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.

1.

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 America...now, look around you, and see how successful they are being in this devious plan.

2.

Saturday, January 6, 2007

Will The Real A123 Genius Please Stand Up?

Just who was it that invented the A123?

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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?

7.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Nuclear, Entergy-The Shaw Skank Deception

8.

Sunday, April 1, 2007

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

9.

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.

10.

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

Excerpts:

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:
Celsias

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

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
NIRS

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 www.nirs.org

FUSE USA Topic of NYPost Editorial

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MENACE

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.

NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM

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

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.

Gwyneth Cravens's Hail to Nukes!

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

POWER TO SAVE THE WORLD
The Truth About Nuclear Energy
By Gwyneth Cravens
Alfred A. Knopf, 464 pp., $27.95

Review by Bill McKibben

Excerpt:

... 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)

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:

EXELON
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.

and

SHAW GROUP
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.

Nice!

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.

Backstory

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.

No Comment - At Your Comic Book Store Now!

The Shoreham Saga Recap by Wiki

Photo Courtesy of Doug Kuntz

The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant (also known as the Wading River Nuclear Power Plant) was a General Electric boiling water reactor located in Wading River, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, 60 miles east of Manhattan. The plant was designed to produce 540 megawatts, later changed to 820.

The plant was conceived by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and was built between 1973 and 1984. Originally set in an area dominated by potato fields, by the time the plant was ready to operate the urban area had grown out to encroach on the site.[citation needed] Since the Emergency Planning Zones crossed both of the highways leading off the island, the populace was concerned that in the event of an accident evacuation would be impossible. After the 1979 Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl accidents, public opposition to the plant rose significantly.

A virtual twin, the 660 MWe Millstone 1, was ordered the same year across the sound in Connecticut. The Millstone 1 was completed for $101 million and fully operational within 5 years of receiving a construction permit. It produced power until July 21, 1998. The Long Island equivalent, however, was hampered by protests from anti-nuclear activists, causing delays and increasing the cost to over $5 billion, which was eventually paid by New York state residents and resulted in Long Island having some of the highest electricity prices in the country.[1]

Even as it became increasingly obvious the plant would never open, LILCO performed low power testing, thereby making decommissioning a necessity, but never produced any commercial electric power, due to the fact that New York Governor Mario Cuomo's representatives did not sign the Emergency Evacuation Plan. This meant that it could not receive a full power license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), though it did receive a low power license.

On May 19, 1989, LILCO agreed not to operate the plant in a deal with the state under which most of the $6 billion cost of the unused plant was passed on to the consumers. The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), headed by Richard Kessel, was created in 1986 specifically to buy the plant from LILCO (which it did in 1992). The plant was fully decommissioned in 1994.

Strong media support came from Suffolk Life newspapers and several local weekly papers. Early and significant political backing from several town boards of eastern Suffolk Country. The Suffolk County Legislature was a prime battleground, and finally emerged in the 1980s as the most active and effective organization within the movement. (Newsday's online archives offer some historical background.)

When opposition began to form, the disdainful treatment that LILCO gave to the opposition only increased their resolve. The delays gave them plenty of time to organize and inform the public. It also highlighted the company's incompetence, which did not reassure the public of their ability to safely operate the plant.[4]

Governor Cuomo and LILCO came to an agreement on February 28, 1989 that closed the plant and made ratepayers responsible for most of Shoreham's $6 billion price tag, more than 85 times higher than the original estimate.[4]

Read More...

Anti-Nuclear Hempsters!

Nuclear reactors for "energy" were most likely part of the bigger lie. They were most likely built to provide weapons. After Russia got rid of a lot of their nukes, they are now down to something like "only" 700 or so. Whoo-who!

If you enrich uranium to 235, you need SEVERAL centrifuges to do so, all working hard to get at the goodies. Lots and lots of refining. Then, Bingo! you have enough for a single warhead. So, a large industry was built around all of this.

You are correct, we are stuck with it, and yes, most people are not aware of it and don't see any reason for doing anything about it.

The BIGGEST farce with these plants is how a $1 billion plant ends up being a $5 billion plant -- all the while the original budget for the $1 billion was for 5 megawatts and the final $5 billion plant has the capacity for 1 megawatt (note: not actual figures per see).

So, the people are getting screwed, screwed, screwed, thinking that its "cheap" energy.

That doesn't say anything about dealing with the material, and yes, "don't even get me started" on what it would cost if something goes wrong.

All the best,

Eric Pollitt, President
Global Hemp, Inc.
401 E. Illinois Ave.
Peoria, IL 61603
Tel: 309-686-9000
Fax: 309-686-9009
http://www.globalhemp.com
http://www.globalhempstore.com

LEDs lights to span the Hudson River

25 Sep 2007

LEDs will replace conventional lighting on the George Washington bridge and the Holland Tunnel.

According to an article on the Star-Ledger news website, two Hudson River crossings linking New Jersey and New York City will be fitted with LED lights.

The plans to retrofit conventional lamps with energy-saving LED illumination on the George Washington bridge and the Holland Tunnel were approved by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's board of commissioners.

A $4.5 million project eventually will replace more than 4,200 fluorescent fixtures at the Holland Tunnel with 1,736 LED fixtures. The new lamps will last 15 years, compared with the roughly 18-month life span of the existing lights, providing an estimated annual saving of $340,000, says the article.

The George Washington bridge will see a one-for-one replacement of 156 mercury vapor lamps on the bridge's cables. The $200,000 project will results in annual savings of $50,000.

