The Silence of Governor Shumlin

Shumlin Speaks

Let's start with Governor Shumlin speaking at a press conference in April, the day after Entergy filed suit against Vermont.

In the video below, at the one-minute mark, a reporter asks Shumlin if he regrets his comments on nuclear safety. The reporter notes that the Entergy suit quotes some of Shumlin's comments (on Vermont Yankee safety) as examples of state pre-emption of federal regulatory powers.

Shumlin answers that he never talked about safety, just reliability. Shumlin then puts his foot firmly in his mouth, saying the plant is "leaking radon into the ground" and other radiological non-sequiturs. In other words, Shumlin talks about radiation safety.

If I were Shumlin's lawyer at that point, I would have told him to shut up. Instead, my attitude was: "Go, Shumlin! Keep talking! Keep that foot in place!"

(This is a video from the website of True North Reports, of a Shumlin press conference on April 22, the day after Entergy filed suit against the state. I also featured this video on an earlier blog post.)

Shumlin Stops Speaking

A few days later, on May 5, Shumlin was supposed to appear on a radio show about Vermont Yankee. He didn't appear. Shumlin claimed he needed to visit the Lake Champlain flood damage at that time. (I mentioned this in my post on the Vermont Law School blog.)

I don't believe that that was Shumlin's reason for canceling his appearance on the show. I think he had gotten the message from his lawyers: "The state is being sued. You are not doing the state's case any good with your comments!"

I am not as important a person as Governor Shumlin, and I can persuade radio programs to meet my scheduling needs when they want me to appear on their programs. If I can do this, so can Shumlin. If the Governor had wanted to talk about Vermont Yankee, the program would have been re-scheduled for when the Governor was available.

The program was not rescheduled.

Shumlin hasn't said a word about Vermont Yankee since then. Shumlin talks about health care, cigarette taxes, schools. But not about Vermont Yankee.

Relief

It's so nice and quiet nowadays. Shumlin is nice and quiet.

I don't miss Shumlin's rants about Entergy Louisiana and their thieving ways. I was tired of his endless statements about the dangers of strontium in the groundwater--no strontium had ever been detected in the groundwater. I was tired of hearing his nasty innuendo and his fractured facts--repeated over and over.

I think Shumlin has gone quiet for the duration of the lawsuit.

My peonies were spectacular, and Shumlin has shut up about Vermont Yankee. It is shaping up to be a lovely summer, despite all the rain. Great peonies; quiet Shumlin. Who could ask for anything more?

Peony picture from Wikipedia.

Fuel Pools

The video above was taken by a robot camera at the Unit 4 Fuel Pool at Fukushima in late April. At Fukushima Unit 4, there was no fuel in the core, and all the fuel had been off-loaded to the fuel pool. In the video, we can see that there is rubble on top of the fuel racks, but the racks themselves are in good order. Yesterday, the NRC announced that the spent fuel pool at Unit Four probably did not go dry. Today, Rod Adams of Atomic Insights has an excellent post on this subject, including videos and links to the NRC announcement.

Now, most of the nuclear commentators will focus on the Big Issues. Why did Jaczko think the fuel pools were dry? How did Jaczko's statements affect U. S./Japanese relationships? These are big questions.

I'll look at a smaller question which is relevent to Vermont Yankee. Did any of the Fukushima fuel pools go critical?

Fuel Pool Criticality: The Gundersen Version

On Monday, April 18, Arnie Gundersen said "it could be that the fuel pool had a self-sustaining chain reaction." (Unit 4 pool) However, as you can see in the video above, everything looks pretty darn orderly in the fuel pool, with the exception of the debris from the roof lying around. The racks and water look stable. This is not how things look after an un-controlled chain reaction.

On April 26, Arnie Gunderson suggests that the Unit 3 fuel pool went critical. He says that the nature of the Unit 3 explosion proves that the cause was not a hydrogen explosion. He says that a hydrogen explosion would only be a deflagration (burning) not a detonation (explosion) He suggests that a "prompt nuclear reaction" caused the dramatic detonation at Unit 3, because a hydrogen deflagration just "can't do it."

Fuel Pool Criticality: Nope

However, the existence of an explosion is not proof that fission took place. There were plenty of explosions before nuclear fission was even considered a scientific possibility. Nobel and dynamite and all that.

Also, though hydrogen usually burns (deflagrates) hydrogen can detonate, especially in a enclosed area, such as a reactor building. Turbulence around existing piping can also cause hydrogen to detonate. Gundersen's kindly-uncle description of detonation and deflagration is fine, but the idea that hydrogen "can't do it" (detonate) is incorrect.

