Wall Street CRASH Puts Every Decommissioning Fund In Danger!

HOLD THE PHONES, and STOP THE LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEEDINGS! Every Decommissioning Fund in America is now UNDER FUNDED SIGNIFICANTLY as said funds take a hit as a result of the Great Stock Market Crash of 2008. As example, Entergies failing Vermont Yankee's Decommissioing Fund has plummetted with losses of over $40 Millon dollars, and it is expected that Entergies Indian Point nuclear reactor site could now be short on adequate funding by tens of millions of dollars! Without ADEQUATE DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS, they are not entitled to License Renewal! FUCK YOU PRO NUCLEAR, SCUM SUCKING PIGS, we will win even with a bunch of piss ant pro-nuclear pricks on the licensing board! You have been CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN, now PAY UP! If you run short on funds to cover your debt loads, to fucking bad! Don't see you stepping forward to pay the medical bills for my wife's breast cancer that was, from my perspective, caused by your ailing failing reactors in Buchanon NY. Don't worry, I'll have a 2.206 Petition going out on this in the morning, and I would suggest every Anti-Nuclear activist in every reactor community follow suit...10 CFR Rules and Regulations are CLEAR on this...you MUST HAVE ADEQUATE FUNDS for decommissioning!

Nuclear decommissioning fund drops 10 percent

October 9, 2008

MONTPELIER, Vt.—The decommissioning trust fund for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant has taken a hit on Wall Street, dropping by 10 percent or more than $40 million in the past several months, officials said.

Because of the drop the state has asked plant owner Entergy Nuclear to provide monthly rather than biannual reports on the fund, said Stephen Wark, spokesman for the Department of Public Service.

"The performance of the fund is disturbing, and will likely be a large issue in the various cases concerning Vermont Yankee," Wark said. "Entergy will have to explain how they plan to meet their decommissioning obligations to Vermonters, given their reliance on market growth."

Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said the plant's decommissioning fund did lose about 10 percent, but over the same period the stock market lost about 19 percent.

He wasn't minimizing the drop.

"We're as concerned as any one else is. We're in this for the long haul," Smith said.

This is strictly and closely monitored and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Smith said. "If there is a shortfall the NRC can take action to make Entergy make up the shortfall."

STop License Renewal-Back Door Actions. File Your Own 2.206 Petition Today

Let us not kid ourselves...we have Entergy and the NRC on the ropes, and have our best shot ever of stoping a License Renewal Application for Indian Point. We now need citizens to join in the fight by taking a SIMPLE FREE ACTION....post this entry all over the web, if you live within 50 miles of Indian Point, file your own 2.206 Petition against Entergy's failing Indian Point, and their NON WORKING SIRENS!

Many of you may not be aware of the fact, that FUSE USA and myself had filed a 2.206 Petition on this very issue, and that the NRC held a hearing via phone with FUSE USA (with Sherwood Martinelli acting as spokesperson) on December 21st, 2007. Just guessing here, that a part of this proposed fine is an off shoot of our/my successful Petition...a petition by the way that we are now working on amending based on the latest information about corrosion of said alarm system. What we are trying to ascertain, was A) did our petition push the NRC to levying this fine and the amount of it, and B) since the commission has promised enforcement action as relates to our petition within 120 days (from February 4th) can we actually expect ADDITIONAL FINES on the siren issue?

Fact...the sirens are our communities FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE. If there is a significant incident or terrorist attack at Indian Point, the sirens defacto are our only line of defense.

If thousands of citizens in Westchester, Rockland, Dutchess, and Orange county were to swamp the NRC with their own email 2.206 Petitions on said sirens, demanding that Indian Point be shutdown until the sirens are up and functioning, I believe we could actually be successful in forcing at least a temporary shut down of the facility, thus costing Entergy $3 million a day...that would be an adequate fine for not having properly functioning and maintained sirens from our perspective.

To file your own 2.206 petition is actually very simple. You state in a letter to the Secretary of the NRC that you are filing a 2.206 Petition seeking IMMEDIATE enforcement action. You explain how you are being negatively impacted by the new siren system not being up and running properly, you point out Entergy's numerous failures to abide by previous NRC orders on this issue, and then you ask the secretary to shut down the plant and suspend Entergy's license to operate until the sirens ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE. That is it....you then email it to: SECY@nrc.gov FACT...if we as a community SWAMP the NRC's staff every time there is a new problem or leak at Indian Point, if every time Entergy turns around the NRC is receiving THOUSANDS OF EMAIL COMPLAINTS via 2.206 petitions, we can seriously impact the thought process going on related to the license renewal of Indian Point.

FACT-every leak, every sleeping guard, every failed siren is a LEGITIMATE REASON to swamp the NRC with more 2.206 Petitions. We have 21 Million people living within 50 miles of Indian Point...imagine the bottle neck if suddenly everytime there is a violation at Indian Point, just one percent of us (210,000) sent off an email 2.206 Petition to the secretary's office! Go listen to Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant, and you will realize just how easily we could have ourselves A MOVEMENT!

Trust me, if over the next few weeks hundreds if not thousands of you would take the time to write out a simple 2.206 Petition letter and email it into the NRC, Entergy will have some serious problems, as rightfully they should have. If you get your friends and neighbors to do the same, the NRC is going to be forced to take a long and serious look at Entergy's License Renewal Application, and ask themselves if relicensing the facility for 20 more years of operation is WORTH THE TROUBLE.

AS a closing note, we also had a 2.206 Petition on Entergy's leaks, and are expecting enforcement action on that as well since there was a hearing on those issues as well on December 21.

Sherwood Martinelli

FUSE USA

Mini Nukes For Home and Office

Not endorsing anything nuclear here on Green Nuclear Butterfly until the industry can prove the product is A) safe, B) the waste can be adequately and safely disposed of, and C) the health risks are properly dealt with. IE-where is the compensation to those whose cancer was likely caused by their close proximity to, or employment at a plant, and where is our ability as home owners to have nuclear accident insurance?

