Saturday, Nevil Shute and Slide Rule

Tomorrow I will lead a discussion of Nevil Shute's autobiography, Slide Rule, at the Howe library in Hanover.  We will be at the library from 2 to 4 p.m., it's free, and there will be refreshments.  I hope some of you will be able to come.

If you remember, my course on Engineering Adventures with Nevil Shute led to the formation of a local chapter of the Nevil Shute society.  Tomorrow is the third meeting of our chapter, and I will be leading the discussion. Thanks to the tireless work of C.J. Smith, the Dartmouth Chapter has a great web site (NevilShuteDartmouth) with information about the meetings, contact list and more.  C. J. also made the poster, shown above.  My own notes for the meeting are below.

----------

Dartmouth Chapter of the Nevil Shute Society

On Saturday June 1 2013, the Dartmouth Chapter of the Nevil Shute Society will meet at Howe Library from 2 to 4 to discuss Shute’s autobiography: Slide Rule.

Meredith Angwin will lead the discussion.  Angwin led the successful ILEAD course “Engineering Adventures with Nevil Shute” and the discussion of Slide Rule will follow the format of the course. In this particular discussion, we will try to understand the decision making about two airships:
• R100, which Nevil Shute helped to design,
• R101, designed and built in a government facility.

The R100 flew successfully to Canada, but the R101 crashed on its first voyage. Why the difference?

Questions For Discussion:

Was the R101 doomed by:
• Being built in a government facility?
• Not having pilots as designers?
• Lack of project management?
• Changing specifications mid-stream?
• Other issues (air-worthiness certification rules, for example)?

Have you ever been in a project where upward communication was controlled by political constraints:  “It’s going great! Trust us!”

Structure of the meeting:

1) First Hour: Only the book.  In the first hour, we discuss questions from completely within the context of the book. This constraint encourages everyone to contribute to the discussion.

2) Second Hour: Personal anecdotes and specialized knowledge. The second hour encourages discussion of personal anecdotes about similar projects, specialized knowledge about airships, and more.

Further reading: 

The book is the only reading needed for this meeting, but you might be interested in other course material available at “Downloads for the Nevil Shute Course.”

http://www.meredithangwin.com/downloads-for-nevil-shute.html



 PO Box 5731, Hanover NH  03755, 603-790-8291,nevilshutedartmouth@gmail.com

The PSB, the Diesels and Sherlock Holmes

Bulldog asleep

Waiting for the Public Service Board

About a week ago, on May 21, I blogged about the fact that Vermont Yankee needs another back-up diesel, and the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) has been dragging its feet about giving permission to install that diesel.  Entergy has an NRC deadline to install the diesel, and therefore, Entergy sued the PSB in federal court.  The court hearing is scheduled for June 4, which is Tuesday, and coming up fast.

By denying the diesel permit, the PSB is interfering with nuclear safety, an area of federal jurisdiction. My post was A Court Case With A Deadline: The Black Start Diesels. 

That post included the "Breaking News" that the PSB hearing officer for the diesel docket had recommended that PSB grant the permit for the diesel.  The Department of Public Service also supports granting the permit for the diesel.  Here's a link to the Vermont Digger article by Andrew Stein on these recommendations that the PSB approve the diesel.

However, these were only recommendations. The PSB itself did not rule on this matter. The Vermont Digger article quoted Jim Sinclair of Entergy: “While we appreciate and agree with the hearing officer’s recommendation, we remain uncertain as to when the Board will rule,” he said. “Therefore, we will have to determine how this may affect the federal court hearing.”

Will the PSB Rule? Time Passes

The Vermont Digger article appeared on May 20, and the hearing is June 4.  I'll be blunt.  I was waiting for the PSB to make a statement.  I thought PSB might say:

•  "We agree with our hearing officer and here's your diesel permit. " 

or

• "To heck with our hearing officer's recommendations. We don't hand out diesel permits to outfits like you, and we'll see you in court."