Since nuclear opponents often believe that Gundersen is always right, I thought I would point out that in this case (as in many others) he was wrong. There is no evidence for criticality in any of the fuel pools.

There's a whole subculture of hydrogen explosions on Youtube. Here's a hydrogen and oxygen balloons. Detonating. Not deflagrating. Detonating.

Consensus at the Meeting

I attended an American Nuclear Society local meeting earlier this week. The general consensus was that the Unit 3 and Unit 4 explosions were hydrogen explosions, and the hydrogen was generated within the overheated reactor of Unit 3. Also, no criticalities (fission reactions) occurred in either fuel pool. Unit 3 and 4 share an off-gas venting stack, and the explosion in Unit 4 was probably from hydrogen that had migrated over from Unit 3 through the shared stack.

You understand that we don't know everything yet, so nobody is claiming anything for sure. Still, there were a lot of smart people in the room at the NRC meeting, and this was the consensus after an excellent presentation and a lot of questions.

Vermont Yankee opponents are sure to promote the idea that Fukushima proves that the Vermont Yankee fuel pool is a nuclear explosion just about to happen. They get confirmation on this belief from Gundersen's videos. It's time to point out that those videos are wrong.

• Hydrogen can, indeed, detonate.
• Fuel pools don't go critical.

That's just the way it is. The accident sequences are what you would expect. It is important to avoid hydrogen explosions, but hydrogen explosions are just hydrogen explosions. They don't turn fuel pools into nuclear bombs.

Updates: In a post today, Cheryl Rofer debunks the bogus Internet video on Unit 4 fuel pool which shows Cerenkov radiation (in black and white, no less!) as well as other absurdities.

That big explosion at Unit 3 could have been a deflagration or a detonation. It was certainly caused by hydrogen, not fission.

The Legislative Shakedown of Entergy. Plus A Song About the Master of the House

The Commerce Clause and the Insistence on a "Good Deal"

As I noted in an earlier post, one part of the Entergy lawsuit is the claim that the Legislature of Vermont violated the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

The legislators who were against the plant's continued operation probably realized (at some level of their minds) that constantly decrying the plant's safety might get them into trouble vis-a-vis the NRC.

So, for many of the legislators, a favorite statement was some variation of : "I won't vote for the plant continuing to run unless they give Vermont a good deal." Or, alternatively: "They haven't given Vermont a good enough deal, yet."

The legislators made it abundantly clear, on many occasions, that the State of Vermont was not going to let Vermont Yankee operate unless Entergy gave Vermont utilities a better deal than they give out-of-state customers.

That was equivalent was putting a tariff on goods shipped out of state, which is illegal according to the Commerce clause of the Constitution. As one on-line legal definition states: "The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states."

As the Entergy lawsuit brief says: “Vermont officials have further stated that they might condition any favorable exercise of the state’s supposed licensing authority upon the wholesale sale of power generated by the Vermont Yankee Station to Vermont retail utilities at preferential rates compared to the rates charged by non-Vermont retail utilities.”

“This condition coerces Plaintiff [Entergy] to enter into below market power purchase agreements with Vermont’s retail utilities that will effectively result in [Vermont Yankee] and out of state consumers subsidizing the electric bills of Vermont’s consumers.”

There's another side to this issue, not about Vermont Yankee or even the U.S. Constitution. "They have to give us a better deal or else they are gone" is a form of political coercion. In other words, a shakedown.

The Shakedown

John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute wrote an article about this: Shumlin's Vermont Yankee Coercion Scheme. The article has appeared at True North Reports, Vermont Digger and Vermont Tiger.

Whatever happens in the lawsuit or with Vermont Yankee, this action of the legislature makes it clear to employers and businessmen what they can expect at the hands of the State of Vermont. We don't welcome employers in Vermont. We shake them down for all they've got. "Give Vermont the deal we want, or we'll shut you down."

In the past, I was annoyed at the fact that Shumlin always emphasized that Entergy is a "Louisiana Company". He frequently stated some variation of: "We don't do things in Vermont the way they do in Louisiana." I wondered what other out-of-state companies would think of this. Would they come to Vermont to set up a factory? Would they be attacked as "That's a Delaware company. We don't do things in Vermont the way they do in Delaware" ? Would an out-of-state company even consider coming to Vermont?

Vermont has attacked a major out of state company for---being from out-of-state. It has also coerced that company: "you can't operate here unless you give us the deal we want."

