Friday, October 5, 2007

NRC Chairman Dale Klein "Harkens The One World Nuclear Order"

On October 4th, the doddering Chairman of NRC, Dale Klein announced to the world, with little fan fare that the Nuclear Renaissance is upon us, further predicted the coming of "An Emerging Fuel Cycle Renaissance" and in his speech at the Baker Center for Public Policy laid out the NRC's plan for a "One World Nuclear Order". According to this ancient relic of yesteryear, a Nuclear Renaissance is not on the horizon, but has officially begun.
"I don’t say that as an advocate for or against nuclear power. It is just a statement of fact, considering that last week the NRC received the first application for a new reactor license in thirty years. Over the next year and a half we expect about twenty more license applications."
The first question that communities all across America should be asking themselves as these 20 or more applications flood into the NRC is, "Based on the past safety and environmental issues associated with Nuclear Reactors, are we really willing to let the NRC force us to play host to a nuclear reactor? In the hopes of mitigating this serious problem with public sentiments, the NRC hopes to force many new licenses through by locating them on or near ALREADY EXISTING reactor sites. After all, it is much easier to screw a community after you've already raped them. One hs to wonder how close we are to having the NRC proudly hanging Swastika's on the outside walls of the NRC Headquarters in Rockville Maryland.
One of the more interesting admissions by Dale Klein (though it is pointed out he does not actually write his speeches, but instead only reads them to the audience) is the severe worker shortage that already exists at the NRC, and within the nuclear industry itself. Giving birth to a Nuclear Renaissance, taking on the job of reviewing 20 or more new reactor construction and licensing applications when you already have problems meeting current regulatory obligations seems like a recipe for disaster. As example, in one two week pay period earlier this year (2007) the NRC lost over 1,000 years of experience to retirement, with over half of that brain trust in the area of technical experience.
Such wholesale loss of talent is the proverbial TIP OF THE ICEBERG. Over at the DOE some 75 percent of their ENTIRE WORK FORCE is eligible for retirement in the year 2010. If you look at George Bush's plan for the Nuclear Renaissance, if you have a gander at the DOE/NRC time line to begin rolling out this massive Nuclear Renaissance perfectly coincides with what will be a mass exodus of the nuclear brain trust needed to adequately police and regulate current licensees, let alone all the new ones slated to come online.
You cannot replace the knowledge gained through decades of on the job experience, so even if you replace the bodies with fresh young college graduates, those people are at the beginning of their learning any of us truly feel comfortable putting our public health and safety into the hands of people that HAVE NO EXPERIENCE in the nuclear industry, or at best, very little? In answering that question, we need to look carefully at two crucial facts.

1. For the most part, America's current fleet of 104 aging nuclear reactors are run on out dated analog technology...which is NOT EVEN TAUGHT on college campuses. How can the NRC adequately guarantee our safety when these new, young employees with no knowledge of analog technologies are put in charge as plant inspectors? Should we feel comfortable with the fact that these young inspectors are going to have to rely to some degree on the word of the licensees they are supposed to be regulating?
2. If a company like Exelon or Entergy is applying for and application to build a reactor in your community, would you feel comfortable knowing a young man or woman two years out of college was weighing the adequacy of the company's application?

These might seem like rhetorical questions, but they are questions we as a nation need to give some long and serious thought to. Even the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) admits (qualified) worker shortages is a very serious and troubling issue being faced by the industry, and at every plant site in America...yet, they want to push forward with building 20 or more new reactors? Lets look at hard cold facts. Thirty Five percent of ALL CURRENT UTILITY WORKERS are eligible for retirement during the next five years.
Despite the staggering losses in experienced work force base loads, Mr. Klein pushed on in his speech, insisting the situation should not be considered a crisis! Though conceding, that it could become one. Perhaps he as hoping such a bold statement of assurance would lighten his next big admission.
The US nuclear industry, and the NRC, based on the 20 year hiatus in building nuclear reactors here in America, seems that NRC staff has NO EXPERIENCE what so ever to use in evaluating the adequacy of new reactor applications! Succinctly, we have the analog problem in reverse here. All of NRC's regulatory experience and knowledge is applicable to analog based control rooms and reactors, and all the new reactors expected to come online are digitally designed and operated. Not to worry though, Dale Klein feels it is fine to count on the INDUSTRY to provide the NRC with guidance as they get their feet wet in this new pond. He describes this as a short-midterm shortcoming, but fails to tell you that short to midterm means 10-20 years! Worse, since the NRC has no experience in digitally operated reactors, they intend to let the industry write their own safety and design specs by which they will be regulated...BRILLIANT, absolutely brilliant. (Can you hear the sarcasm in the sentence?)
As the audience in the Woodrow Wilson Center picked their dentures up off the floor over this information, Dale Klein plowed on, getting into the real purpose of his presentation, the glorious coming of the "Fuel Cycle Renaissance", the evil twin bastard of the "Nuclear Renaissance". For starters, I get nervous when someone from the NRC states "more radical technological changes" are on the way! Either one of his speech writers is a SURFER DUDE, or we as society don't even want to know what kinds of reactors the industry is wanting to build moving forward.