But, so far, nothing has happened.  At this point, it looks like the PSB is happy to ignore the hearing officer and the Department of Public Service.  The court date is approaching fast.

I waited. I wanted to write a blog post about this, as soon as there was some news.

Sherlock Holmes and Me

Then I realized that the lack of news--is also news! Non-action is also information.

To quote Sherlock Holmes:

"You consider that to be important?" he [Inspector Gregory] asked.
 "Exceedingly so."
 "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
 "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
 "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
 "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1893) : Silver Blaze

In the Holmes case, the fact the "dog did nothing in the night-time" means that a stranger did not commit the crime.  If a stranger had been there, the dog would have barked. Holmes concluded that the crime was an inside job.

To me, the fact that the PSB has done nothing means that they are happy to go to court June 4, even though (IMHO) they are pretty sure to lose on this one. In my opinion, this shows they are heavily influenced by politics.  I think that the more often the PSB is in court, the more political credibility they think they have with the Shumlin administration and the Vermont legislature: We TRIED to shut that plant down! We really did.  They sued us all the time, but we kept trying. 

In my opinion, this non-action on the hearing officer's statement shows that political credibility is what matters to the PSB.  The PSB is supposed to be a non-partisan board, but this incident of the Dog in the Nighttime indicates something else. The Public Service Board is ignoring its own hearing officer and the State's Department of Public Service. It seems happy to be dragged into court.

A political agenda is the best explanation I can come up with.  I welcome readers' comments with other explanations.

Will Davis and Me

And here's a comment to start you off!  Will Davis hosted the most recent nuclear blog Carnival at his Atomic Power Review site.  The Carnival included a link to my post about the diesels, and Will Davis had this to say about it:

Will Davis

Atomic Power Review Note:  Regarding the Yes Vermont Yankee post linked and described above...  Just how many times in this post-Fukushima world would one EVER expect to find any group, anywhere, that could possibly justify campaigning AGAINST adding a back up diesel generator at a nuclear plant site?

I think that says it all.  I hope to receive more comments, but it will be hard to beat Davis's pithy comment.

And Yet Another Lawsuit

In related news, a group of intervenors just sued the PSB in Vermont Supreme Court, claiming the PSB should "enforce their own orders" and close the plant.  Here's the May 25 article by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer on that suit:  Groups Ask Vermont Court to Affirm PSB Rulings on VY.

This suit bears an uncanny resemblance to a lawsuit the Vermont Supreme Court turned down in March of this year.  Here's the Andrew Stein article in Vermont Digger  on March 28: Vermont Supreme Court Denies New England Coalition's Petition to Close Vermont Yankee.  Or, as I blogged on March 28 in Court Won't Close Plant During PSB Hearings. Since the Vermont Yankee matter is active in both federal court and the PSB, the Vermont Supreme Court is unlikely to get involved.  Courts don't like to step on each other's toes.

Frankly, I don't get this intervenor latest suit.  It looks frivolous to me: it looks like the same contentions as the lawsuit in March.  Why are they doing this? However, I freely admit I am not a lawyer, so there may be a reason. Once again, comments are welcome.

The Carnival, The Rise of FUD, and a Scandal

Carnival: The 158th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is well worth reading.  It contains a link to my Black Start diesel post.  Atomic Power Review blog hosted the Carnival, and Will Davis, the blogger at that site, made a great comment on the actions of the intervenors:

Atomic Power Review Note:  Regarding the Yes Vermont Yankee post linked and described above...  Just how many times in this post-Fukushima world would one EVER expect to find any group, anywhere, that could possibly justify campaigning AGAINST adding a back up diesel generator at a nuclear plant site?

In Vermont, sometimes it is possible to get so used to intervenor actions that we forget how absurd they can be.

The Golden Dome
AKA Vermont State House
AKA Golden Bubble

Shaffer Post on Gundersen Testimony: While I was out of town in North Carolina, Howard Shaffer posted about Arnie Gundersen's visit to the Vermont legislature at ANS Nuclear Cafe. 