That being said, for those so HOT to embrace nuclear, let it be a PERSONAL choice, rather than a choice forced on us by our Federal Government and the NRC. Seems that Toshiba is going to start marketing MINI Nukes, and they should be available here in the USA starting in 2009. We have to admit, the idea of getting off the grid, and even positioning oneself to sell electricity back to the grid does have a certain appeal to it. The projected kilowatt costs is five cents, so a few neighbors banding together could easily eliminate that monthly Con Edison or Entergy bill in their mailboxes...sure that one fact alone will see the NRC figure out a way to ban us from owning our own nuclear reactors, and instead insist our tax dollars be given to the industry giants.

Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor

Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.

Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.

Should Governors Use National Guard Troops To Close Down and Secure Aging Reactors

Time and again (49 times to be exact) a biased and prejudice Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has ignored the will of the people, ignored safety and health concerns, and granted NRC reactor licensees 20 year extensions to operate. Anything they find incovenient (such as radioactive waste) it is simply deemed to be out of scope, and when citizens such as myself have the balls to tell seemingly ignorant ass monkeys like Lawrence G. McDade the truth, that the boards are made up of Pro-Industry Pricks, he thumps his chest, and tosses out our contentions like some anal retentive chimp tripping on LSD. Seems in his w0rld, he believes he is worthy of some respect by virtue of his position, comes from the old school of thought that judges, elected officials and the president of the United States are ENTITLED to our respect by virtue of their office...as the old saying goes, FUCK THAT NOISE. Just for the record, I'd classify George Bush as a prick as well, and would not hesitate to state such to his face.

So, back to the question. 49 communities so far are being FORCED to play host to aging and dangerous reactors for at least 20 more years. The DOE, the NRC and our federal government have FAILED to deal with the waste streams from nuclear power, defacto turning every reactor site into high level radioactive waste storage facilities without adequate safeguards, such as those required if Yucca Mountain ever gets licensed and built. The NRC acts as if it is above the law, and licensees simply buy off whoever they need to in their attempts to keep their aging, leaking, cancer causing facilities up and churning out profit.

Which raises the question...should state governors take manners into their own hands, and use the National Guard to seize control of, and shut down these facilities. Here in New York, the DEC could simply refuse to grant a discharge permit, could demand that the Indian Point facility shut down until such time as it has installed a Closed Cooling system that was promised some 30 years ago. Further, the State Attorney General could state that future committments to come into compliance are inadequate, could state that New York is no longer willing to wait for the Siren Systems to be up and operating correctly. All this being so, and based on the very real reality that the NRC has NEVER TERMINATED a license against the reactor owners wishes, is it time to use our State National Guard to shut down Indian Point? What is George Bush going to do, call out the Army to go to war against us? DOUBTFUL.

The state could hire whatever former Entergy employees were needed to maintain safe shut down, and to decommission the reactors. Might seem harsh, but lets be real. Our community agreed to play host for 40 years, and only if the operator obeyed ALL LAWS and REGULATIONS as written. The NRC has granted Indian Point hundreds of exemptions to the rules, so they have broken their contract with our community. We would be fully within our rights as a state to use our military troops to shut down a dangerous facility that is endangering human health and the environment.

While we are doing some radical thinking, here is some more food for thought. The State of New York, and all counties being forced to pay for Emergency Planning and Security have the LEGAL RIGHT to simply STOP PAYING FOR THOSE COSTS, and the NRC has no choice but to force FEMA to step in and pay them...sure if FEMA were suddenly having to pick up the tab for ENTERGY, they might have a change of heart about the adequacy of Indian Points Emergency plan. By the way, EVERY REACTOR COMMUNITY IN AMERICA HAS THAT RIGHT.

Pilgrim waste needs critical look, AG says

The state has gone to court to force the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to look at the safety of waste storage at Pilgrim. (File/The Boston Globe)

EmailPrint Text size – + By Robert Knox

Globe Correspondent / December 13, 2007

The state attorney general's office has gone to federal court to argue that the storage of nuclear waste at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant should be studied by federal regulators as a possible danger to residents.

more stories like this

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Brock, in oral arguments in the US Court of Appeals in Boston last week, challenged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's refusal to hold a hearing on the safety of storing spent fuel at the Plymouth plant. Briefs in the case will be prepared over the next month and filed by the end of January.

Brock's office is arguing that the potential risk of fire in the spent-fuel storage pools - whether sparked by accident or terrorism - should be weighed by the NRC in its decision on whether to extend Pilgrim's license for another 20 years.

Last year, the five members of the NRC, appointed by the president, rejected that notion. Instead, they accepted their staff's conclusions that the consequences of a "spent-fuel pool accident" are unlikely to be serious.

The state appealed, leading to last week's hearing.

The possible danger of storing nuclear waste on site has become a rallying cry for critics of the NRC, which regulates the nuclear power industry.

Local advocates, including residents of Plymouth and Duxbury, signed a letter to Attorney General Martha Coakley this week backing her action in taking the spent-fuel issue to court. The letter states that Massachusetts's actions have set a precedent that other states such as New York are following.

The governor and attorney general of New York have gone to court to question the security of the Indian Point reactor.

New York officials contend that the attacks of Sept. 11 changed the nature of risk at nuclear plants, warranting a new and critical look at the safety of on-site spent fuel storage.

A New York Times editorial last week backed that state's actions and also questioned how other plants across the nation, such as Pilgrim, can be permitted to operate with on-site, above-ground nuclear waste storage systems.

While spent nuclear fuel rods are stored outside New York's Indian Point reactor facility, at Pilgrim they are stored in water inside the plant.

Critics of that method, including the National Academy of Sciences, have argued that Pilgrim's storage method renders the plant vulnerable to a spent fuel fire caused by an attack or by human or mechanical error.