In Dale Klein's mind, the crown jewel of his speech was GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership), the centerpiece of this supposed "Fuel Cycle Renaissance" that will make America the recipient of almost the entire world's spent fuel waste streams. Read the fine print of GNEP! Country A signs on the dotted line, we (America) promise them fuel for their reactors, and when they are finished with it, we B) promise to TAKE IT ALL BACK. So much for that false hope that Yucca was the answer to high level radioactive waste streams. This GNEP program would require America to license and build a new Yucca every 3-5 years!
Mr. Klein leisurely informs those gathered there that have not passed out, that this GNEP program is going to substantially SHIFT the domestic approach to the back end of the spent fuel cycle, and then adds as almost and after thought that GNEP will possibly represent a significant world wide change to how the back end of the spent fuel cycle is dealt with. Is this guy related to Elmer Fudd? Was there a collective DUH from the audience listening to him drone on about this topic?
What Dale Klein is not saying, what he does not want America to know, is the real purpose of GNEP. Even though the technology for GNEP is not proven, but moving forward with it, they can reclassify spent fuel (radioactive waste) as POTENTIAL FUTURE USE RESOURCES. Reason for that is a potential future resource, America's spent fuel could then sit right where it resides now waiting for reprocessing...on site at the 104 aging reactor sites here in America. WALLA, waste problem SOLVED. If you do your homework, you'll find this is exactly how DOE dealt with the issue of all that DEPLETED URANIUM that citizens wanted cleaned up and removed.
In wrapping up his speech, Dale Klein gave the first hints of the new "One World Nuclear Order" that is coming down the pike, expressing it as a WONDERFUL and UNPRESEDENTED OPPORTUNITY! Much along the same lines as the North American Union, Mr. Klein envisions a uniform, world wide, international set of know, kind of like comparing China's product safety regulations to ours, and then compromising in the middle somewhere. Shut up KID, and eat your lead paint! Of course, much like President Bush, Dale Klein took it upon himself to bring such and idea to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna without bothering to have any public stakeholder input into his WONDEROUS idea. Sadly, IT GETS WORSE as he states:

This would be a cooperative international effort to delineate the regulatory design requirements for innovative reactors and other fuel cycle facilities.

I believe that such an activity should be led by the regulators who oversee the design and development of nuclear power plants, with active participation from other national regulators, and in coordination with the IAEA and NEA.

In this new world we live in since September 11, 2001 we have the Chairman of the NRC wanting to open up the books, records and regulations of the NRC to the world in the name of creating a uniform set of guidelines for the world wide nuclear industry. Curious here, does Iran, China, Afghanistan, even India get a seat at this table? Do America's safety margins get reduced to find group consensus? As it is, our participation in the World Bank, programs such as NAFTA and CAFTA see our rules being set aside as other nations haul us into international courts. Think about it folks, is GNEP and a One World Nuclear Order what we really want in America, is it really the way to solve Global Warming?

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Sherwood Interview by John LeKay ~ Heyoka Magazine

Journalist John LeKay, friend of Rock The Reactors, Green Nuclear Butterfly, and FUSE USA, has interviewed Sherwood Martinelli for Heyoka Magazine.

John and Sherwood discuss the growing movement opposing the relicensing of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, and the rise of FUSE USA, a new coalition focused on getting the job done.

The interview with Sherwood appears in Heyoka Volume 9, alongside interviews with Rock The Reactors Betcee May and model/environmentalist Summer Rayne Oakes.
A few months ago GNB revealed Summer's association with ETS Energy store, a green business majority owned by BGA Engineering, which does maintenance work at Indian Point. Summer has since come out in opposition to the $50 Billion Federal loan guarantees to the nuclear power industry.
John LeKay runs the Silkwood Project, chronicling the disastrous effects of uranium mining on Native American lands.

FUSE USA Accepting Co-Signers On EIS Scoping Comments

FUSE USA (Friends United for Sustainable Energy) will be putting their EIS Scoping Comments out for Co-Signers this upcoming weekend. If you, or your organization would like to be a co-signer on this important document, please send your information to no later than Monday October 8th, 2007.

For those wanting to review the document, we hope to have it available for review on will only be sent out to those who have been previous vetted, as we do not want Entergy seeing the document until after it has been accepted by the NRC.

If A Radio Show Upsets Folks Over At The NEI Blog, We Need to Give our Readers A Chance to Listen To It!

I was over on the NEI Blog looking at the daily drivel, and it seems Eric has his panties all in a knot over a PBS radio show that aired out in Seattle...obviously, if the show upsets NEI, more of our readers are going to want to give it a listen.

KUOW Program Archive

The Conversation


Nuclear power plant in Cattenom,

Is Nuclear the New Green Power?

