief foe, has kept the funding for the review at zero.   As Senator Reid said: “With no disrespect to the court, this decision means nothing,”

Well, to me, that sounds just a little disrespectful of the court.

The Reid quote comes from the Las Vegas Review Journal article: Federal court order NRC to restart licensing process for Yucca Mountain. The video clip above is from the same article. In the video, you can see Reid make a similar statement about the meaninglessness of the court decision.  You can also see Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz whine  about lack of funding for the license review process.

The Money is There, If They Want It

Lack of funding?  Oh Puh-leeze.

Moniz talking about "lack of funding" (a lack arranged by Harry Reid) is pretty funny, because the utilities pay $800 million dollars a year into the Nuclear Waste fund. They pay a tenth of a cent to the fund for every kilowatt-hour generated by nuclear energy.  This fund is supposed to provide a repository for spent nuclear fuel. In other words, they pay almost a billion dollars a year, and the fund has been growing for about thirty years.

While $10 billion was paid from this fund to develop Yucca Mountain, more than $20 billion remains in the fund. (Unspent balance of $25 billion according to Wikipedia.) In other words, if some of the money already paid by utilities..say, maybe $20 million of the $20 billion, was freed for the license process expenses, the license process could go ahead.

It might take a small amount of maneuvering to free this money from one federal pocket to another. But the government is good at moving money, when it wants to. (Sometimes it moves money to non-existent pockets, but let's not get into that.)  Apparently, the government doesn't want to move this money or use it.  So much for the court case, I guess.

Vermont and Yucca Mountain

U.S. Constitution
First page

Here in Vermont, we also have scofflaws in high places.  Last week, Vermont legislators were also given clear notice by the courts that they were breaking the law (attempting to regulate issues that are regulated at the federal level) and pretty close to violating the Constitution (though the commerce issue was not "ripe").

Will our legislators and governor find a way to ignore the courts and go on their merry way against Vermont Yankee? Nevada seems to be doing this. I know the situations are quite different.  Still,  I fear our legislators will use some methodology that will be illegal, but perhaps not stoppable in time, even by injunctions.

I hope not.  I think not.  I hope the rule of  law will prevail.

I'm basically an optimist.

LocalVolts plus the Legislative Process

Day lily in my garden
Plant received from a friend

A summer's day, and I thought I would cover two separate issues, in a not-too-organized fashion.  So here goes.

LocalVolts

The horrendous rail crash in Quebec has added fuel (so to speak) to Vermont's usual summer protests. Pat Bradley of WAMC interviewed several people in the radio segment: Disaster Spurs Debate Over Energy Transport in Region.   Protests against gas pipelines and tar sands pipelines are planned for the near future. Quitting the use of all fossil fuels is a major goal of the pipeline protestors.  In Bradley's  interview with me, I noted that we are dependent on fossil fuels, and no-fossil-fuels is not something we can accomplish quickly.   A three-minute radio segment.

President Obama's message on what we need to do about climate change might be described as "all of the above" (natural gas, cleaner coal, conservation, nuclear, renewables).  However, around here the general message is "none of the above."  Tim McQuiston,  editor of Vermont Business Magazine, spoke about energy on VPR yesterday.  (Another three-minute radio segment).

McQuiston noted that people in Vermont are protesting everything: gas, oil, nuclear, wind, pipelines, transmission lines.  His conclusion is that we should be looking at "localvolts."   He expects that "Vermont Yankee (may) get a second look here once Governor Shumlin steps down..." McQuiston concludes that "Just as with the localvore movement, where we take responsibility for our food supply, maybe we should initiate a 'localvolt' movement to take more responsibility for our electric supply."

I agree.

Note: Kenyon Webber spoke at the Public Service Board hearings last fall.  Her statement is similar to this "LocalVolts" idea: Buy Local and Help Your Community.

Getting Inside the Legislative Process

Howard Shaffer

In a recent post at ANS Nuclear Café, my friend Howard Shaffer explains how he was invited to speak about nuclear fuel storage to a Vermont legislative committee.   This committee has a history of inviting people such as Arnie Gundersen and Robert Alvarez. As a matter of fact, these were the other people who testified about spent fuel.  Indeed, it sometimes strikes me that the Vermont legislature is Rick's Cafe Americain for nuclear opponents: everybody comes to our legislature!

I was very pleased that Shaffer was asked for his opinion. Shaffer's post includes the history of the invitation, and ways people can make similar invitations more likely.