Both NRC and Pilgrim officials have repeatedly defended the safety of the plant. The NRC has pointed to security upgrades it required plants to institute after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said his agency took the possibility of a terrorist attack into consideration in previous court challenges and concluded that even under the "most severe, plausible-threat scenarios" - ground assault and aircraft impact - radiation emissions would probably be too low to pose a problem for Pilgrim's neighbors.

Local critics of the NRC say the outcome of the state's appeal may have important consequences for Pilgrim's neighbors.

Without a victory on appeal, "highly toxic spent fuel assemblies will be stored on site for the indefinite future," said Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch, a regional advocacy group that also raised the spent fuel storage issue.

The NRC has ruled that both issues of stored nuclear waste and plant security - concerns frequently raised at public meetings held on relicensing in the Plymouth area over the last two years - are outside licensing proceedings and therefore off the table when the NRC decides whether to extend Pilgrim's operating license.

But those issues are considered in the ongoing regulation of the nation's nuclear facilities, the NRC states.

Having heard the oral arguments, the court asked the two parties whether they could agree on a date for holding a review of the state's appeal, Sheehan said.

Amie Breton, spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office, said the court is expecting written briefs by Jan. 31 if a date has not been set.

In addition to the current appeal, the state has also filed a so-called rule-making petition asking the agency to change its current licensing policy and consider spent fuel storage in relicensing reviews. The appeal was necessary, Lampert said, because relicensing could occur before the petition to change the rules is decided.

Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com.

Bombs and Nuclear Reactor Sites

Seems we have another case involving a worker, a homemade bomb, and a nuclear reactor site that are making the news. This one involves a man working at the Sellafield Reactor over in England. Seems that authorities found the bomb in a recently employed contractor's flat/home, and the authroities are searching for the man who was last seen enjoying a pint in a local pub.

This incident raises two important questions.

1. How can the NRC claim that nuclear sites are not the target of terrorist, that the chance of a terrorist attack is so remote as to be unworthy of consideration in and Environmental Report when this is the second such BOMB SCARE for a reactor site in a period of well under two months?

2. Was the first bomb scare here in America a STAGED FAKE EVENT to make the reactor site look good during and NRC investigation? We posed this question at the time of the event, and it seems rather odd that we have seen NO FOLLOW UP ON THAT STORY since the day it happened. The worker that had the truck in the bed of his pickup truck was cleared almost INSTANTLY, and police and the NRC both almost instantly said they had no clue how such and explosive device ended up in the man's pick up truck bed, but reasoned it was probably TOSSED THERE by someone at the apartment complex. Where is the news media in bringing us and update on this important story? Sorry,but we here at GNB smell a skunk, and until we learn otherwise believe the event at Palo Verde was a staged propaganda event.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a5krYQE2Wue4&refer=uk
U.K. Man Held; Bomb Found at Nuclear Worker's Home, BBC Says

By Paul Dobson

Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Police arrested a 30-year-old man after a bomb was found at the house of a contractor who worked at the U.K.'s Sellafield nuclear site, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported, without saying where it got the information.

Sellafield worker in bomb scare

Darren Morris was last seen at Egremont's Red Lion pub A bomb has been discovered at the home of a contractor recently employed at the Sellafield nuclear plant. Explosive experts were called to Southey Walk in Egremont, Cumbria, on Monday afternoon, where the "rudimentary device" was made safe. Police are now seeking Darren Morris, the property's current occupant, who was last seen in a local pub. The 30-year-old is understood to have been involved in maintenance work at the nuclear reprocessing complex. Cumbria Police are liaising with Sellafield Ltd in a bid to trace Mr Morris. Acting Supt Gary Slater said: "I would like to reassure local people that this is an isolated incident and something which is rare in Cumbria. "A thorough investigation is under way, but we are asking for the public's help in finding Mr Morris." 'Security measures' The contractor was last seen at the Red Lion pub in Main Street, Egremont, on Monday afternoon. A spokesman for Sellafield Ltd said: "Following an incident in Egremont on Monday, Sellafield Ltd and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary were asked to assist Cumbria Police in its search for Darren Morris, who has recently worked on the site as part of externally contracted work. "The request came following the discovery of a suspicious package at a house occupied by Mr Morris. "Sellafield Ltd and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary will continue to work with Cumbria Police in an effort to trace Mr Morris."

was disarmed by safety experts, the BBC said.

Another Entergy Reactor Site LEAKING Tritium...NRC Promises To Help Cover It Up!

OK, we extrapolated based on the experience here at Indian Point that the NRC will help in a cover up of the newly found Tritium Leak at Entergy's Palisades reactor site, but you can bet money that Neil Sheehan will be running to the news media shortly claiming there is no immediate risk to the General Public of Michigan, and that Entergy is within their license allowances since the tritium has not left the site yet...sounds like a COVER UP TO US.

Radioactive substance found in well outside Palisades plant

December 12, 2007 - 3:10PM

COVERT (NEWSCHANNEL 3) - Entergy, the owner of the Palisades Nuclear Plant, has informed the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission that a radioactive substance has been found in one of their monitoring wells.

The substance found was tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. It is often used in watch dials and exit signs that glow in the dark. Curious here...have you ever seen the lengths that the NRC goes to to retrieve missing exit signs? BUT, let a reactor leak tritium, and its fine.

The amount of tritium was relatively low, although over the limit allowed in drinking water. The water in the well is not used for drinking, so Entergy was not technically required to report the findings. A representative said that they made the report as a conservative measure. Entergy did make the county and local municipalities aware of the situation. This is the same bull shit response Entergy gives the citizens around Indian Point!

First in Series of Entergy Originals

In the first of a series of Entergy Originals, Sherwood Martinelli and Green Nuclear Butterfly are pleased to post today a reproduction of an original pencil sketch that we are looking into putting into Poster Production for distribution around the Indian Point and Vermont Yankee facilities. Please feel free to print up and distribute this powerful art image.

Romney Going NUCLEAR on Ron Paul?

Holy FREAKING CRAP BATMAN...just coming in on the NEWS WIRE!