Whichever way the Entergy lawsuit goes, this way of treating employers does does not portend a bright future for Vermont. Nobody likes a shakedown.

A Song

I headed this post with a song about extracting money from the people you supposedly serve: "Master of the House" from Les Mis. For my purposes, the song should be titled "Master of Vermont," since the House, the Senate and the Governor were all involved in the shakedown. It's not fair to just pick on the House. (small lame pun...)

Note and Disclosure: The Energy Education Project that I direct is part of the Ethan Allen Institute, co-founded by John McClaughry.

56th Carnival of Nuclear Energy

The 56th Carnival of Nuclear Energy is up at NEI Nuclear Notes, and David Bradish has done a terrific job of putting it together.

Politics

This week's carnival includes lots of juicy political stuff, such as Dan Yurman's post in Idaho Samizdat about how Jaczko manipulated the internal process in order to stop Yucca Mountain. (Hey, that was Jaczko's job, after all!) Rod Adams describes the NRC caving to an email attack by Friends of the Earth. Rick Maltese (Deregulate the Atom blog) gives credit where it is due: INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) and WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) are self-regulatory nuclear organization who can tack much credit for the nuclear industry's excellent record on safety. I talk about Vermont Law School and its blog, and Steve Aplin reviews negotiations with Iran (and the situation in Libya).

New Types of Plants, and New Builds

Despite what people think, new builds are popping up all over, and the Carnival describes several. At Cool Hand Nuke, Jeff Madison, describes the move toward completion of the TVA's Bellefonte plant. Construction was halted in the late 80s. Dan Yurman posts that Areva plans to push spent fuel recycling plans in the United States. Charles Barton at Nuclear Green compares Advanced High Temperature Reactors with renewable energy in his post: Why is Renewable Energy so Expensive, while Molten Salt Reactors will be so Cheap? At Neutron Economy, Alan Rominger and Steve Skutnik describe charter cities built around small modular reactors. Brian Wang at Next Big Future describes advances in plasma research for fusion.

Germany, Germany, Germany

Once again, Germany has decided to shut down its nuclear plants, sometime in the future, and several bloggers have comments. (Comments is a nice word, so neutral...) Margaret Harding describes Germany's Nuclear Game of Chicken while Michele Kearney at Nuclear Wire and Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk count the costs. Brian Wang points out that nuclear generation is higher this year than last year, in the developing countries. (This includes the fact that Japan is making less nuclear power, with so many reactors off-line for so long.) Rod Adams takes a crack at the "golden age of natural gas" (and how will Germany feel about buying lots of gas from Russia?)

Japan

Only one post on Japan, but it's a good one. Will Davis at Atomic Power Review has a Fukishima update with great pictures. Highly recommended.

Come to the Carnival! It's always a treat!

Manufacturing and Fuel Cycle in France: AREVA and Nuclear Communicators

A year ago this week, I was in France at an AREVA-sponsored trip for pro-nuclear bloggers. We saw the entire fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment, reprocessing, and waste vitrification. I was very glad to be invited to see these things with my own eyes.

The trip was inspiring. I began solid friendships with other pro-nuclear bloggers, and visited a country that embraces clean air, good food, and nuclear power. Here are some of the things I saw and learned on the trip.

Improved Manufacturing: Support Plates as Giant Jewelry

A PWR steam generator has tubes carrying water from the reactor: these tubes pass through support plates which hold them in place. The illustration above is a set of steam generator support plates, manufactured at AREVA's facility at Chalon.

Part of the time I worked in nuclear power, I was in the Steam Generator Owner's Group at EPRI. In those days, support plates were rather crude things built of relatively low-quality steel. The holes for the tubes were either "drilled" or "punched" and the quality control wasn't particularly good. These support plates caused problems for PWR reliability.

Now, steam generators are being replaced in many PWRs, and AREVA is building some of the new ones. Modern support plates are high quality steel, and each tube opening is carefully made, measured and polished. As one person on the trip described it: "These support plates are like huge pieces of jewelry." Yes. Precision jewelry.

We have not built new plants in this country, but the nuclear industry has made amazing progress in building new and better components for existing plants. I am glad I was able to see this.

Fuel Shipment: Porcupines Coming Down the Road

In America, we keep spent fuel in on-site fuel pools, and move it slowly into dry cask storage. In France, there's a huge central fuel pool at La Hague at the recycling facility (at left). The pool is in the facility where the spent fuel is processed into new fuel.