After his testimony, the committee clerk thanked Shaffer for his clear communications. His post at ANS Nuclear Café includes the text of his testimony. Shaffer supplied a package of information to the legislators and the media, and I link to pdfs of that packet at the Energy Education Project website.

 An inspiring story.

Summer!

We are finally having some lovely weather here, after weeks of muggy weather, rain, and flooding. I plan to enjoy the good weather. I took the picture of my day lily this morning.

Have a good weekend!

Used Fuel: Shaffer Statement at the Vermont Legislature

As I noted in my post Cheerful Wednesday, Howard Shaffer was invited to speak to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Thursday, April 25.  Robert Alvarez and Arnie Gundersen also spoke to the same committee.  (My "Cheerful Wednesday" post has many links about the Alvarez talk.) This post mostly consists of Howard's prepared remarks. But I will start with the quote from Vermont Public Radio that ended their description of Gundersen's talk.

Vermont Public Radio

Howard Shaffer

On Friday, John Dillon of Vermont Public Radio  broadcasted a report: Engineer Says State Could Face Expensive Clean-up If Vermont Yankee Closes.  The report quotes both Gundersen and Shaffer. I link to the transcript, above.

From the VPR report:

A pro-Yankee nuclear engineer said lawmakers should not be overly worried that the state will be left footing the bill if Entergy closes the plant.

Howard Shaffer is from Enfield, N.H. and worked for years in the nuclear industry. He said the federal government would not allow Entergy to walk away.

“The issue of will there be enough money is a serious one, but I also think it will be found that the federal government laws override state laws that allow somebody to go bankrupt and run away from their responsibility,” he said. “That’s Congress’ intent. And they’re going to find the original owners and make them pay.”

Shaffer's Statement

VERMONT  LEGISLATURE

House Natural Resources and Energy Committee

Storage of Used (Spent) Reactor Fuel at the 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Howard Shaffer   PE (nuclear)   VT, NH, MA 

Thank you Chairman Klein and Committee Members for allowing me to come before you today.  My purpose is to provide what I can from my experience on this important matter.  My view is positive.

Virtually my entire career has been in nuclear power. My resume is attached.

Background

Missing from the nuclear debate has been clarity about the overall design philosophy of US nuclear generating facilities.  From the beginning, every aspect of the program -- hardware, training, management and regulation-has been designed, not on the belief that accidents MIGHT happen, but on the certainty that accidents WILL happen. Experience with human performance proves that there will be mistakes.  If the benefits were to be enjoyed, then all possible means to first, prevent accidents, and second to deal with the consequences of accidents had to be developed and put in place.

A key part of the design process is asking “What if..?”  scenarios for all imaginable events that could happen.  The design and licensing process continues and asks “How could this happen” and “How long does this take to happen?” and “What are the odds that it will happen?”  Fast-breaking events require controls that respond instantly and automatically, while longer-term events include actions by trained nuclear operators.  For example, the Design Basis pipe break initiates a series of automatic programmed shutdown responses for the first ten minutes.  At that point, the nuclear operations team takes over the process.  The operators are the first responders.  At Fukushima, the operators worked diligently until the accident was under control.  It took more than a day before there was any release, and the order to evacuate residents in the vicinity came hours before that.

Used (spent) fuel storage

One-third of the nuclear fuel in the Vermont Yankee reactor is replaced every 18 months. The fuel that is removed from the reactor and stored on-site continues to be a valuable resource because only about 10% of the energy contained in the fuel has been used and 90% of that energy can be reclaimed through recycling and used to create more electricity.

The solid ceramic fuel pellets in the fuel bundles that have been removed from the reactor as spent fuel

and stored in dry casks, are air cooled by natural circulation through the cask. The pellets have been stored in water for more than five years and are generating very little heat.   With the shielding in the 100-ton storage casks, the used fuel is very secure.  Even if a cask was broken open and the pellets scattered on the ground, they would just lie there, continuing to be air cooled.  Radiation dose to the offsite public would be insignificant.

Used fuel in the pool is also very secure.  The reactor building and radioactive waste storage facilities are designed for the maximum Design Basis earthquake and 360 mph winds from a tornado with 300 mph winds advancing at 60 mph. The fuel pool and the entire cooling system are in those buildings.  The system is powered by two redundant emergency backup diesel generators when normal power is lost.  There also are backup water supplies to the spent fuel storage pool.  Post 9-11 and based on hypothetical spent pool fire studies, the fuel is stored in the pool in a checker-board pattern, with the fuel most recently removed from the reactor, which generates the most heat,  surrounded by older fuel(which has been cooling in the pool for up to 35 years) that will absorb heat.