Romney Counters Ron Paul Blimp with Nuclear Submarine, and Takes Aim at Mike Huckabee http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=2877

by Kamal El-Din

The Romney campaign has pulled out all the stops as polls show their candidate in free fall. At a press conference today Mitt Romney unveiled his newest weapon in his struggle to win the presidency, the Romney Family submarine. The re-conditioned nuclear submarine sporting sharp new paint and a full payload is sure to be a hit with the Romney Faithful. The sub is scheduled to appear dozens of campaign events and TV commercials. The 'Romney', a three hundred foot nuclear powered ballistic submarine should be just the thing to help Romney counter the high flying Ron Paul Blimp and the soaring poll numbers of Mike Huckabee. "A nuclear sub is the ultimate symbol of power." Says campaign watcher David Brooks. "Romney needs to show he has what it takes to win the presidency and defend the country once in office. The sub is brilliant; it really will lay to rest any thoughts that Romney isn't as tough as Rudy Giuliani. A nuclear sub is the ultimate weapon for the War on Terror. A show of force of this magnitude could easily halt the severe erosion of Romney's poll number. " The 'Romney' will be patrolling the Eastern seaboard splitting time between the New England coast and the South Carolina ahead of the coming Primaries. The Romney campaign has indicated that 'all options are on the table' when it comes to the use of the 'Romney' to win the Republican Primary and the general election.

German Study Confirms What We Already Knew-Reactor Causes Leukemia

What if it WERE YOUR CHILD?

The United States government, the nuclear industry, and America's 104 nuclear reactors and their NRC licensees have used every trick in the book to eliminate, deny or discredit any report that showed a link between the operation of a nuclear reactor, and cancer. Yesterday, a new study out of Germany shows a link between children who live near a nuclear reactor, and Leukemia.

The study reports that 37 children living within three miles of a nuclear reactor (think Peekskill)had developed Leukemia between 1980 and 2003. The statistical average for the area studied should have only been 17. At what cost nuclear power? Are we as a society willing to say TO BAD, that is a small price to pay for the convenience of a nuclear society? Are you willing to tell those 20 families that their child MUST DIE so that you can save a few dollars each month on your electric bill?

The data from the study convincingly shows that children living within 50 kilometers (just over 30 miles) of a nuclear reactor are at an increased risk of contracting cancer. More importantly, the studies states that these children could be struck down with various cancers, including Leukemia before the age of five.

Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study
Sat Dec 8, 8:48 AM ET
Story Link
BERLIN (Reuters) - A German study has found that young children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer, a German newspaper reported on Saturday.

"Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant ... and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday," Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted the report as saying.

The newspaper said the study was done by the University of Mainz for Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS). A copy of the report was not immediately available.

The researchers found that 37 children within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) radius of nuclear power plants had developed leukemia between 1980 and 2003, while the statistical average during this time period was 17, the paper said.

The newspaper cited an unnamed radiation protection expert familiar with the study who said its conclusions understated the problem. He said the data showed there was an increased cancer risk for children living within 50 kilometers of a reactor.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said in a statement that he would examine the study. He said the BFS should also evaluate its findings.

Germany plans to prematurely shut down all of its nuclear power plants by the early 2020s.

(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau)

BREAKING NEWS...Entergy's Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Funds Inadequate

Just in from the fine folks at the the Rutland Herald, Entergy's Decommissioning Fund for the Vermont Yankee plant is WOEFULLY inadequate...how inadequate you ask?

If Entergy's License Renewal Application is denied, it will take a minimum of FIFTEEN years, with the reactor in mothballs for the funds to become available to begin the Decommissioning Process.

More alarming, is that FUSE USA has raised Decommissioning Fund inadequacy as a very serious contention in their filings to stop the wrongful license renewal of the trouble plagued and failing Indian Point reactors in Buchanan New York.

What we are beginning to see here, is that Entergy's financial planning is fatally flawed, that the owner of over 10 percent of America's aging fleet of crumbling reactors does not have enough funds to decommission ANY OF THEM! This disturbing and troubling news takes on far more serious implications in light of Entergy's bid to spin their deregulated reactors off into a new company, thus creating yet another layer of protection between Entergy the parent company, and the various Limited Liability Dummy Corporations created to be responsible for the NRC licenses.

Article published Nov 15, 2007

Study: Yankee can't afford shutdown

VERNON — If Vermont Yankee nuclear plant shut down today, or even in 2012 when its federal license expires, there would not be enough money in its decommissioning fund to pay for it to be dismantled and disposed of safely. The plant would have to be essentially mothballed for 12 to 15 years for its stock market-invested trust fund to build so there was enough money to dismantle it, Entergy Nuclear engineer David McElwee told the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel Tuesday evening.

Read Full Article

Ownership Change At Indian Point During License Renewal Process!

First, we here at Green Nuclear Butterfly saw this one coming...Entergy is going to spin off five of its Non-Regulated reactors into a brand new venture.

Now, this brings up a whole lot of questions for us as relates to License Renewal, both here, and in Vermont...any attorney's out in the audience care to give us a read on this fast breaking news story? Does this significantly change Entergy's pending License Renewal Application. Would they have to start all over at square one, or does the fact they are going to maintain 50 percent ownership keep things kosher with the NRC...what am I asking here, the NRC could care less what effects this action will ultimately have, they only care about rubber stamping the process.

Entergy to spin off five nuclear plants

http://www.reuters.com/article/innovationNews/idUSN0564678520071106

By Lisa Lee and Matt Daily

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Entergy Corp (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the second-largest U.S. nuclear power generator, said on Monday it would spin off five nuclear plants into a new company in a bid to capitalize on rising power prices for nuclear generation.

The new company, which will be spun off in a tax-free deal, would have nearly 5,000 megawatts of generating capacity, located largely in the U.S. Northeast, which has some of the highest power prices in the country.

Entergy also plans to form a 50-50 joint venture with the new company to run and operate the nuclear plants, whose prices are not regulated the way other utility plants' are.

