Why was rubblization even included in 2013 settlement agreement?

Robert Oeser clearly wants to make a mountain out of the rubble, regarding his opposition to NorthStar's proposed rubblization at the Vermont Yankee site.

But Mr. Oeser fails to recognize that rubblization is a common procedure, developed for recycling concrete highways in place and used in nuclear decommissioning. The small pieces of broken concrete are used instead of trucked-in stone as a roadbed for new pavement.

In nuclear plant demolition, instead of hauled-in fill, the rubble is used to fill the vast foundation holes. This is a tremendous saving of time and money. Of course, only rubble that is not contaminated is used.

The real question is: Why was a technical decision about a procedure that would be used 10 to 50 years in the future even included in the 2013 agreement with the state on plant shutdown?

Decommissioning technology, like others, is evolving based on experience. With all the concern about using up the Decommissioning Fund and, years ago, about who would get any money left over, it would seem better to postpone this technical decision. When the time comes, the best available technology can be used.

Why the rush to get this requirement in the agreement? The fear of anything radioactive? The concrete was naturally radioactive when it was poured. The granite in our mountains and buildings is radioactive, as are our bodies - all from natural elements. Our world was created this way.

The question about radioactivity is always, “What is the potential effect?” What kind, how much, what form, and how might it cause harm while being used safely?

It appears that this requirement was included in the agreement to quell opposition, in the rush to get it done and sweep away several issues in dispute.

As the present sale agreement is reviewed, this provision should be reconsidered.

Subscribe to the newsletter for weekly updates