There was an event this February at Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts, a plant like Vermont Yankee. This event illustrates the design margin.  During storm Nemo all offsite power was lost for two days.  The reactor scrammed and emergency backup diesels started automatically, as designed.  The reactor was brought to cold shutdown by the Pilgrim reactor operations team in 10 hours, and fuel pool cooling, which can be suspended for a long time due to the large volume of water in the pool, was  restored after 21 hours!

Understanding the Nuclear Debate

I’ve struggled to understand how the debate over nuclear power got to be so politically polarized.  Starting with the famous book “Soft Energy Paths”--the author wants to do away with nuclear weapons (don’t we all?) and he concludes we must do away with all nuclear power generation--a source of 20 per cent of the US electricity supply--in order to do this.  This means finding and developing economically-viable technologies to replace the 24/7 base-load power generated by nuclear plants without massive increases in the use of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, it also has led in some quarters to doing as much as possible to discredit nuclear power.  Some supporters of nuclear power call this spreading FUD – Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

Using examples that increase fear of radiation is a common tactic.  For example the warning that an element has a “half-life of millions of years” implies that it will be harmful or dangerous that long.  The opposite is true.  The longer the half-life, the more slowly the radiation is given off and the lower the dose each year.

Implying that radiation comes only from the generation of electricity with nuclear power,  and nuclear weapons is also false.  Radiation is natural.  The Uranium in the granite in this statehouse building was radioactive millions of years ago, and will be radioactive in millions more.  This is a natural part of our environment, and we all get low doses of radiation continually.

The sun’s light, heat and other radiation comes from nuclear reactions.  We could even say  “Solar Power is Nuclear Power.”

Here is an example of a peaceful use of radioactive material.  (Hold up EXIT sign)

Thank you.

Tritium-containing Exit Sign

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

Shaffer Knows About Spent Fuel: Alvarez Talks About It

Robert Alvarez (at head of table, near door)
House Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Montpelier, VT  April 

The Committee

The Vermont House Energy and Natural Resources Committee is headed by Tony Klein, a fervent opponent of Vermont Yankee.  On April 21, Robert Alvarez made a statement to this committee.  Mr. Alvarez has no technical training (as far as I can tell) but he spoke at length about the amount of spent fuel stored at Vermont Yankee, how much cesium it contains, what a huge problem it is, and how it should all be in dry casks.  Also, he said that Entergy will leave Vermont holding the bag for cleaning up the site.  (In other words, he said the usual.)

Luckily, Howard Shaffer was at the meeting.  After the session, several reporters interviewed Howard.

The Interviews

Shaffer actually knows something about nuclear energy, spent fuel and so forth.  Among other things, he is a registered professional engineer in Vermont.  Well, you all know Howard Shaffer.

Here are links to the articles, and some quotes from Shaffer (and others).

 Vermont Public Radio: Expert Says Vermont Yankee Has Too Much Spent Fuel Stored on Site

When power failed at Fukushima, reactor operators could no longer pump water to keep the fuel cool. Some of the material burned, releasing radiation.

Listening to Alvarez’s testimony was Howard Schaffer, a Yankee supporter and nuclear engineer. He said that Alvarez overstates the dangers of the spent fuel pool at Vermont Yankee.

“Because most of the fuel in the pool is (cooled) down to the point where it would absorb heat in the pool, because it’s down to the point where it could be cooled in air,” he said.

(The first two sentences above are not a quote from Shaffer. They are part of the article, and I think they show the tone of Alvarez's comments.)

WPTZ: Nuclear waste expert says Vt. Yankee's growing risk

"The (Federal) NRC and the industry are more  motivated by economics than understanding the implications of the safe storage of these materials," Alvarez told lawmakers.

Some listening to his testimony think Alvarez exaggerated the problem.

"He's from an industry who makes his living saying the sky is  falling. without saying what the odds are," said nuclear engineer Howard Shaffer, of Enfield, N.H.

Rep. Mike Hebert, a Vernon Republican who sits on the committee, said Alvarez "represents an anti-nuclear group who will give the most negative position you'd expect them to do." 