After the spin-off of the nuclear plants, planned for the third quarter of 2008, Entergy would consist of five electric utility subsidiaries across four states and the stake in the new unit.

The U.S. nuclear industry foresees a resurgence driven largely by expectations that the federal government will create new rules limiting carbon dioxide emissions that are blamed for global warming. Nuclear generating plants do not emit the greenhouse gases that fossil-fuel plants do.

Chief Executive Wayne Leonard does not see the new stand-alone nuclear company building any new nuclear plants. "I can't imagine," he told Reuters at an industry conference on Monday in Orlando, Florida.

But the new company could be ripe to make purchases or be an acquisition target. If it were to pursue the acquisition path, Leonard could see the new company buying natural gas plants.

As for new nuclear building plans for the regulated Entergy, Leonard said the process has been "slow and frustrating," adding that "getting a firm price on what it will cost has been difficult."

Entergy had previously said it was considering a spin-off, joint venture or sale of the nuclear plants, and Leonard said he remained open to selling a stake in the new company.

"There is no shortage of interest," he said.

The new company spun off by Entergy would have debt totaling $4.5 billion, a director at Fitch Ratings said at the conference. That debt would be "not commensurate with investment grade," Fitch's Justin Bowersock said.

Leonard told Reuters he did not expect the new company to receive investment grade rating, adding that the nuclear company could have been configured to get one but that "it didn't make economic sense."

Entergy said the new company would target earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $2 billion by 2012 based on an average power price of about $95 per megawatt hour. That would leave the business $500 million to $1 billion annually for acquisitions or share repurchases.

Leonard said he expected the new company to have double-digit growth, and sooner or later become a business with $20 billion in market capitalization.

"In the not too distant future," he said.

The plants included in the new company would be the Pilgrim station in Plymouth, Massachusetts; the Fitzpatrick and Indian Point plants in Oswego and Buchanan, New York; the Palisade plant in Covert, Michigan; and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, Vermont.

The remaining Entergy company expects to announce a new share buyback plan "right out of the box" after the spin-off is completed, Leonard said.

Entergy said it expected 2008 earnings to be between $6.50 and $6.90 per share. Analysts' average forecast is for earnings of $6.87 per share, according to Reuters Estimates.

Third-quarter earnings rose 19 percent, helped by higher wholesale power prices and recent rate increases.

Net income was $461.2 million, or $2.30 per share, up from $388.9 million, or $1.83 per share, a year earlier.

The earnings-per-share gain of nearly 26 percent lagged the 27 percent the company forecast on October 17.

Entergy shares rose $5.46, or 4.6 percent, to close at $124.15 on the New York Stock Exchange, outpacing the 0.5 percent gain in the broader Standard & Poor's Utilities index.

Quakers Take A Stand Against Nuclear Energy

Please give the folks at Quaker Earthcare Witness a look. They have given a tremendous amount of thought, and prayer to the issue of Nuclear Energy, and have come out with a position paper against it. We here at Green Nuclear Butterfly feel their Minute on the issue is important enough to reproduce in its entirety here.

October 28, 2007

Dear Friends:

In response to the question of nuclear power, the Steering Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness adopted a Minute at its October 2007 annual meetings in Burlington, Vermont, affirming that it cannot support nuclear power as a part of the solution to the problem of harmful climate change. The full Minute is attached, below.

A statement by Bob McGahey and Roy C. Treadway giving the context of the complexity of issues to be considered in addressing harmful climate change precedes the Minute. Their statement underscores the need by Friends and others to adopt radical simplicity in our personal lives, build local community, and exhort political leaders to safeguard the health of the biosphere and humans while addressing globally-binding economic restraints on increased carbon emissions.

We hope Friends will seriously consider this call from the QEW Steering Committee to find solutions to harmful climate change and to the world’s energy needs that take away the occasion for nuclear power.

May peace on and with earth be with you,

Hollister Knowlton

Clerk, Quaker Earthcare Witness

Note: More information about the perspective of Quaker Earthcare Witness on nuclear power can be obtained from the following articles:

Roy C. Treadway and Carolyn W. Treadway, Nuclear Energy and the Care of the Earth, Quaker Eco-Bulletin, Volume 5, Number 4, July-August 2005.
(http://www.quakerearthcare.org/Publications/QuakerEco-bulletin/QEB_Archive/QEB5-4-nuclear-energy.pdf)

Angela Manno, In Friendship with the Earth: Friends Testimonies and Nuclear Energy, Quaker Eco-Bulletin, Volume 6, Number 5, September-October 2006.

(http://www.quakerearthcare.org/Publications/QuakerEco-bulletin/QEB_Archive/QEB6-5-nuclear2.pdf)

Michael Rice, Why Nuclear Power is Not the Solution to Global Warming, BeFriending Creation, Volume 6, Number 5, September-October 2007, 4-5.

(http://www.quakerearthcare.org/Publications/BeFriendingCreation/CurrentIssueofBFC/BFC2005/Newsletter04#Why)

Accompanying Statement to QEW Nuclear Power Minute

The context for our actions as Friends and members of Quaker Earthcare Witness at this critical juncture of planetary history is multifold – spiritual, economic, political, and biospheric. John Woolman was alert to the seeds of slavery and war in everyday economic actions. Today, slavery comes from that state of misguided human greed in which all of nature is enslaved to our industrial society and global capitalism. In an era when the bottom line is profit and the side effect is destruction of the planet in the form of greenhouse gases and other toxic wastes, the overall moral issue is how we care for the web of Creation. It is stewardship in an era when our numbers are overwhelming Gaia, multiplied by an extravagant lifestyle.

We live in a world deeply compromised by our industrial choices, and they limit the range of meaningful response to the overarching issue of climate change. Woolman lived at the beginning of the industrial age; we live at its end. By ignoring habitat restraints, we are so overextended in population and resource use that both clamping down on further increases in CO₂ and righting the scales of justice for the billions of poor may not be possible. For those who believe that we can provide enough energy by increasing renewable sources and using efficiency and conservation, profound caution is needed. Even with all these strategies, we may not be able to provide needed energy by 2050 (assuming we progressively shut down fossil fuel plants and decommission aging nuclear power plants). This is a particular challenge for developing countries.