Shaffer's post has the accurate title: Love Feast Under the Golden Dome.  Shaffer's title is accurate, but Gundersen's statements are not accurate.  Shaffer quotes and refutes his statements.  Gundersen is a very skillful purveyor of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).  A post well worth reading.

Shumlin Scandal:  I almost never post anything about Vermont politics unless it has something to do with energy.  I need to make an exception.  

Governor Peter Shumlin was involved in a questionable land deal, where he bought land from a very poor neighbor, and he paid approximately one-fourth of the listed value of the land. The neighbor was facing a tax sale, but would undoubtedly have received far more money from such a sale than he received from Shumlin.  However, he seemed to have been panicked at the thought of the tax sale, and closed with Shumlin the day before the sale was scheduled.

To many people in Vermont, Shumlin's actions seem unethical or perhaps even illegal.  As I say, this isn't about energy, so I usually wouldn't bother with this sort of thing.  But I suspect the national press is going to pick up on this, and I want to be sure my readers are informed.  I also want to avoid getting ten thousand emails asking me: "Meredith, did you see this?!" 

Two articles from Vermont Digger are linked below.  More articles are being posted daily, all over Vermont.

Shumlin Land Deal Draws More Questions by Andrew Stein.

Governor Responds to Reporters on Land Deal...One at a Time by Andrew Stein.

Waterfalls, Renewables and Me

Triple Falls, DuPont State Forest
North Carolina

This morning, I have an unusual blog post at ANS Nuclear Cafe, inspired by my recent hiking trip in North Carolina.

In Farmers, City Folk and Renewable Energy, I consider the renewable-advocates idea that we can "get" all the energy we need from sun, wind and water.  No. We can't simply "get" energy from sun, wind and water. We would have to "take" this energy, by industrializing the wilderness.

I compare this idea of "getting" energy with the realities of farming.  City people are sometimes annoyed at that reality, but farms are a sort of factory for food.  A well-tended field is not just scenery: it has had inputs: seeds, fertilizer (organic or not), labor.  With these inputs, the field is expected to produce outputs: food.  Do we want to turn the natural world into a kind of energy farm, as we set ourselves up to "take" the renewables, wherever they may be?  I don't think so.

I write about environmentalism, and letting the rivers be rivers, not hydro plants, and my own history of Sierra Club membership, back in the day when the Club protected the wilderness. Remember the fight against Glen Canyon Dam?  Remember the fights to expand wilderness areas?

So-called "environmental" groups have come a long way in the wrong direction since those days. Now, they try to sell everyone on the absolute necessity of building wind turbines on the ridges of our beautiful mountains. Now, they make fun of people who think hydro power might be limited in Vermont.  Now...well, now, in my opinion, many of their stances are completely anti-environmental.

My ANS post is more personal than usual.  I hope you will read it.

Local Business: Vermont Yankee at the Business Expo

Richard January, VY employee, talking to a visitor
Vermont Yankee booth at Vermont Business Expo

Vermont Yankee at the Expo

On May 22 and 23, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce held its yearly Vermont Business and Industry Expo at the Burlington Sheraton conference center.

I went to the Expo this year and Entergy Vermont Yankee had a booth.  Several Vermont Yankee employee volunteers staffed the booth. In my picture, you can see Richard January talking to a visitor  at the booth.

Voices for Vermont Yankee (the book)

Entergy had several copies of our book, Voices for Vermont Yankee, at their booth.   Voices for Vermont Yankee records many pro-Vermont Yankee testimonies made at the Public Service Board hearings last fall.   My husband George and I published this book together, and Entergy had told me that they bought some copies. I think they gave a few copies away at the Expo.

You don't have to go to the Entergy booth to get a copy, though!  You can buy Voices for Vermont Yankee on Amazon as a paperback ($4.04) or you can buy it as a Kindle or a Nook ebook for $2.99.  It's an inspiring book for anyone in favor of nuclear energy: people's statements in favor of nuclear power.

