Updated: NRC Review Meeting for Vermont Yankee Next Week

Update: Laugh Tracks
May 29, 2014

I decided not to go to the meeting.  This morning, Susan Smallheer wrote an article about it in the Rutland Herald.  This article is behind a paywall, but here's a short quote:

Activists brought "laugh track" buttons that they used whenever there was a response from William Dean, the Region One administrator for the NRC, as well as others. 

I am glad I skipped this meeting. With this kind of organized opposition, my presence would have done little good.

Okay.  I admit it.  If the plant was going to continue operating, I would have gone to the meeting anyway.

---------
The Meeting and the Findings

Next week, the  NRC will hold its annual public meeting to discuss the NRC's safety assessment of Vermont Yankee. The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 28, 2014, at 6:30 p.m. at the Brattleboro Union High School. You can follow the NRC link to the meeting information here.

From the meeting information,  you can follow links to find the assessment letter that the NRC sent to Vermont Yankee. The plant is operating well. As reported in Vermont Digger, the NRC concluded that: "Overall, the Vermont Yankee plant...operated safely during 2013, with no findings exceeding very low safety significance. As a result, Vermont Yankee will continue to receive the NRC’s normal level of oversight for the remainder of 2014..."

In other words, everything is fine at the plant.  Everything is probably not going to be fine at the NRC meeting.

The Opponents

Godzilla
This is not a picture of
 VY opponents

Some opponents think the NRC couldn't do its job without their assistance. As reported in The Commons, one opponent said: “In my experience a good number of people at the NRC want to do the right thing, they want to be vigorous and fair regulators, but they need our help..."

Well, I suppose you could call it "help."  Judging by previous years, many opponents don't actually "help."  The NRC cannot seem to keep order at these meetings in Brattleboro.

This is what happens at the meetings. The NRC staff show up.  There's a moderately civilized "science fair" until the major opponent groups show up. Then everyone goes into the meeting room. The opponents march around in costume and chant. The opponents shout at the NRC people. Then the meeting is over for another year.

I have reported on these NRC meetings several times in the past:

2012: NRC Public Meeting in Brattleboro: The Politics of Intimidation
2013: Speaking out of turn at the NRC meeting

In fairness to the opponents, not all of them march around and shout.  Some opponents get pretty frustrated at these meetings, just as plant supporters get frustrated.  Quieter voices can't get a word in edgewise.

My Plans

Will I go to the meeting?  Will I stay home?  I don't know.

These meetings are unpleasant experiences, but I always go to support the plant.  But since the plant is shutting down anyway, I am not sure it is worth the hassle.  I mean, I am sure I'll see the new costumes and masks in a newspaper article or in Vermont Digger.  It's not worth going to the NRC meeting just for the fashion show.

Do I urge plant supporters to go to the meeting?  Since I am not sure if I will attend, I would be hypocritical if I urged everyone else to go.  On the other hand, there are reasons to go. A supporter can visible and maybe have a small quote in one of the newspapers.  That is worth something.

Still,  the night of the NRC meeting is probably a great night to go out with a friend and see the movie Godzilla.   If you're going to spend an evening worrying about radioactivity, at least you can have some fun.  Afterwards, you can vote in the Nuclear Energy Institute poll:   Is Godzilla Your Favorite Radioactive Monster?   Since "radiation" makes most of the blockbuster movie monsters (and it makes some good guys, like Spider Man),  you will have many monsters to consider.

The movie sounds like more fun than the NRC meeting.

I'm trying to make up my mind.

Emergency Planning and Fuel Pools: The Little Fire That Wasn't There

stairs at a lighthouse

The man on the stair

Yesterday, upon the stair, 

I met a man who wasn't there.

He wasn't there again today.

I wish, I wish he'd go away.

The fire that wasn't there

In the early days after the tsunami, quite a few people looked at the explosion above Fukushima Daiichi Fuel Pool 4 and decided that the fuel pool must be burning.  Later, it became clear that the explosion was due to hydrogen generated in Unit 3, and that the fuel pool was fine. Well, mostly fine--it had debris from the roof that fell in on it.  At any rate, the fuel pool was not burning and it will not burn in the future. Currently fuel bundles are being removed from that pool.