QEW’s Steering Committee has approved the following Minute on Nuclear Power, based on our values and our testimonies. Even though we feel the imperative of immediacy, we have only begun to study the issue of energy use and policy, about which a future white paper from the Quaker Institute for the Future (QIF) by Keith Helmuth is being prepared. A QEW Climate Change and Energy Working Group to further investigate these complex and timely issues has also been proposed.

As we search for ways to address energy issues, including the use of efficiency and renewable energy as urged by this Minute, we must be aware of the challenge that the world's growth-oriented economic system poses. Because of U. S. fiscal policies, including almost uncontrolled public and private debt and the Federal Reserve's inflationary response to that debt, we may face an overdue global recession, making efforts to address energy difficult.

Thus, we need to adopt radical simplicity in our personal lives, build local community, and exhort our political leaders to adopt powerful, globally-binding economic restraints on carbon emissions, while safeguarding the health of the biosphere and humans.

Bob McGahey and Roy C. Treadway, for the QEW Steering Committee

Quaker Earthcare Witness Minute on Nuclear Power

Approved by the Steering Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness in session, October 14, 2007, Burlington, Vermont.

Quaker Earthcare Witness cannot support nuclear power as part of the solution to harmful climate change.

As Friends, our peace testimony has long led us to witness against nuclear power because of its connection to nuclear war. Our deep caring for all creation leads us to affirm that witness, even in the face of growing calls for an expansion of nuclear power.

Based on everything we know about the current state of nuclear technology and our understanding of its impact and risks for people and the earth, we are strongly opposed - for moral, spiritual, and practical reasons - to current efforts to increase nuclear power. Additionally, we are strongly opposed to subsidies for funding new nuclear power plants, including proposed loan guarantees such as those in energy bills currently being considered by the U.S. Congress.

While nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases during electricity generation, in fact significant amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted when the complete cycle of nuclear power – from mining, milling, enrichment of uranium, transportation of nuclear fuel, and removal and guarding of nuclear wastes, as well as construction of nuclear power plants – is considered.

Nuclear power is extremely expensive when all costs, including subsidies, are included. We believe that funds proposed for more nuclear power plants would be far more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions if used for energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable power.

Nuclear power is closely linked to the war machine in many countries. The cumulative effects of radioactive waste from nuclear power will be lethal, carcinogenic, and mutagenic to humans and all species for hundreds of thousands of years. Finally, given nuclear power’s unique destructiveness, the risk of just one catastrophic accident anywhere in the world renders nuclear power unacceptable.

QEW also affirms that providing more energy to support unconstrained economic growth is neither inevitable nor desirable.

We accept the responsibility of working for all socially responsible and environmentally sound solutions to global climate change, including phasing-out the use of oil, coal, and gas; and increasing energy efficiency, energy conservation; and renewable sources of energy. We accept the responsibility for using less energy in all that we do and for working to make reduction of energy use a goal for society at large.

From The Little Bird Department...Is Entergy About To LOSE Bid To Relicense Vermont Yankee?

We all love rumors, and even hints of rumors. Well, there are some serious rumors being whispered throughout the Northeast that Entergy may be about to LOSE its bid to relicense their trouble plagued Vermont Yankee Nuclear Reactor.

First, lets face facts here...the people of Brattleboro and the surrounding area do not want the plant in their community. With the recent serious SAFETY problems at the plant, including the now infamous collapsing cooling tower incident, can any one blame them? Are we about to see the beginning of an Enron like COLLAPSE of this supposed NUCLEAR GIANT? Has Vermont's PSB finally had enough of Entergy's decreased Safety Margins and lies...let's not forget Entergy's experts doing everything in their power to have the cooling tower contention TOSSED in the License Renewal Process, and the NRC was more than happy to obliege at the time.

Indian Point is far from a shoe in for Entergy what with their failing reactor vessel heads, and so many leaks that some citizens of Westchester County refer to the Indian Point Entergy Center as the Titanic on the Hudson. If Vermont Yankee is closed, which it should be, and Entergy loses the twin monsters at Indian Point, their fleet strength will have been decimated...it may just be wishful thinking, but word on the street says to be expecting some fireworks up in Vermont in the coming days and weeks. Might be a good time to hedge your bets where Entergy stock is concerned...they lose three reactors here in America, and you will see a SERIOUS TUMBLE.

Image of collapsed sheet metal Entergy would like to see disappear

(OK, so I cheat a bit... We've all seen that collapse cooling tower so often, I decided to throw in something a little different, yet still relevant. There's a law in Vermont where you can be naked in a public place, as long as you're not partaking in lude or offensive behavior. Just a few days ago PeTA took full advantage of that opportunity, perhaps inspired by Isabel Vinson making the cover of the Brattleboro Reformer a few months ago bearing all for the cause of shutting down Vermont Yankee. They organized their action right across the street from our friends at Save The Corporations. Store manager Ian Kiehle offered models Meggan Anderson and Ali Cayer some hemp clothing if they needed it... We here, at Green Nuclear Butterfly applaud PeTA for their efforts, and can't wait to organize a joint action... How about it PeTA? Animals are sick of radiation too! Click here for the video. RemyC.)

Sanders is right on VY
Reformer.com

Friday, October 5

The image of collapsed sheet metal, splintered wood and water cascading from a huge broken pipe is one that Entergy Nuclear would like to see disappear.

But that image, taken after the collapse of a 50-foot cooling tower at Vermont Yankee on Aug. 21, was blown up to poster size and displayed at Wednesday's hearing of the U.S. Senate's Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Energy.

Entergy is trying to make the case to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the cooling tower collapse, and an emergency shutdown of the plant caused by a stuck steam valve on Aug. 30, have no bearing on Vermont Yankee's safety and should not be taken into account when the NRC considers extending the nuclear plant's license past 2012.