Last time I announced the book, it was only available as an ebook. Now we have it as  a paperback, too. With this print copy available, more people can read it.  You can give it as a gift if you already have your own copy. George worked hard and thoughtfully  to design the paperback. It looks very good (but I'm prejudiced).  You will enjoy it.

Others at the Expo

While I was at the Expo, I was happy to see that GW Plastics, one of my favorite Vermont companies, won the prestigious Deane C. Davis Outstanding Business Award.  As the GW Press Release for this award wrote: During the last two decades, the company has expanded four times in Vermont, investing millions in equipment, facilities, and training, and doubling its Vermont employment. 

I have some connection to Vermont manufacturing, so I was glad to see a Vermont manufacturing company win this award.  My manufacturing connection is mainly through Vermont Manufacturing Extension Center (VMEC). VMEC is part of a nationwide organization which helps U.S. manufacturers be innovative and efficient.  I used to write Success Stories for VMEC, interviewing manufacturers that had worked with them.   At the Expo, I enjoyed stopping by the VMEC booth and seeing some old friends.

A Vermont Company

Vermont Yankee is a Vermont company (though part of a larger company, which is true of many Vermont employers, such as Ben and Jerry's and IBM).  Vermont Yankee employs many people in Vermont.  It pays taxes in Vermont.  It attends trade fairs in Vermont.

For me, seeing VY's booth at the Expo was a very refreshing and calming experience.  People stopped by and talked: as far as I can tell, most visitors were in favor of continued operation of the plant. (I was not staffing the booth, just visiting, so my knowledge is incomplete.)   All the Expo exhibitors were calm and upbeat. It is fun to walk around a trade show.  Being at Expo was a refreshing change from my trips to hearings in Brattleboro and Montpelier.

Perhaps I spend too much time  at hearings and not enough time at trade shows.  I'm going to try to  change that.

A Court Case with a Deadline: The Black Start Diesels

Breaking News: 

Last night, the hearing officer for the diesel docket at the Public Service Board recommended granting a certificate to allow the diesels to be installed.  This is great news!  However, as Entergy notes in its response, the PSB has not yet ruled on this recommendation, so the situation remains uncertain.  Andrew Stein article at Vermont Digger includes a link to the hearing officer statement.

---------------
A Court Case with a Deadline

On June 4, in federal court in Brattleboro, there will be a hearing on Entergy's suit against Vermont's Public Service Board.  While many court cases drag on forever, this one is likely to be resolved quickly.  Entergy needs an answer from the court by mid-June.

Vermont Yankee needs a diesel generator.  The plant must begin pouring the concrete pad for it in mid-June.

Background

Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam

In the summer of 2012, the New England System operator (ISO-NE) changed its black-start power plant requirements.  "Black Start" power plants are plants that can start quickly and re-energize the grid during a wide-spread outage. Until last summer, hydro plants were the black-start plants, but hydro plants tend to be small (Vernon Dam is 34 MW).  Gas-fired plants can also start quickly, and gas-fired plants tend to be bigger.  It would require fewer gas-fired plants to re-energize the grid.  Therefore, last summer,  ISO-NE said that small hydro plants such as Vernon Dam would no longer be black-start facilities.  That role would be assigned to larger gas-fired plants.

Vermont Yankee has a direct tie-line to Vernon Dam, and had always counted Vernon Dam as a source of emergency back-up power. When Vernon Dam was re-classified and would no longer be a black-start facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission required Vermont Yankee to replace it with another emergency diesel generator.

Supposedly, in Vermont, adding a diesel generator at a nuclear power plant requires a ruling from the Public Service Board.   That's the current Vermont requirement, and Entergy tried to comply.  In early August, Entergy announced it would ask the PSB for permission to add a diesel generator.  The Brattleboro Reformer reported on the request on August 7 (Entergy to ask for new diesel generator at VY), and I blogged about it on August 13 (Black Start, Black Out and Diesels, Some Clarity).