With virtually no greenhouse gas emissions (A major nuclear industry lie), nuclear reactors are touted by some as part of the solution to global warming. (Let's see some studies on Nuclear Energies Thermal Discharge contributions to Global Warming.) Over the next 15 months, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects a tidal wave of permit applications for up to 28 new reactors. Some leading environmentalists, including James Lovelock, the founder of the Gaia idea, support the idea of nuclear energy as a solution to global warming. (Curious, does James also support child murder? How many birth defects have been caused by the effluents from nuclear reactors?) Is nuclear energy really clean energy? Does the threat of global warming overshadow the threat of nuclear waste? The nuclear industry gets about $9 billion a year in federal subsidies (Best up that figure significantly), trailing only oil and coal in federal energy aid. How are new nukes different from old nukes? (The public in host communities have far fewer protections due to greatly reduced Safety Margins.) Do you think public money should go into building them?

Also, astronomers are trying to measure light pollution by asking you to look at the constellations. We'll find out how that works.

Thomas Cochran is senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
John Holdren is Director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at Harvard University.
Dennis Ward is an astronomer with University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

Related Links:
  • Green Nuclear Butterfly Accepting Advertising Proposals.

    After trying both Ad Brite, and Ad Sense, Green Nuclear Butterfly has decided we need more control over what appears on our side bar in the way of advertising. We want Green Products and Companies on our side bar, want to present to our readers Earth Friendly choices. To that end, we are putting out a casting call. Send us your banner ads, email us something on your product with a note telling us why we should give you a try. Email us at

    As we explore this new approach, we are going to chose ten companies to roll out our new look. During this trail run, all side bar placements are 100 percent FREE, or gift to you for bringing your products to the attention of our readers.

    Green Nuclear Butterfly Top Ten List

    Greetings Readers:

    Green Nuclear Butterfly is fast approaching a significant milestone in our history...500 Blog Articles! Who would have known back last year on December 26th that this little place would grow the way that it has. From our humble beginnings we have grown, and joined forces with others to form a new coalition, FUSE USA. We thought it would be fun to take a look back, share our own Top 10 Lists with our readers...Remy's top ten will be posted in the next few days, and below is mine. Hope you enjoy, and hope you keep coming back on a daily basis.

    Friday, December 29, 2006

    To Defeat Your Enemy, Become Your Enemy... How Nuclear Industry is Trying To Steal GREEN MOVEMENT

    Read about the nuclear industry plan to steal the Green Movement in their quest to create a Nuclear Renaissance here in, look around you, and see how successful they are being in this devious plan.

    Saturday, January 6, 2007

    Will The Real A123 Genius Please Stand Up?

    Just who was it that invented the A123?

    Thursday, January 11, 2007

    J. Patrick Moore Debunked-World's Biggest Sell Out?

    Did Patrick Moore sell his soul for 35 pieces of silver? We let our readers draw their own conclusions.

    Saturday, January 13, 2007

    Calling Green Peace To Action...Sharing of Open Letter To Their Washington Office

    Green Nuclear Butterfly's open letter to Greenpeace. We had over 100 Co-Signers to this important letter, yet Greenpeace's Executive Director never bothered to respond...makes one wonder.

    Sunday, January 14, 2007

    Opening The Can of Worms-Nuclear Lies Uncovered Part 1

    One of our hard hitting expose pieces on the deceit that is the Nuclear Industry.

    Sunday, March 18, 2007

    Where Is Summer Rayne Oakes and The Green Muffkateers In The Anti Nuclear Fight To Close Down Entergy's Indian Point and Their Leaking Reactors?


    Friday, March 23, 2007

    Nuclear, Entergy-The Shaw Skank Deception


    Sunday, April 1, 2007

    Other Side of NIMBY, Fine In Your Back Yard (FIYBY)


    Monday, April 16, 2007

    NRC, NEI and The Nuclear Industry Rig DBT, Plan Security To Defend Against The DBT, Not A Terrorist Attack

    This one goes out to Sam Collins of the NRC who does not have the balls to answer a straight forward question.

    Tuesday, April 24, 2007

    Entergy's Indian Point-What Would Jesus Do?

    A powerful anti-nuclear movement is growing again

    Why is Uncle Sam so Committed to Nuclear Power?
    By Peter Montague of Rachel’s Democracy & Health News