However, the more strident nuclear opponents keep up the rhetoric that the Fuel Pool 4 has burned, is still burning, or is about to burn any moment. The opponents are noisy, but they are wrong.  Fuel Pool 4 is the little fire that isn't there.

Meanwhile, back in Vermont: Emergency Planning

Vermont Yankee will close later this year. When it shuts down, it will transfer fuel from the reactor to the fuel pool.  Then, after a period of about five to seven years, Vermont Yankee will transfer all the  fuel from the fuel pool into dry cask storage. In other words, for several years, the fuel pool will be in full operation.

Entergy has calculated that the danger of a fuel pool fire will be somewhere between highly-improbable and completely-impossible after the fuel has cooled in the pool for about a year. Therefore, Entergy has requested permission from the NRC  to stop funding the Emergency Planning Zone, starting fifteen months after reactor shutdown and fuel off-loading.

As you can imagine, the powers-that-be in Vermont are totally against the NRC allowing Entergy to stop funding the Emergency Planning Zone.  I think they believe in the scaremonger-version of the Unit 4 pool at Fukushima.  Governor Shumlin's appointee, Chris Recchia, is chair of the Vermont Department of Public Service. In Washington, Recchia testified about emergency planning. He said that “Vermont was not well served by NRC’s past decisions and current approach to decommissioning. We essentially negotiated with one hand tied behind our back."

Meanwhile, in Washington: Committee Meetings and Bills

Senator Sanders

Chris Recchia was in Washington to testify about before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  Senator Barbara Boxer of that committee did her best to get a witness from the NRC to say that the spent fuels at San Onofre were dangerous and the fuel should be moved to dry casks as soon as possible (maybe sooner).   But Washington has gone beyond mere committee meetings.

Senator Sanders, Boxer and Markey have introduced legislation to have nuclear plants consult with states within fifty miles of the plant before the plants can submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC.

Back to Vermont: Money

Vermont has often expressed its eagerness to have the plant fully decommissioned as soon as possible.  Our politicians get visibly upset at the idea of letting decommissioning funds grow over time.  However, it also seems to be anathema to them that the NRC will decide on the danger level of the fuel pool. The politicians want a major state seat at the table, deciding on danger levels according to their personal criteria.

Vice President Mike Twomey of Entergy tried to bring some reason to this process. He noted that keeping up the Emergency Planning Zone activities would cost about $20 million a year.  This money will come out the decommissioning fund. Taking this money from the fund in the early days would slow the growth of the fund, and therefore slow the beginning of full decommissioning.  In other words, the politicians cannot have their cake (continued funding for the emergency zone) and eat it too (quick decommissioning). As Twomey said, this funding is "not a free option."

Back to Vermont: Safety 

Volunteer firefighters in Georgia

This is all about politics, by the way, not safety.  If you ask first-responders from the Brattleboro area if the fuel pool is the most important of their concerns, they would say "no."  The trains running through southern Vermont carry all sorts of cargoes, including acid, poisonous industrial chemicals, flammable materials, etc.

Possible train wrecks are a major concern to local first responders.

I believe that first responders can always use more funding.  However, funding the Emergency Planning Zone isn't what they need, or what the people of Vermont need for safety.  It may be what some of our elected officials need for re-election, however.

 The Little Fire That Wasn't There

Vermont has to stop posturing about fuel pools, and look at the real problems the state is going to have. The state is especially going to have problems without Vermont Yankee funds (Clean Energy Development Fund, Lake Champlain clean-up, Emergency Planning Zone funding for first-responder equipment in southern Vermont) to bail them out.

The state has to let go of worrying about the man-who-isn't-there, and look at the problems that actually exist.

---------

UPDATE:  Description of the three bills being introduced by Boxer, Sanders and Markey. First bill requires EPZ planning to continue until fuel is moved to dry cask, second requires all fuel in dry casks within seven years of shutdown, and third gives local and state reps a "meaningful seat at the table" about decomm planning.  