AP: Vt. Lawmakers hear from nuclear waste critic
The pool ‘‘contains about nine times more cesium-137 (a radioactive isotope) than was released from the more than 600 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests around the world,’’ said Alvarez, who acknowledged under questioning from Rep. Mike Hebert, R-Vernon, that his current employer takes an anti-nuclear stance...

Howard Shaffer, an engineer with the group Nuclear Public Outreach who attended Thursday’s hearing but did not testify, said afterward that the public should not be alarmed about the safety of nuclear waste. He argued that it can be managed safely.

-----------

Background: The Vermont State House as  Rick's Cafe Americain For Nuclear Opponents

Alvarez was at the Vermont State House because:

1. The legislature is considering taxing spent fuel and/or requiring more spent fuel to be placed in dry casks for "safety."  (I don't think I would recommend our legislature going into "safety."  I think the courts have been pretty clear about that...)
2. The committee invited Alvarez to testify about spent fuel. 

Actually, Alvarez was invited by both the Senate and House committees: he was supposed to speak at a joint session of both committees.  But the joint session never happened, and he spoke to the House committee only, in a rather small and crowded room (see picture above).

Everybody comes to Rick's

Anti-nuclear activists are often invited to speak to the House Natural Resources and Energy committee.  Next week, Arnie Gundersen will speak to them. This committee is like Rick's Cafe Americain for anti-nuclear activists.  They are all invited and they come.

In contrast, the Ethan Allen Institute sponsored Gwyneth Cravens to come to Vermont two years ago: she is the author of Power to Save the World.  However, we were unsuccessful at getting her to be invited to speak before a  legislative committee. We did arrange for Cravens to speak at a State House Round Table, which is basically a lunch-time meeting in an available committee room.   Quite a few legislators came to hear her.

You might also enjoy reading Rod Adams post:  Why does anyone trust Robert Alverez's opinions about nuclear energy?

Update: Nuclear Notes, the blog of the Nuclear Energy Institute, has a comprehensive post on the Alvarez visit: Vermont Yankee and the Ink on the Rubber Stamp.  NEI takes a national perspective, comparing the Vermont situation to similar issues in other states.  Many excellent links, also.

Blowing in the Wind: Threats and Reactions

Threats and Defiance on SB 30

Senate Bill 30 would mandate heightened environmental oversight for wind energy projects.  It would require such projects to undergo Act 250 permitting: Act 250 is Vermont's tough land-use law that was put into effect in the 70s, when it looked as if Vermont would turn into one vast ski resort.

In the post Comments or Threats: Wind in Vermont, I described how a wind developer (Jeff Wolfe of Gro-Solar) wrote an open letter to John Campbell, President Pro Tem of the Vermont Senate. Wolfe said that:  if you support this bill, not only does that support end, but I will help recruit and support opposition to you in the next election, and will put my money where my mouth is. Wolfe also said that Campbell was falling for (the) lies, deceits, fake science and name-calling of the Koch brothers.

The political analyst at the Valley News, John Gregg, interviewed Campbell after he received this letter. As Gregg wrote: Campbell... said Wolfe “has publicly threatened me and tried to intimidate me to vote one way, and I think it would send a bad message” were he to change his vote.

Comments from the Editors

The Valley News is a mostly-liberal-leaning paper. It ran an editorial against this attempted intimidation: Hardball in Vermont: Environmental Fight Turns Nasty

The first paragraph includes: Jeff Wolfe delivered an unmistakable message to state Sen. John Campbell of Hartford that the game being played is hardball — or maybe moneyball.

Jeffrey Wolfe
from a press release

Later in the editorial: Indeed we haven’t seen yet a convincing case that large-scale wind energy can play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions in Vermont, which would be the only rational basis for sacrificing a landscape that plays such an important role in the state’s economy and self-identity. 

The Ethan Allen Institute (sponsor of the Energy Education Project that I direct) is a free-market think tank, and no fan of the strict Act 250 reviews.   They wrote: Green thuggery/ hypocrisy rears its head. 

In this editorial,  the Ethan Allen Institute suggests that Vermont amend Act 250 to exempt  ANY endeavor in any field in which Vermont would, in fact, like to see more jobs.  They also wonder what would happen if an ordinary large company (as opposed to green-renewable company) threatened a House or Senate leader over a piece of legislation?