    Can investors be fooled twice? Financially, the nuclear power industry has never stood on its own two feet without a crutch from Uncle Sam. Indeed, the nuclear power industry is entirely a creature of the federal government; it was created out of whole cloth by the feds in the 1950s. At that time, investors were enticed by offers of free money — multi-billion-dollar subsidies, rapid write-offs, special limits on liability, and federal loan guarantees. Despite all this special help, by the 1970s the industry was in a shambles. The British magazine, the Economist, recently described it this way: “Billions were spent bailing out lossmaking nuclear-power companies. The industry became a byword for mendacity, secrecy and profligacy with taxpayers’ money. For two decades neither governments nor bankers wanted to touch it.”
    To grease the skids for a nuclear revival, the most important change the NRC has made has been to creatively redefine the meaning of the word “construction.” This change was enacted in April, 2007, with lightning speed — six months from initial proposal to final adoption. By way of comparison, it took the NRC eleven years to adopt regulations requiring drug testing for nuclear plant operators.
    “Construction” has traditionally included all the activities undertaken to build a nuclear power plant, starting with site selection, evaluation, testing and preparation, construction of peripheral facilities like cooling towers, and so on. Even the earliest stages of siting are crucially important with a facility as complex and dangerous as a nuclear power plant.
    In April of this year, the NRC officially redefined “construction” to include only construction of the reactor itself — excluding site selection, evaluation, testing and preparation, construction of peripheral facilities and all the rest. At the time, one senior environmental manager inside NRC complained in an email that NRC’s redefinition of “construction” would exclude from NRC regulation “probably 90 percent of the true environmental impacts of construction.” Under the new rules, by the time the NRC gets involved, a company will have invested perhaps a hundred million dollars. Will NRC commissioners have the backbone to toss that investment into the toilet if they eventually find something wrong with the site? Or will they roll over for the industry and compromise safety?
    The lawyer who dreamed up the redefinition of “construction” is James Curtiss, himself a former NRC commissioner who now sits on the board of directors of the nuclear power giant, Constellation Energy Group. This revolving door pathway from NRC to industry is well-worn.
    One NRC commissioner who voted in April to change the definition of construction is Jeffrey Merrifield. Before he left the NRC in July, Mr. Merrifield’s last assignment as an NRC commissioner was to chair an agency task force on ways to accelerate licensing.
    In April, while he was urging his colleagues at NRC to redefine “construction,” Mr. Merrifield was actively seeking a top management position within the nuclear industry. In July he became senior vice president for Shaw Group, a nuclear builder that has worked on 95% of all existing U.S. nuclear plants. Mr. Merrifield’s salary at NRC was $154,600. Bloomberg reports that, “In Shaw Group’s industry peer group, $705,409 is the median compensation for a senior vice president.”
    No one in government or the industry seems the least bit embarrassed by any of this. It’s just the way it is. Indeed, Mr. Merrifield points out that, while he was an NRC commissioner providing very substantial benefits to the nuclear industry by his decisions, his concurrent search for a job within the regulated industry was approved by the NRC’s Office of General Counsel and its Inspector General. From this, one might conclude that Mr. Merrifield played by all the rules and did nothing wrong. Or one might conclude that venality and corruption reach into the highest levels of the NRC. Or one might conclude that after NRC commissioners have completed their assignment inside government, everyone in the agency just naturally feels they are entitled to a lifetime of lavish reward from the industry on whose behalf they have labored so diligently.
    ... investors should think twice before buying into the “nuclear renaissance” because there’s another “renaissance” under way as well: A powerful anti-nuclear movement is growing again and they will toss your billions into the toilet without hesitation. Indeed, with glee.
    Read the entire article here:

    Ode to "Harry the Hudson Dog"

    Our GNB blogmeister Sherwood Martinelli fell out of bed inspired this morning in reply to a string of posts by "Harry the Hudson Dog" on a Journal News website thread. Harry has been tracking and harrassing nearly every single anti-nuclear blogger on the Internet going on for years now, quietly sitting pretty while petting his cat Dr. Evil, using a multitude of pseudonyms, lambasting the likes of Paul Gunter of NIRS, Lisa Rainwater of Riverkeeper, Sherwood and myself. He once posted a picture of yours truly on one of his fake blogs sporting a Hitler moustache. Quite endearing actually, if not so scary.
    We are sure the NRC and Entergy know who this man is, and yet they refuse to reveal his name to us, sanctifying his actions from the shadows. We are asking everyone to be on the lookout for Harry the Hudson Dog. We really like this guy... he's smart, funny, witty... has helped us considerably in fact... we'd like to shake his hand, invite him out for a drink... but he's such a shy little dog... won't come out of his hole. RemyC

    The Journal News

    Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:26 am
    Post subject: We need to help Harry the Dog

    New Voice:

    What we see, is that "Harry the Hudson Dog" (AKA Garrion, Harrydog and others) needs our compassion, and our help. This former Indian Point worker is obssessed with stalking any one that speaks negatively about his dearly beloved, aging, leaking, embrittled nuclear reactors. His last singular goal in life is a singular focus filled with hate. Traversing the internet looking into his various postings and hate blogs, it is obvious the man needs some serious counseling. Couple this obsession with his Catholic upbringing and faith, and it is obvious he in some misguided way sees himself as the Jesus of the Pro Nuclear camp.
    Rather than hate "Harry the Hudson Dog", the anti-nuclear groups should work to get him the help he so desparately needs. We could start a fund raising effort to open up the "Save Harry the Hudson Dog Foundation". Maybe even broaden the scope of our efforts.
    After all, when you really look at Jim Steets insipid remarks to the press, it is obvious the man has issues. Perhaps we could help Jim to find a heart, and perhaps a soul...sort of a modern day Tin Man like the "Wizard of Oz". Looking at Jim Steets, gazing back to the tragic murder/suicide earlier this year when an Entergy employee went whacko jacko, it is obvious someone needs to step in and offer these folks some help.
    Imagine Bumper Stickers showing up all over Westchester County, "Save Harry the Hudson Dog, Close Indian Point", or "Save Steets, Just Say No to License Renewal." We could even film a one hour documentary of our efforts to save these two, air it on PBS with funding by Exxon.
    Poetic justice in motion, Harry and Bob walking their Springer Spaniel along the Hudson River as we borrow a page right out of Entergy's propaganda play book. Camera's zooming in for a close up of the two walking hand in hand in their rainbow colored anti-nuclear T-shirts made from 100 percent all natural hemp. Something Bob Dylan carrying us to one last commercial from their friends at Exxon...GOD, makes you want to cry.
    Who knows, it could spawn a whole new "Twelve Step Program" . Hello, my name is Patrick Moore, and I am a nuclear addict. We could open up the "Jebb Bush-Christine Todd Whitman" Nuclear Addiction Treatment Center, and make Norris McDonald its Executive Director, which might be just enough to pull in NY AREA as a major donor to the project. Our first high visibility patient Paul Newman...sure someone at some TV network would be super anxious to do a reality based TV program on all this. Entergy, Exelon and even NEI workers vying to get a spot on the show, and thus treatment in the Nuclear Addiction Center for FREE! They could all compete for a internship at Greenpeace where their healing could continue on.
    The relicensing process is fixed. Read Green Nuclear Butterfly to understand how.
    Sherwood Martinelli
    Green Nuclear Butterfly

    Tuesday, October 2, 2007

    NRC Trying To LOWER Safety Standards For Reactor Thermal Shock

    The NRC today sent out a press release announcing their plans to issue for public comment a draft rule change that will greatly lower a KEY safety standard for continued operation of America's aging fleet of 104 Thermal Shock prone reactors. The press release (#No. 07-125) wrongfully boasts a blantant lie in the title, "NRC PROPOSES IMPROVEMENTS TO REACTOR VESSEL REQUIREMENTS". Lets be very clear from the get go, this proposed rule in no way shape or manner is and IMPROVEMENT of the rule, but instead destroys basic safety margins necessary to protect human health and the environment.

    The NRC in the summary report for this proposed improvement to the Reactor Vessel Requirements states in part, "The proposed rule would provide new PTS requirements based on updated analysis methods. This action is desirable because the existing requirements are based on unnecessarily conservative probabilistic fracture mechanics analyses." We here at Green Nuclear Butterfly first draw the publics attention to the key phrase in that comment...unnecessarily conservative! Talk about a buzz word that should send Entergy's non working sirens into overdrive. Let's translate what is really being said...right now, it is believed that up to 47 of the reactors cannot meet, or will soon be unable to meet the criteria as they currently exist in, "The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) rule, 10 CFR 50.61" and the nuclear industry knows that the number of reactors unable to meet this rule will grow exponentially during the license renewal process. Shutting down reactors, requiring very expensive partial fixes to this problem are not what the NEI and the nuclear industry want, so the SOLUTION? GUT THE RULE!

    The thermal shock rule creates a SERIOUS problem for the nuclear industry, as failure to meet this criteria could force the NRC to shut down the reactors, which in turn would KILL the Nuclear Renaissance...cannot have that now can we? Corporate interests must take a FRONT SEAT to public health and safety...right?

    This reality is verified when you read passages from the document that discusses the proposed rule, which you can download on ADAM's with this ascension number: ML070570283 One passage states, "Any reactor vessel with materials predicted to exceed the screening criteria in 10 CFR 50.61 may not continue to operate without implementation of compensatory actions or additional plant-specific analyses unless the licensee receives an exemption from the requirements of the rule." The NRC has a horrendous track record of granting their licensees piece meal exemptions from the very regulations meant to protect human health and the environment. Problem is, in the case of reactor core thermal shock, at some point during the period of license renewal, there is a very GREAT CHANCE that every PWR in the aging fleet of American Reactors will be unable to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.61. The answer? Change the rule, lower the SAFETY MARGINS!

    It is pointed out here, that 10 CFR 54 requires a licensee seeking license renewal to submit a full and complete list of all exemptions they intend to carry forth into the superceding, and period of additional operation, with and analysis justifying why said exemption should be carried over into the new superceding license. Considering A) Entergy has not done this in their Indian Point LRA, and perhaps not in their other License Renewal Applications for sites like Vermont Yankee and B) I received a FOIA denial from the NRC claiming no such list exists, there is a very good chance that Indian Point and Vermont Yankee have already been granted partial exemptions to this vitally important regulation meant to protect human health and the environment.. Further, this proposed rule is basically defacto proof that Indian Point and Vermont Yankee are probably close too, or in significant violation of the existing rule.