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/41220?c=infrastructure_protection

Notes on the post itself:

Poem: Antigonish, 1899

Fuel Pool:

Oak Ridge Researchers Show Fukushima Unit 4 Fuel Pool Never a Danger: Rod Adams at Atomic Insights

History of the Unit Four Fuel Pool: Les Corrice at Hiroshima Syndrome

NRC Releases Spent Fuel Pool Study: Allison Dunne at WAMC

Fuel pools, with video of pool 4: At Yes Vermont Yankee

Howard Shaffer on used fuel: testimony at Vermont legislature: At Yes Vermont Yankee

Vermont Wants Emergency Planning to Continue

Senators review nuclear decommissioning: Pat Bradley at WAMC (This includes the Recchia quote about "one hand tied behind our back.")

Panel Questions Experts on Closed Reactor Risks: Matt Wald at New York Times (this includes the $20 million a year quote from Twomey)

State wants Entergy to continue emergency planning after shutdown: Tom Brown at Vermont Digger.

Nuclear Energy Blog Carnival 209: Right Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

The Blog Carnival is here again!

Yes Vermont Yankee is proud to host the 209th edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs! Every week, top English-language pro-nuclear bloggers choose their most important post for that week. They present their selections at the weekly Carnival.

While the posts come from many blogs and many bloggers, a theme usually develops.  This week's theme is Nuclear Energy in Perspective.

Perspectives on the Current Nuclear Fleet

First, two posts describe the on-going value of existing plants.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Thoughts on Nuclear  

At Forbes, James Conca reported on a speech by Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner John Norris. This week, Norris reiterated nuclear energy’s value as the best form of carbon-free base load in a diverse all-of-the-above energy mix for America. The speech was titled "Preserving Our Country's Nuclear Fleet."

Existing nuclear plants are valuable and worth saving.

In this post by Rod Adams at Atomic Insights, Adams notes that many currently operating nuclear

San Onofre

plants are in danger of being permanently shut down due to temporary conditions. These conditions include:

• currently low (but highly volatile) natural gas prices, 
• improperly designed markets that fail to recognize the value of reliable generating capacity, 
• quotas and mandates that result in certain types of electrical generators receiving direct monetary payments in addition to wholesale market prices,
• insufficient recognition of nuclear energy as a near zero emission power source.

The impulse of nuclear plant owners to consider permanent closure as a response to current market conditions reminds Adams of a Jimmy Buffett song: Permanent Reminder of a Temporary Feeling.

A third post describes women who have achieved success in nuclear utilities.  

Women and Nuclear

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus follows a recent blog on women in the American Nuclear Society with another report on two women who have achieved success in nuclear utilities.  Maria Korsnick is Chief Nuclear Officer at Exelon, and Sarah Kovaleski is Director of Engineering Design at Ameren Missouri. In addition to celebrating these successes, Gail notes with some dismay that things have not changed as much as she had hoped from her own early days in the field. The male/female ratio in the industry is currently nine to one.

Perspectives on Radiation and Radiation Releases

Bloggers provide some perspective on the recent WIPP accident and on Fukushima.

The first post quantifies the WIPP release

Some perspective on the 1.3 mCi release from the WIPP

At NewsOK (News Oklahoma), Robert Hayes puts the 1.3 mCi release from the WIPP site (due to the accident) in perspective. A quote from his article:   In other words, the nearest neighbors to the WIPP site (which are ranches)  received a larger dose just from breathing regular air that one day during the release than the entire lifetime dose they will have received from the activity given off by the WIPP release.  

The second post fights FUD about Fukushima


The Hiroshima Syndrome's Fukushima Commentary

Japan Today rejects the truth about Fukushima. It says the truth is “obscene and vulgar.”

In this blog post, Les Corrice reports on a fear-mongering article in Japan Today. The incorrect article filled with fear-mongering references. Corrice attempted to post a response, which objected to only a few of the numerous misinformational issues. His response was rejected for being "offensive and vulgar." This travesty is laughable.