Trying to Shut the Plant Down

As soon as Entergy said it needed a new diesel generator,  intervenors got ready to try to stop them from acquiring one.  As Ray Shadis of NEC said in the Reformer article: "the state even today regulates certain aspects of existing emergency generators -- such as exhaust emissions, petroleum leaks and noise."  He clearly hoped that this diesel generator, a required piece of nuclear plant safety equipment, would be stopped on the basis that diesel generators are..well, they are diesels.

(sarcasm alert) We don't need no stinkin' diesels in Vermont. (end alert)

The Public Service Board Refuses to Act

Vermont Yankee began the process of asking for a new generator last August.  In general, such simple requests to the Public Service Board do not require complicated dockets, but are decided in two or three months. This type of request does not require not the same type of docket as a utility merger might require.  However, the PSB made it pretty clear that they were going to make this decision into a major issue. After months of hesitating, on December 27, they opened the investigation into the diesel with a PSB order that included these words:

As a preliminary matter, the Hearing Officer may request parties to examine the question of whether (i) the Board can and should grant permission for Entergy VY to install the generator when Entergy VY is not in compliance with existing Orders and CPGs and has not demonstrated that it is willing to comply with orders of this Board 

Orders and Implied Orders

The "orders of this Board" clause is not about something small.  It's huge. The question is whether Entergy has a right to keep operating Vermont Yankee after March 2012, when its original certificate of public good expired. In general, by Vermont law, plants can keep operating with an expired certificate, as long as they had applied for a new certificate in a timely fashion (as Entergy did).  But Senate votes and federal court cases (among other things) have muddied the waters on the certificate extension, at least in the opinion of the PSB.

I have not actually found any order from the PSB requiring the plant to shut down.  It seems to be more of an order-implied-by-the-question  that is quoted above. If someone can find such an actual PSB order, I hope they will tell me.  The last two years of PSB orders can be found on this page:  Recent Public Service Board Orders.

The PSB did issue an order recently, however.  On April 24, the Public Service Board entered a Scheduling Order on the docket, re-iterating that it wanted answers to the questions  from the December 27 order.  To put the matter rather mildly, with this statement, the PSB gave Entergy absolutely no assurance of a timely decision.

Entergy Sues

On April 25, Entergy sued the Public Service Board in federal court, claiming the Board has no authority over safety equipment at a nuclear power plant.  It seems clear to me (and apparently, equally clear to Entergy) that the Public Service Board is willfully interfering with the purchase of  nuclear safety equipment. The Board is pre-empting and frustrating the federal role of ensuring safety at nuclear plants.  Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger has a good short article on the lawsuit. I have the Entergy complaint (document that outlined their suit) on federal-filings-page of the Energy Education Project website.

As the Entergy complaint notes, on page 25:   Vermont's refusal to authorize construction of the station blackout generator....is an aspect of the state's long-running campaign to force the VY Station to shut down by any means necessary because of radiological safety concerns....[Vermont] has no genuine, non-pre-empted state interest in preventing construction of the blackout generator.

A June 4 date has been set for the hearing.


Even Nuclear Opponents Wonder about the PSB's Choices

Pat Parentau

Pat Parentau is no friend of Vermont Yankee.  He is a professor at Vermont Law School and an advisor to the Vermont legislature on methods for shutting down the plant.  However, even Parentau appears puzzled by the Board's actions.  A recent article by John Dillon at VPR quoted Parentau:

Vermont Law School Professor Pat Parenteau said the suit puts state regulators in a difficult situation.

“The point is you have a federal law that mandates something to be done and the state seems to be frustrating that,” he said. “And that’s just not the position you want to be in.”...

“Once again, I’m concerned about how the state interacts with the federal court in this matter,” he said. “If they have a real basis to say, ‘no, we’re not going to let you do this.’ Then, okay, what is that basis? But they don’t seem to have that. Why didn’t the state just do something that would avoid this? I don’t know.”