All one has to do is look at that image of water gushing onto a pile of debris, and Entergy's argument falls apart. That has not stopped Entergy from trying to convince everyone that the 35-year-old reactor is perfectly safe and should be allowed to run until at least 2032.

Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., showed NRC Chairman Dale Klein the image of the cooling tower collapse and asked, "If you were living in southern Vermont, or New Hampshire, or northern Massachusetts, would you have confidence in the NRC after this series of events?"

"I would hope they have confidence in the NRC," Klein said.

"They don't," replied Sanders. "How can you look at that photograph and say you're not concerned?"

Because of the very real feeling that the NRC functions as a rubber stamp for the nuclear industry, Sanders has introduced legislation that would give states the right to ask for independent safety assessments at all of the nation's nuclear reactors.

The NRC has dismissed this idea, saying that its oversight is superior to any independent safety assessment. Given the track record of the NRC and its well-documented laxity in enforcement of the rules, we would put our trust in an outsider's inspection.

While the NRC is apparently seeking more information about the cooling tower collapse, as well as the inspection records for the towers, we would bet that Entergy will receive a slap of the wrist, a moderate fine, a brief period of increased NRC oversight and permission to keep the reactor open for another 20 years.

Vermont Yankee has functioned safely for 35 years. Its employees have worked hard to keep it functioning safely. But there comes a point where aging machinery becomes too expensive to fix.

That's why Maine Yankee in Wiscasset, Maine, and Yankee Rowe in Rowe, Mass., both were shut down. The cost of upgrading and maintaining the reactors cost more than the value of the electricity they produced.

The economic equation for keeping Vermont Yankee open hasn't yet shifted in that direction. Entergy is making a nice profit running the reactor in Vernon. When the day comes that it is no longer profitable, they will shut it down.

The question we have is, what will be the circumstances that prompt it and who will be stuck with the bill? We frankly do not trust Entergy nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make decisions with the safety of this region in mind.

Is Vermont Yankee safe? Let's bring in people without ties to the NRC and Entergy to look at the plant objectively and give us an answer.

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.

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

By PAUL H. HEINTZ,
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 pheintz@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 275.

Entergy Events from our Friends in Vermont!

New England Coalition
VT . NH . ME . MA . RI . CT . NY -
POST OFFICE BOX 545, BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT 05302
on Nuclear Pollution
New England Coalition e-bulletin

Important meetings coming up: all NEC members urged to participate NOW and let the state know we've had enough of Entergy's shoddy management and NRC's blind and toothless watchdogging.

1)Thursday, October 4, 2007, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., at Vernon Elementary School:

The Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting on Vermont Yankee's recent "problems."

2) State seeks help with energy planning--workshops for Vermonters only. NEC members from Vermont urged to attend. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. http://www.raabassociates.org/WebComponents/vtsignup/welcome.htm

The regional workshops will be held on the following dates in the followinglocations. All workshops will begin at 5:30 p.m. with light dinner fare and a prompt startat 6 p.m. and end around 10.

Oct. 3, 2007

St. Johnsbury Elementary School

Oct. 17, 2007

South Burlington High School

Oct. 18, 2007

Montpelier Elks Club, Montpelier, VT

Oct. 29, 2007

Dean Technical Center, Springfield, VT

Oct. 30, 2007

Rutland Intermediate School, Rutland, VT

Please register and attend the workshop closest to you. Read below for more information.

State seeks input on Vermont's Energy Future - Only Vermonters may register and vote. Vermont wants your help in shaping the future mix of electricity sources for the state.

Five evening public workshops will be held in locations throughout the state this fall. You can attend the workshop closest to you. These workshops were authorized by the Vermont Legislature, endorsed by the Governor, and spearheaded by the Department of Public Service.

The Workshops are free but REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.

The goal of the workshops is to gather informed and thoughtful citizen and ratepayer input for the State and its electric utilities as they make decisions about how and where Vermont obtains its electric power for the coming decades.

In 2012, contracts providing for two-thirds of the state's electric power begin to expire. This leaves the future source of Vermont's electricity open for discussion and examination.

Choices about the future will have to be made and will weigh trade-offs among cost, reliability, environmental impact, large and small scale generation, andin versus out-of-state sources

During the workshops there will be a brief presentation, small group facilitated discussions, a chance to ask questions to a panel of experts, keypad polling to register your preferences and opinions, and an open mike atthe end to record any additional thoughts you might have.

To ensure broad and diverse participation from across the state, participants may only register for one workshop. Please click on the link to register for one workshop. Only 150 people per workshop may vote.

This workshop is very important to attend and register to vote. We need to make sure that there are a number of people present who are informed about Vermont Yankee and want to help shape the energy future of Vermont!!

New England Coalition (NEC) has advocated for safe energy alternatives to nuclear power since 1971. In service of that mission we utilize email correspondence from time to time.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that really matter." ~MLK

Astonishing tower collapse screams "No New Nukes!!"

Astonishing tower collapse screams "No New Nukes!!"
by Harvey Wasserman

August 27, 2007

A cooling tower at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant has collapsed.

A broken 54" pipe there has spewed 350,000 gallons per minute of contaminated, overheated water into the Earth. "The river water piping and the series of screens and supports failed," said a company spokesman. They "fell to the ground."

The public and media were barred from viewing the wreckage for three days. But when a Congressional Energy Bill conference committee takes up Senate-approved loan guarantees for building new nukes this fall, what will reactor backers say about this latest pile of radioactive rubble?

This kind of event can make even hardened nuke opponents pinch themselves and read the descriptions twice. Who could make this up?

Vermont Yankee has been in operation---more or less---since the early 1970s. Its owner is Entergy, a multi-reactor "McNuke" operator that last year got approval to up VY's output by 20%.

Required inspections revealed worrisome cracks and other structural problems. Entergy dismissed all that, but was forced to issue a "ratepayer protection policy" against incidents caused by the power increase. The guarantee expired earlier this month, not long before the collapse.