    NRC sttes, "No currently operating PWR reactor vessel is projected to exceed the 10 CFR 50.61 screening criteria before the expiration of its 40 year operating license. However, several PWR reactor vessels are approaching the screening criteria, while others are likely to exceed the screening criteria during their first license renewal periods." People look at me like I am crazy when I explain to them that these 20 year license renewals are really going to be 40 year license renewals...I deduced this fact through my own investigations of the proverbial bigger picture. The BOLDED print in the above statement is, in my opinion, pretty damning proof that my assertions on this point are correct. Further, the NRC is not actually telling the whole truth in the statement. I share here, words from and Entergy document used in seeking relief at IP 2.

    NRC's proposed Improvement to this rule will eliminate one of the most important public health and safety cornerstones in the 10 CFR regulations. It is absolutely imperiative that every reactor community, every grassroots anti-nuclear group in the entire world prepare to slam our comments into the NRC. This rule must remain intact, or it is only a matter of a few years before America will suffer at least one Chernobyl, if not a series of them.

    NIRS replies to New York Post

    Michael Mariotte

    The New York Post is living in a nuclear industry fantasyland if it truly believes environmentalists consider nuclear power to be "clean." In just 5 weeks, more than 400 environmental groups (and 4,000+ people) have signed a simple statement: "We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power." And more signatures arrive daily. The Post’s argument doesn’t mesh with the facts.

    The Post is also off-base when it claims no one ever has died from nuclear power in the U.S. Try that line on the Navajo people, many of whom gave their lives in the dirty business of uranium mining, and see how seriously you get taken.

    Nuclear power remains what it always has been: dangerous, dirty and uneconomic.

    FUSE is attempting to force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do what it refuses to do: ensure adequate oversight of the aging, unsafe Indian Point nuclear facility. New Yorkers should be applauding FUSE.

    Michael Mariotte
    Executive Director
    Nuclear Information and Resource Service
    Takoma Park, MD

    Note to editor: you can see the statement referred to above, as well as the signers, at

    FUSE USA Topic of NYPost Editorial

    October 2, 2007 -- In facing its energy challenges, is New York heading in the complete opposite direction as the rest of the country - and, indeed, parts of the world?
    Last month, an anti-nuclear group, Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) filed papers opposing the relicensing of one of the Indian Point nuclear reactors. A three-judge panel must now consider FUSE's claims that the federal government hasn't exercised enough regulatory oversight on the Westchester plant.
    The same month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission received applications to build and operate new reactors in Texas. The applications from NRG Energy Inc. were the first submitted in 31 years.
    Nuclear-plant construction came to a screeching halt in the wake of the Three Mile Island incident in 1978 - even though America has never experienced a fatality, or even serious injury, attributable to nuclear power.
    NRG submitted what are the first of what is expected to be a flood of applications in coming months for as many as 29 new reactors in 20 sites across the country, mainly in the South.
    Such ventures don't happen in a vacuum: A company won't go forward with an application if investors aren't on board. As The Wall Street Journal recently reported, U.S. power companies are now prepared to invest as much as $90 billion in nuclear power.
    Even some environmentalists are having second thoughts about their longtime adamant opposition to nuke plants.
    They understand that nuclear power is "clean": Unlike coal or oil, it doesn't create the greenhouse gases that many see as contributing to global warming.
    Meanwhile, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy calls nuclear power "the energy of the future" and has urged Germany to rescind its plan to phase out nuclear plants. France relies on nuclear power for 78 percent of its energy.
    But, as the FUSE filing shows, New York - notwithstanding its own soaring energy needs - seems poised to retreat from the working, safe, nuclear reactors it has running, just as other states consider building new ones.
    If New York is to be so foolish, it shouldn't be surprised if businesses move to places better able to fill their energy needs down the road.
    NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.
    are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
    Copyright 2007 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

    Union attorneys claim transfer could have negative effect on safety at Pilgrim.

    Entergy, Pilgrim labor union spar over license transfer request
    By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff

    Brattleboro Reformer
    Saturday, September 29
    BRATTLEBORO -- Rather than returning the petition as requested by Entergy, a Massachusetts labor union is asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hang on to the document until its ready to officially receive it.
    The petition, submitted by Utility Workers Union of America, Local 369, which represents 350 workers at the Pilgrim nuclear power station in Plymouth, Mass., is a request to be heard in an Entergy application to consolidate control of five of its nuclear power plants and transfer them into one holding company.
    Union attorneys have claimed the transfer could have a negative effect on safety at Pilgrim.
    "There have been recent and significant safety issues at Vermont Yankee," wrote union attorneys in a Sept. 18 filing to the NRC, and Local 369 "does not wish to gamble the safety of its members and their families" on the chance that safety problems at Yankee could "cross-contaminate" operations at Pilgrim.
    The transfer could also affect the careers of the union employees at Pilgrim "if other potential employers come to view PNPS operations similar to those at Vermont Yankee," they wrote.
    There's only one sticking point, contested