How does the used fuel got to that big facility? On my trip, I learned the simple answer: used fuel moves by road and by rail.

The used-fuel shipment containers are shown at the right. These containers are extremely sturdy, can be hit by locomotives without breaking, etc. The French hold used fuel at the reactor site for less than two years (usually). Therefore, French shipping containers carry fuel which is physically hot. The container looks a bit like a porcupine. Vanes stick out to promote cooling and heat transfer.

In this country, we tend to get tunnel vision. We think that fuel cannot possibly be moved until it has cooled in a local fuel pool for at least five years. When I went to France, I realized that is just a choice we have made. Fuel is moved much sooner in France, and very safely.

Meeting People and Friendship

I have to finish with a view of the group in front of the Melox facility which manufactures MOx fuel. To the left is our guide from Melox: then Steve Aplin (wearing shades) of Canadian Energy Issues: Jack Gamble of Nuclear Fissionary: Rod Adams (also wearing shades) of Atomic Insights: Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to Save the World: Jarret Adams of AREVA and the AREVA North America Next Energy blog, and me.

Friendship was the greatest gift of the trip.

Post Script about the Anniversary:

I keep a Levenger five-year journal. Among other things, that means I always know what I was doing on the same day last year. I find the five-year-journal's short format very informative. It helps me understand what I wanted, what I did, and how I succeeded or failed. It's also useful for figuring out when my favorite flowers are likely to bloom.

I used to do more elaborate journaling, but I never wanted to re-read the stuff I wrote. While the extensive writing helped me at some level, it didn't inform me as I moved forward in my life. In contrast, a five-year journal is more like a log book, and I thoroughly recommend having one. If you buy a five year journal, buy a good one, like the Levenger journal. After all, it has to last five years. (I get no money from Levenger from this endorsement!)

All illustrations on this post are courtesy of AREVA.

Update: Thanks for the link, Jarret! A Trip Down Memory Lane at the AREVA blog.

Local Meetings and a Revised Website for Vermont Yankee

Information about the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan meetings and the NRC Vermont Yankee review meeting.

Also, welcome to the revised Vermont Yankee website.

The Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, Thursday June 9, Springfield Vermont

If you remember, newly-elected Governor Shumlin was shocked to discover that Vermont's energy plan included Vermont Yankee past 2012. As Governor Shumlin requested, the Department of Public Service is putting a new plan together. The Governor hopes to have the new Comprehensive Energy Plan on his desk by this fall. Here's the DPS web page about the plan, including links to various drafts.

Update: At first, I couldn't find the meeting information on the DPS web site.. However, there is a link to the meetings on the DPS web page. I thank Ed Delhagen of DPS for sending it to me. Forums to Focus on State Comprehensive Energy Plan Update.

I first learned about the meetings because I received an email as a member of the Hartford Township Energy Commission. The meetings are open to the public. I encourage people to attend the planning meetings and make public statements in favor of the energy type you choose (nuclear, I hope!)

I will be at the June 9 meeting highlighted below.

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

June Forums to Focus on State Comprehensive Energy Plan Update

***Your input is needed!***

Goal: Comprehensive Energy Plan to be Completed & on Governor’s desk by Oct 15;

Implementation of VT’s Energy Plan is the central piece of this work!

Community energy committee leaders, planners and the general public are all invited to attend one of the following:

• June 1 Montpelier 6-9 p.m. National Life. Co-hosted by the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission and Two Rivers Ottauquechee Planning Commission
• June 9 Springfield - Riverside Middle School 6-9 p.m. In cooperation with Windham Regional Commission, Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission and the Two Rivers Ottauquechee Planning Commission
• June 16 Rutland Leahy Center at Rutland Regional Medical Center 6-9 p.m. Co-hosted by the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, Addison County Regional Planning Commission and Bennington County Planning Commission
• June 28 - Colchester - Colchester High School - 6- 9 pm

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

(Email from Bob Walker of SERG. Thank you to Mr. Walker for sending this email.)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Annual Review Meeting June 22

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold the annual review meeting about Vermont Yankee at Brattleboro High School on June 22, from 6:30 to 9 p.m. To find out more about the meeting, go to the NRC website. There's a calendar headed Public Meetings: if you click on June 22, you can find out more about the meeting. The agenda is:

• Introduction Discussion of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station performance in 2010(10 minutes)
• Discussion of U.S. plant safe operation in light of Japan event (10 minutes)
• NRC to address public questions (time as needed)
• Closing Remarks (5 minutes)

These meetings are great gathering places for plant opponents. Sometimes their remarks are quite humorous. Last year there was an exchange about "Was the fish alive when you caught it?" Or had the fish died of radiation poisoning first?