The tower came down amidst angry negotiations between Entergy and plant workers. A strike was barely averted, but VY's labor troubles are by no means over.

The reactor's output has now been slashed 50%. A public battle is raging over whether it can dump water even hotter than usual into the Connecticut River. Reactors in Alabama, France and elsewhere have been forced shut because the rivers that cool them have exceeded 90 degrees.

Yankee's cooling system, vintage 1972, centers on 22 (now 21) wood, fiberglass and metal towers that stretch for 300 feet, and are 50 feet high and 40 feet wide. The company calls this giant rig a "rain forest."

Operators admit to hearing "strange sounds" coming from its fans last week, but say Tuesday's collapse was unexpected.

Nuclear opponents who warned about such an event have been scorned by Entergy and its supporters. That something as apparently absurd as the spontaneous collapse of an entire cooling tower could actually occur underlines America's Keystone Kops reality of atomic operation and regulation. "We need to understand what happened," explains the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Diane Screnci.

So does Congress. A definitive Conference Committee battle will be fought after Labor Day over an Energy Bill that includes taxpayer guarantees for $50 billion and more to build new nukes.
Meanwhile Vermonters will pay for this latest pile of radioactive reactor rubble. Maybe a "fall foliage" field trip to the Green Mountain State would do the Congress some good.

--Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA: OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030, is available at www.solartopia.org. He is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and senior editor of Freepress.org, where this article first appeared.

Close-up of Vermont Yankee cooling tower collapse

+++

Investigation begins at VY
By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff
Brattleboro Reformer
http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_6716785
Saturday, August 25

BRATTLEBORO -- Hard-hatted workers clambered over and around the wreckage that used to be the wall of one of Vermont Yankee's external cooling fans Friday, looking for clues as to why the structure gave way.

Tuesday afternoon, the plant had to ratchet back on its power output after the wall gave way, spilling plastic slats, asbestos panels and wood beams onto the ground between the two banks of 11 cooling fans each.

Normally, a visitor to the site would see water vapor rising from the cowling around each of the 22 huge fans and hear them spinning, sucking heat from the water and moving it into the atmosphere.

A visitor would also hear the more than 350,000 gallons of water a minute that flow through the system, falling through thousands of plastic slats to cool the water before returning it to reactor, where it is used to cool and convert steam produced by the reactor back into water.

Near the top of the cooling tower, a 52-inch pipe that runs along a platform abruptly ends where a section of the pipe fell to the ground during the collapse. The pipe carried the water from the plant and distributed it to the 11 fans in the bank creating what John Dreyfuss, director of nuclear safety assurance at Vermont Yankee, called "a little rainstorm inside there."

But on Friday, the fans were turned off. With the reactor running at 50 percent its thermal output is reduced, so the cooling towers are not needed. Though its power output has fluctuated since the failure, it is producing on average about 265MWe.

Over the next few days, workers will go through the tangle of debris piece by piece, trying to find the reason for the failure.

"Not the kind of equipment performance to expect," said Dreyfuss. "As we remove timbers, we'll also be performing our investigation to find out what happened," a process he called "very deliberative."

Operators will not crank the plant back up to full power until workers can confirm the structure of the cooling fans is sound, he said.

Prior to the wall failure, technicians had shut down the fan because employees had reported hearing noises coming from it, which they were unable to reproduce.

"There was no evidence of structural issues (at that time)," said Dreyfuss.

As for the debris that collapsed out from the wall, "most the material you see is cosmetic," he said.

On hand to assist in the investigation were state inspectors, two resident inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and officials from the state's Office of Homeland Security.

Dreyfuss said homeland security had determined the failure wasn't caused by sabotage, and discounted the notion that it was related to ongoing contract negotiations between Entergy, the owners of the power plant, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents 157 workers there.

"We've ruled that out as well," he said.

Entergy recently received permission to increase Vermont Yankee's power output by 20 percent, from 540MWe to 650MWe, but Dreyfuss said there was nothing to indicate the power uprate had anything to do with the failure.

But not everyone is convinced.

"Did increased water flow rate through the cooling towers, or higher cooling tower fan turning rates, cause the collapse?" asked David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, in an e-mail to the media. "If so, why didn't the company's and the NRC's pre-uprate reviews identify this threat and prevent it from happening?"

If they did miss the problem, he wrote, "what other misses have not yet revealed themselves?"

Nuclear reactors such as that at Vermont Yankee are 33 percent efficient, wrote Lochbaum.

"While the reactor core may produce three units of energy, only one unit of electricity is generated," he wrote. "The remaining two units of energy must be discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants rely on large amounts of water to carry away this waste heat."

Vermont Yankee has a single-unit boiling water reactor that had a maximum reactor core power level output of 1593 Megawatts thermal before its uprate approval. At 120 percent, the plant produces 1912MWt.

Plant cooling is provided by either an open-cycle system, a closed-cycle system or a hybrid of the two. How the plant cools depends on various factors, including river and air temperatures, but its cooling systems are meant to minimize its impact on the river.

When the plant uses its closed-cycle system, the cooling towers dissipate heat to the atmosphere. When cooling towers are used, water from the river is used to replace vapor blown out by the fans. Most of the rest of the water is sent back to the plant's main condenser, thousands of metal tubes that carry cooling water which are used to cool steam from plant turbines and convert it back into water. That water is sent back to the reactor to produce more steam, and the water in the condenser is sent back to the towers for cooling.

In the open-cycle mode, no water passes through the cooling towers. Water is taken from the river and discharged south of the facility.

Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273.

+++

Isabel Vinson contributed to http://www.theenvironmentals.com/ last year. Her nude picture in front of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant ended up on the cover of the region's largest newspaper, The Brattleboro Reformer... I didn't know until a few minutes ago that she followed it up with a radio interview... where she shines, as usual!
http://www.ewiseradiotools.com/station_files/file_1177666610__.mp3

She has it blogged at: "radio interview oooh"
http://www.myspace.com/isabelv