Perspectives on the Future of Nuclear Energy

Three posts on future of nuclear energy.

Two posts describe the status of proposed reactors.

Climate change and Ontario electricity: federal court clarifies the choice

The Canadian Federal Court recently ruled that in Ontario Power Generation’s plan to build new nuclear reactors at the Darlington site, the utility did not adequately address the issue of what will happen to the used fuel. Anti-nuclear groups hailed this ruling as a victory. Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues sees it as a huge opportunity. Used nuclear fuel is a grain of sand next to the mountains of carbonaceous waste produced by nuclear’s fossil competitors. Not enough people are aware of this, and Aplin sees the new round of public meetings on Darlington as a forum to finally put to bed the trumped up issue of nuclear waste.

Florida ANS Students Steal Show at Turkey Point Siting Hearing

Current Turkey Point

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Jerry Paul reports on the impressive testimony given by ANS student members at a hearing about proposed new reactors at Turkey Point.  The Energy Information Center's "Student army" gave testimony that was referred to by Florida's Governor.  The Turkey Point expansion won Florida state approval.

The next post describes molten salt reactors under development

Per Peterson has a modular molten salt reactor design in the US and is working with China's molten salt nuclear program.

At Next Big Future, Brian Wang describes how Per Peterson and his co-authors believe that the way forward for the US nuclear industry is to use new nuclear reactor designs with passive safety and modular construction. This will make nuclear power both cheaper and safer.

Per Peterson has a design for a molten salt-cooled reactor that couples to a conventional General Electric (GE) gas turbine. The Mk1 reactor design can generate 100 megawatts (MWe) of baseload nuclear power, but can also be co-fired with gas to rapidly adjust power output between 100 MWe and 240 MWe. The ability to rapidly adjust power output helps balance variability in the grid and is thus
attractive to grid operators. And because the turbine remains “hot and spinning,” efficiency losses to provide peaking and spinning reserve services are low. The thermal efficiency of this design in converting peaking fuel into electricity is 66 percent, compared to about 60 percent for today’s best combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plants.

Please spread the word!

The posts in this carnival represent careful work and communication by many people in the nuclear industry.  Spread the word about this carnival!  Tweet about this post, place it on your Facebook page, put it on Reddit, refer to it on Google plus,  pin it on Pinterest.  In other words

Spread the word!

Moving Used Fuel to Dry Casks at Columbia Generating Station

A few words about today's video.

First, today is Friday, which is a good day for a video.

Second, Vermont Yankee will soon request permission to build more dry cask storage facilities.  (Vermont Yankee to Apply for Second Pad to Hold Dry Casks). This makes today a good day for a dry cask storage video.

Third, I recently visited Columbia Generating Station, in Richland Washington.  As I wrote earlier this month:  "I am on travel right now. I am currently in a town that has a lovely park: Leslie Groves Park. Guess the town."

The town is Richland Washington, and the people at Columbia Generating Station were wonderful hosts.  I thoroughly enjoyed visiting the station and taking a tour of the plant.   Therefore, today is a good day for a Columbia Generating Station dry cask storage video.

Enjoy!

Employee Ownership

Rod Adams

Saving Vermont Yankee

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

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

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

• Money
• Political opposition

Money

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

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

Political Opposition

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

Maybe or Maybe Not

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

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

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

Saving Vermont Yankee: Rod Adams Moves Forward

Saving Vermont Yankee

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

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

"Do. Or do not.  There is no try."

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

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

Adams's Program

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Next Steps:

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

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

Beyond Vermont Yankee

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

I'm talking about Vermont Yankee here.

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

Co-operative ownership and Vermont Yankee: Adams post today

Today, Rod Adams writes about the possibility of keeping Vermont Yankee operating with an employee-owned corporation.  I encourage you to read the post, think about it, comment on it, and...maybe more.  Maybe...take action!

Vermont Yankee: A Clean Kilowatt Cow That Deserves  Saving

------------
I am on travel right now. I am currently in a town that has a lovely park: Leslie Groves Park. Guess the town.