Campbell Takes A Stand

John Campbell
Vermont Senate website

As noted above, Campbell thought it would send a bad message if he changed his vote after this letter. In a recent article by Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger, Campbell went further. Campbell delays S.30 vote until Tuesday, citing Wolfe's threat, desire for full Senate vote. 

“Quite honestly, because of that letter being put in Digger … if I don’t vote on this thing, it looks like I actually paid attention to this threat that was put forward,” he said. “I just won’t do that. That’s everything that’s wrong about the system.”...

Campbell told VTDigger that because of Wolfe’s comments he feels “it’s imperative” that he votes on the bill.

This week, Campbell is presiding over the the Senate for Lt. Gov. Phil Scott who is away, which means Campbell can’t vote on the bill unless there is a tie.

Campbell is delaying the vote on this bill until he can actually vote on it.

(Note: there's a fascinating  comment section on this article.  One comment claims that though the Senate may pass the bill mandating Act 250 oversight, the House probably won't pass it.  Stay tuned, as they say...)

---------

Monday Morning Update:  I want to share today's op-ed by  Annette Smith, a Vermonter who has been campaigning against Big Wind for many years. The title says it all: Respecting our Communities and Environment.  She also has some interesting comments on what is likely to happen in the Vermont House (all the action now is in the Vermont Senate).

Taxing Fuel Rods: The Vermont Legislature Plans Another Law Which Will End Up in Court

The Vermont legislature is facing the fact that the Clean Energy Development Fund will cease to be funded when Vermont Yankee stops paying into it in March. This fund has paid part of the costs of many a solar panel and wind turbine. For the Vermont legislature, watching this funding go away is painful! Replacing this tax with another tax on Entergy is an important goal of the legislature, even mentioned by Governor Shumlin in a press conference that was mostly about recovering from Hurricane Irene.

So, the legislature coming up with another way to make Vermont Yankee pay into the clean energy fund. House bill H479 plans to tax spent fuel. The legislature must think these fuel rods are very valuable, because t they plan to raise tens of millions of dollars a year taxing them!

As usual in Vermont, this is almost certainly going to end up in court. The proposed bill H479 talks about nuclear plants in Vermont (plural). But there is only one plant. A tax aimed at only one company is usually illegal. However, as I pointed out in my post about the "Entergy must pay Vermont's Costs in the Lawsuit law, the Vermont legislature passes bills are illegal, unconstitutional, and can't be enforced. These bills make the faithful feel good. "We're doing something, even if it won't actually work."

The bill has two parts: a tax on fuel rods (amount unclear, perhaps $15 million a year) and a state-required decommissioning fund. The state-required fund ("post-closure funding tax") would require contributions of $25 million a year.

Howard Shaffer has an excellent post on this bill, which was published at True North Reports yesterday. His post: H479 Analysis: The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy. Here's a quote from Howard:

Opponents have already circulated a petition to towns and cities within 20 miles of the plant, requesting support for a tri-state Decommissioning Oversight Committee. They intend to meddle, as they have elsewhere in New England. Their “contribution” consists of trying to get ridiculously low levels of radioactive contamination as cleanup standards. This has resulted in hauling off multiple truckloads of demolished concrete that pass granite boulders along the road that are more radioactive than the cargo.

-------------
Image of dry cask storage from NRC student information area.

What We Need to Do

My husband and I drove past the Anti-VY walkers yesterday morning. "Gee, there aren't many of them," he noted. So true.

To shut down Vermont Yankee, fifteen to twenty people are walking the whole way from Brattleboro to Montpelier, and others are joining them at various points. We only saw about a dozen people walking yesterday.

Let's assume, though, that there are twenty dedicated walkers. At the potluck Thursday night, I learned that half the walkers come from Massachusetts, a quarter from New Hampshire and a quarter from Vermont.

Do the math. That's five people from Vermont. This is how they plan to impress the Vermont legislature? They also claim to be carrying a petition with 1600 signatures. Again from the tri-state area, in the same proportions, no doubt. Probably 400 signatures from Vermont. Less than the number of people who work at Yankee.

In other words, a bunch of outsiders are planning to march into Vermont's capitol, roar around, and influence our elected representatives. It is difficult enough that Vermont is the only state that lets the legislature have a hand in nuclear licensing. But why are we letting people from Massachusetts vote about it by petitioning and demonstrating in our legislature?

Their numbers are small, and with a little effort, we can beat them.

They are going to be at the State House noon to four p.m. on Wednesday, January 13. We will be there too.

Either in person, or by email. Read the next post to find out how.