The court date is coming soon.  It will be interesting to see how the state defends their position on the diesel generator.  I personally don't think they can defend it. "They don't seem to have that [a real basis for their statement]" as Parentau said.  So true, indeed.

The state is making arbitrary decisions on nuclear safety, and now they will be in court again.  However, every time a case is heard in court, it is a gamble.  I am not a lawyer. I  think the state does NOT have a good case, but I certainly don't think it is a slam-dunk that one side or the other will win.

I think Entergy is in the right on this, and I certainly hope for a good outcome in court.

-------

Note: You can link directly to the Entergy filing complaint filing pdf here.  It includes a timeline, including Entergy warning the PSB of the date that it would sue them, if the PSB didn't move.  The pdf is a longish document and will take time to download.

I have another document, also, about Vernon Dam.   I asked an  Entergy spokesman if VY had tried to pay Vernon Dam to continue to be available as a black-start facility.  In return, he sent me this filing that Entergy made to the Public Service Board on April 12.  Entergy had asked Vernon Dam (TransCanada) that question and been refused.  TransCanada was willing to be black-start if required by ISO-NE, but did not want to take on the liability of being contractually bound with a nuclear power plant.

All filings to the PSB are public documents, but this one does not appear on the PSB website.  I thank Entergy for sharing it with me.  Mark Potkin's testimony on negotiations with TransCanada--a relatively short pdf.

NRC Meeting about Vermont Yankee: What Wasn't Shown

Tension at the NRC Meeting

The day after the NRC meeting about Vermont Yankee, I wrote a post Mellow Meeting of the NRC in Brattleboro.  Actually, the meeting was only mellow in comparison with last year's meeting: The Politics of Intimidation.  This year, women with Jaczko masks once tried to disrupt the meeting by standing behind the NRC people, chanting and making speeches (photo at left). Once again, the NRC members left the room and then came back into the room.  Once again, the women stood behind the NRC after the NRC came back.

However, the women didn't succeed this year.  Eventually the women sat down and the meeting proceeded.

Eventually, I took action

Um, did I say "eventually?" I should have said something stronger.  The problem is that I don't like to toot my own horn.  But I did take action that helped get the meeting back on track, and it is worth sharing that action with my readers.

At the meeting, the women were chanting, the NRC was trying to talk over them, a man from the audience shouted "It's about Democracy!" and I had personally had enough.  I went up to an open mike that was standing in the middle of the room, and I interrupted the whole thing. I said, quite loudly:

“No, it’s about diversity! It’s about whether people with different opinions and different views and different backgrounds will be allowed to talk at this meeting! Apparently not!”

Then I left the microphone. The meeting had grown quiet while I spoke (it was so unexpected) and the police soon persuaded the women to sit down.

I blogged about this incident at ANS Nuclear Cafe: Speaking Out of Turn at the NRC Meeting. On that post, I treasure a comment from a man who was at the meeting and wanted to thank me after the meeting.  Unfortunately,  I was feeling sort of shaky from the strain of doing something like that, and I left the meeting a bit early.

OMG, It Isn't There

A few days later, I found that community TV had recorded the meeting.  I thought: "Oh dear. What did it look like when I went up to that microphone?" I was scared to look at the video, but I needn't have worried.  The incident wasn't there at all.

The TV people apparently felt that the women chanting, the NRC leaving the room and coming back, the NRC trying to talk above the chanting, me making my statement, the police approaching the women..none of that was worth recording.  I don't know how they concluded this: in retrospect, it was all rather dramatic theater. But none of it is on the video.

If you look at the video below, a man from the NRC refers to the incident with some statement like: "if there is more disruption, we will have to take a break."  The video cameras follow the women walking peaceably around the "science fair" part of the meeting and then you see them sitting peaceably in the chairs during the question period.  In the video, you see me and my friend Guy Page (frequent guest blogger) speak to the NRC once the meeting was underway. Our remarks start at about the 11 minute mark on the video.

The TV video makes the situation look darn mellow.  That is not how it happened, my friends.  That is not how it happened.