    Poll: Entergy workers lack confidence in management

    Reformer Staff

    Brattleboro Reformer
    Tuesday, October 2
    VERNON -- An internal, companywide survey indicates that employees of Entergy Inc. lack confidence in the corporation's leadership and feel there is a lack of trust, fairness and free exchange of information.
    A May 2007 document obtained by the Reformer gauges employee sentiment in categories ranging from teamwork to resource availability to psychological safety and includes data from surveys conducted in 2001, 2003 and 2007.
    Entergy scored highest in safety, teamwork and empowerment, while it scored lowest in leadership, pay/performance and psychological safety.
    Entergy spokesman Rob Williams confirmed the authenticity of the survey but could not verify whether the particular copy pertained to Entergy Nuclear, which operates Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, or the company as a whole.
    He said all Entergy employees were invited to take part in the survey, and those who did ranked their agreement with particular statements on a sliding scale.
    "Any good, large corporation does this routinely with its workforce," Williams said.
    The wide-ranging survey shows several areas of concern for the company, but it also highlights a number of areas in which employees are confident in its actions.
    For example, the average employee response to the question, "Overall, how do you rate the level of safe behavior by your work group," was 95 percent and "Safety is a top priority of management" was 86 percent.
    Other figures, however, were more troubling.
    Under the category of 'Psychological Safety,' respondents rated "Senior management shows by their actions that they trust employees" at 43 percent and 47 percent agreed with the statement, "Overall, there is a free exchange of views in this organization; people are not afraid to say what they think."
    Questions about the company's leadership were also comparatively negative.
    Respondents rated their confidence in the "fairness of management" at 42 percent, their belief that management and employees "share common values" at 40 percent, and their feeling that "sufficient effort is made to get the opinions and thinking of people who work here" at 49 percent.
    Employees said that compared with last year, their "overall commitment to the company" is 32 percent.
    They said Entergy's commitment to "doing what is necessary to keep its most talented employees," was 29 percent.
    And their belief that senior management take into account "the impact of their decisions on employee welfare" clocked in at 36 percent.
    On the whole, employees said they were satisfied with their level of training, their freedom to do their job, and their ability to stay focused and "persist when faced with difficulties."
    They were less satisfied with their level of compensation and its relation to their performance.
    Employees said they were valued by the company at a rate of 55 percent and would recommend the company to other potential employees at a rate of 64 percent.
    "Entergy spends a lot of resources conducting these polls, so we take them seriously," Williams said. "Generally, where it's unfavorable indicates to management a possible area for improvement."
    He said that the company strives to be open with its polling information and therefore distributes the results to its employees.
    "It's all part of what makes Entergy a great place to work," he said.
    Paul Heintz can be reached at or 802-254-2311, ext. 275.

    Monday, October 1, 2007

    Gwyneth Cravens's Hail to Nukes!

    Global warming has given nuclear power new appeal. But is the cost too great?

    The Truth About Nuclear Energy
    By Gwyneth Cravens
    Alfred A. Knopf, 464 pp., $27.95

    Review by Bill McKibben


    ... at a party some years later in her native New Mexico, she bumped into Rip Anderson, a scientist at Sandia National Laboratories, with "curly, receding gray hair, a full mustache, blue eyes," a wiry build, a flannel shirt, and an "international reputation in the fields of probabilistic risk assessment, environmental health, and nuclear safety." His manner of speaking, "courteous and laconic, with the occa-sional archaic word thrown in, reminded me of the Old West." Their conversation sparked this book, Power to Save the World , which the author calls "an unexpected journey through the nuclear world with Rip as my Virgil." Cravens, as Dante, begins each section with a fluttering set of questions: Isn't radiation dangerous? Can't the terrorists turn these things into bombs? What will we do with the waste? And the unflappable Anderson takes her on a suitable field trip -- to a reactor control room or a mine or a waste stor-age site. In each case she sees that things are not as she has feared, and Anderson seals the deal with some anecdotes about radiation as a small sprinkling of salt on a plate of hash browns or why the physics of "ground effect" would make it extremely difficult to crash a speeding jet into a relatively squat reactor.

    This strategy works well to convey copious amounts of fairly dry information about the risks of a nuclear accident. The only problem is that Anderson is the truest of true believers -- he ends the book with a little sermon about how God sent "the brainiest guys in human history" to crack the atom "and enough uranium and thorium to last for thousands of years." And while Cravens is diligent in following him through the vast nuclear archipelago, she's less diligent in tracking down the opponents of nuclear power to hear their metaphors and statistics. She quotes a couple of former opponents, there's one throwaway sentence apiece from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, and she scolds Barbra Streisand and "former supermodel" Christie Brinkley for being environmental hypocrites. But other than that, she mostly just lets it Rip.