Plant supporters are often too intimidated to show up. If you can show up and make a public comment before the NRC, it can balance the situation at least a little. I plan to be there.

A Modern Website for Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee has put some time and thought into its message in the past few months. The Vermont Yankee website has been totally revamped recently.

http://www.safecleanreliable.com/

The new website is much more appealing, and includes links and an email sign-up area. Vermont Yankee is also on Twitter now @Vermont_Yankee. As far as I can tell, they joined Twitter yesterday. Check out the new media!

A New Blog at Vermont Law School

The Announcement

Two days ago, Vermont Law School (VLS) announced they were starting a blog about the Vermont Yankee law suit. The announcement was quickly picked up by the Burlington Free Press, and you can read the Law School blog here. I have also added it to my blog roll.

As a blogger, I would call it a weak blog. That is not a comment on the views expressed but on the shallowness of the blogging. There' s one blog post by Pat Parentau, there's a reprint of a Vermont Public Radio interview with Entergy's lawyer, Cheryl Hanna, and there are links to several posts by Donald Kreis. These posts previously appeared in Vermont Digger: the most recent of these posts is An Inconvenient Truth: Entergy Might Win.

I feel as if someone at VLS said: "You know, we should be blogging about that lawsuit. We've been advising the legislature about it forever, so we should really get out there with a blog." So they threw some old posts together, and presto, a blog!

Radio Mistakes

So far, the VLS blog doesn't have much value-added, but that may improve. Pat Parentau's post is new content, at least. I find Parentau's arguments a bit muddy. However, I am also prejudiced by the fact that he made so many mistakes on a radio show recently.

Parentau was on WCFR on May 5, along with some friends of mine such as John McClaughry. On that show, Parentau claimed that several things had "disillusioned" Vermonters and caused Vermont to pass Act 160. (Act 160 took power from the Public Service Board and gave it to the legislature.)

According to Parentau, three things that caused the legislature to pass Act 160 were:

• the cooling tower collapse (2007),
• the tritium leak (2010)
• the "lies" about the underground pipes (2009).

However, Act 160 was passed in 2006, before any of these things happened!

I have a hard time taking a person seriously when he has the event sequence completely backwards. I couldn't believe my ears, and had to check with other people who were listening to the radio program. Did Parentau really say those things? The other people said that they heard what I had heard. However, I hope that WCFR posts a tape or transcript of the show so I can check further.

The VLS Blog Could Be Good

VLS started a blog. It isn't very good. So why do I care?

The problem is that the lawsuit situation in Vermont is getting out of hand. Lawsuits are breeding like rabbits--the kind of rabbits that live where there aren't enough natural predators. I want to blog about the lawsuits, but I am feeling overwhelmed by the number of legal actions (and by the fact that I'm a not a lawyer, I'm a chemist). Here's a list of existing lawsuits as I understand them now.

• The main Entergy lawsuit against Vermont
• The Entergy request for injunction, so that Vermont does not take action while the main lawsuit is pending
• Vermont's answer to the request for injunction.
• Massachusetts joining the main lawsuit on the side of Vermont.
• Various groups (VPIRG, NEC, CLF) attempting to enter the main Entergy lawsuit on the side of Vermont (as intervenors) and being turned down by the court.
• The same groups filing Amicus Curiae briefs.
• A separate lawsuit claiming that Entergy didn't apply for a water quality permit. This lawsuit is against Entergy, brought by another state agency in Vermont.
• Various groups bringing actions against the NRC, saying that they shouldn't have given Entergy a license extension because of the supposed lack of water permit, or Fukushima, or something. I lose track of these anti-NRC actions very easily. They come so fast and furious around here.

There's more. The Attorney General of Vermont is preparing some kind of suit about the piping. Just a bit late, hey? Also, I think the state passed a Bill of Attainder against Entergy and I want to blog about that.

I would welcome a respectable blog by lawyers about the Vermont Yankee legal situation, even though the VLS lawyers are on the other side of the fence. What I see is something quite different. The VLS blog is a "we should be blogging, right?" blog, practically devoid of content, except for reprints of old articles.

Oh well. I think it is going to be up to me to blog about all these rabbits--I mean, all these lawsuits. I hope the VLS blog can become useful, but so far...well, not really.

Photo of Oakes Hall at Vermont Law School from Wikipedia

Rabbits overrunning the University of Victoria campus, from Wikipedia