    To read the whole review, click here!

    (via indianpointsec list serv)

    Sunday, September 30, 2007

    Kiplinger's Wants You to Invest in Nuclear

    In their current GREEN ISSUE Kiplinger's writes:
    Not all greentech is speculative. We've identified solid companies that should profit big from addressing climate change and encouraging the use of alternative fuels. And you'll profit, too.

    and then suggest:
    Nuclear power benefits in several ways from the emerging energy picture, says Robert Becker, co-manager of Cohen & Steers Utility fund. Surging fossil-fuel prices make nuclear energy highly competitive. Emissions are low compared with those from power plants that burn coal or oil. In the future, a system of carbon-emission credits and licenses is likely to develop in the U.S., as it has in Europe. "Under any scenario in cap and trade, the clear winners will be the nuclear generators," says Becker. His favorite utility is Exelon, of Chicago, the largest operator of nuclear power plants in the U.S. Exelon generates more than 70% of its power from nuclear fuel.
    A growing number of people in developing countries now have the means to heat and cool their homes and businesses. That portends a huge increase in spending on power-plant construction -- as much as $5.2 trillion through 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. Shaw Group, an engineering-and-construction firm headquartered in Baton Rouge, La., has a 20% stake in Westinghouse Nuclear and is a major player in both building new coal plants and making older ones burn more cleanly. Bad accounting decisions have plagued the shares recently, but an $11-billion backlog of business, mostly from planned power plants, should lead to a brighter future.


    Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade'

    US Congress is doing nothing about Climate Change--Call them and express your concern:
    1 (800) 828 0498
    Senate: 202 224-2131
    House: 205 224-2131
    Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade'
    · US isolated as China and India refuse to back policy
    · President claims he can lead world on emissions
    Ewen MacAskill in Washington
    The Guardian
    Saturday September 29 2007
    George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate change ended without any progress.
    European ministers, diplomats and officials attending the Washington conference were scathing, particularly in private, over Mr Bush's failure once again to commit to binding action on climate change.
    Although the US and Britain have been at odds over the environment since the early days of the Bush administration, the gap has never been as wide as yesterday.
    Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a "new approach" and "a historic undertaking", remains totally opposed.
    The conference, attended by more than 20 countries, including China, India, Britain, France and Germany, broke up with the US isolated, according to non-Americans attending. One of those present said even China and India, two of the biggest polluters, accepted that the voluntary approach proposed by the US was untenable and favoured binding measures, even though they disagreed with the Europeans over how this would be achieved.
    A senior European diplomat attending the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meeting confirmed European suspicions that it had been intended by Mr Bush as a spoiler for a major UN conference on climate change in Bali in December.
    "It was a total charade and has been exposed as a charade," the diplomat said. "I have never heard a more humiliating speech by a major leader. He [Mr Bush] was trying to present himself as a leader while showing no sign of leadership. It was a total failure."
    John Ashton, Britain's special envoy on climate change, who attended the conference, said: "It is striking here how isolated the US has become on this issue. There is no support among the industrialised countries for the proposition that we should proceed on the basis of voluntary commitments.
    "The most inspiring example of leadership this week was the speech on Monday at the UN by Arnold Schwarzenegger."
    The governor of California is already putting into action in the state policies to reduce carbon emissions.
    Other European governments expressed similar sentiments.
    Although many of those attending had predicted the conference would break up without significant agreement, there had been hopes that Mr Bush, in search of a legacy, might produce a surprise. Instead, he stuck to his previous position, shunning mandatory caps in favour of clean coal, nuclear power and developing clean energy technology.
    In contrast with the early years of his presidency when he expressed scepticism about climate change and whether humans were responsible, Mr Bush acknowledged yesterday "energy security and climate change are two of the great challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously."
    He added: "Our guiding principle is clear: we must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity."
    Instead of mandatory caps, he emphasised a need to shift to clean coal, nuclear energy and new clean technology. He also proposed a new international technology fund but did not say how much the US would put into it. He reiterated a need for Americans to shift from oil to ethanol for their cars. "We're working to develop next-generation plug-in hybrids that will be able to travel nearly 40 miles without using a drop of gasoline. And your automobile doesn't have to look like a golf cart," he said. (Interesting that he claims America is still working on a technology Honda & Toyota already introduced back in 2000... and that plug-ins, would in fact, increase 40 miles to 100+ MPG... not to mention 100% pure EVs like the Tesla Motors roadster, which performs NO-MPG!!! RemyC.)
    Elizabeth Bast, of Friends of the Earth, described the conference as a diversion. "We have heard it before. He put a huge emphasis on technology and does not speak to binding targets, and there is a great emphasis on coal and nuclear energy," she said.
    Many US states have embarked on their own programmes, with California leading the way. The governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has signed a law requiring a 25% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, with penalties for industries that do not comply. California's three biggest utilities must produce at least 20% of their electricity using renewable sources by 2010.