The current fixtures, which provide aesthetics and do not light the roadway, must be replaced as often as each year. Agency officials also are considering converting the roadway lights, says the newspaper article.

Both projects are annually expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 3.3 million pounds and nitrogen oxides by 5,000 pounds. Work on the bridge and the tunnel is slated to start and finish in 2008.

Article courtesy LED magazine

File Your Own 2.206 Request On Emergency Siren Failure

We are encouraging citizens of Westchester, Rockland, Dutchess and Orange counties to hold Entergy accountable. You can file your own 2.206 Petition with the NRC by emailing chairman@nrc.gov stating the action you want. For your convenience we have copied below a sample that has just been sent this evening. Make sure you include your name, address and phone number for it to be considered legally filed. Make sure to CC your elected officials, and ask them to sign on, or file a similiar request on behalf of your community.

Dear Chairman's Office:

As allowed under 10 CFR 2.206, I am formally requesting immediate action from the Commission that would shut down both Indian Point 2 and 3 until such time as their emergency siren system with back up power has met ALL FEMA requirements, and passed all necessary tests required to be certified as and acceptable emergency notification siren system.

First, to put this formal request into perspective, we should review some history. On January 31, 2006, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Order) to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or licensee) requiring the licensee to install backup power for the Indian Point siren system, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, by January 30, 2007. Interestingly, perhaps to save money, to do the job on the cheap, Entergy chose a new system that FAILS to meet design basis.

On January 11, 2007, Entergy submitted a request to relax the Order, to extend the deadline to April 15, 2007. On January 23, 2007, the NRC approved Entergy's request after wrongfully finding that Entergy had made a good faith effort to comply with the Order and had demonstrated good cause to relax the Order. The NRC failed to explain how they came about deciding Entergy's good faith, but it is obvious that the community being forced to play host to this aging, dilapidated nuclear relic from days gone by disagreed then, and as it turned out, with good cause. ( I reference here the 2.206 petition of Thomas Gurdziel) It is no accident that there is now a law suit against the very company that our siren system comes from for a similar failure to perform issue at another nuclear reactor site.

On April 13, 2007, Entergy submitted a second request to relax the Order, to extend the deadline to August 31, 2007. On April 13, 2007, the NRC denied the relaxation request and stated that the NRC would consider action under the NRC's Enforcement Policy. On April 23, 2007, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for $130,000 (EA 07-092) to Entergy because of its failure to meet the April 15, 2007, deadline.

The NRC acts as if this $130,000 fine was severe...we as a community disagreed, as each day the siren system is not in operation is another separate and unique violation. Further, that $130,000 fine represents less than ONE PERCENT of the actual cost of the new siren system. Despite the fine, Entergy was given another four months to have the system up and running. Where were 120 separate fines? On or about August 24th they conducted a test which FAILED MISERABLY. I immediately informed appropriate agencies of the government, including the NRC, and it is pointed out here, that the NRC has failed completely in getting back to me on the complaint I filed over a month ago, despite the fact that FEMA findings outlined in and eight page letter to Entergy validated my complaints about the shortcoming of the system.

This week in a Journal News article by Greg Clary dated September 25th, 2007 we have just learned that Entergy has requested a face to face meeting with FEMA to find out just what they need to do to GET THE SYSTEM RIGHT.

Indian Point seeks talks with FEMA on sirens

By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: September 25, 2007)

BUCHANAN -Indian Point officials want a face-to-face meeting with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to make sure they know exactly what will satisfy regulators who so far have found the nuclear plant's new siren system "inadequate."

In a 12-page letter obtained by The Journal News, the company said it wants to go over in detail with FEMA officials the unresolved technical issues such as volume, sustainability of siren sound and overall system reliability.

Jim Steets, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear, acknowledged yesterday that the in-depth, in-person discussions would further delay the new sirens' operation.

"It's impossible to know how long it will take us," Steets said. "We're committed to moving quickly, but only to FEMA's satisfaction."

We have heard Steets false promises before, have been promised a working functioning emergency siren system for quite sometime. Problem is, it has NOT BE DELIVERED, and the old system has a horrid track system of failures.

For citizens living within the shadow of Indian Point's Peak Fatality Zone, the Emergency Siren System is our first, and perhaps best chance of protecting our selves and our families in the event of a terrorist attack and/or significant radiological event at the Indian Point Entergy Center site. NRC's first response in considering these types of 2.206 petitions is to routinely dismiss them, to claim we have not raised a basis for relief. The twin towers that no longer grace our skyline are PROOF that terrorist can mount a successful attack on American infrastructure. The deplorable condition of the systems and components of Indian Point (leaks, spent fuel leaks, serious Boric Acid Corrosion (BAC) concerns with the reactor vessel head, as well as sleeping guards show there is a very real risk of a significant radiological event at the plant.

As is witnessed by FEMA's failure of the Entergy Emergency Alarm system in Auguest, coupled with Entergy's expressed desire to meet face to face with Entergy makes it apparent that our community's first line of defense, our early warning system if you will is not working adequately enough to protect us in the event of a significant radiological event. In short, we ARE AT RISK, and that risk can be greatly mitigated by placing both reactors into COLD SHUT DOWN until such time as the Emergency Siren system as is required by the NRC Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Order) to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc has been approved by, and signed off on by FEMA.

NRC's decision in August to simply take a hands off, wait for FEMA approach is unacceptable, and is placing human life at great risk should and emergency event occur at Indian Point. I am therefore implementing my legal right as a stakeholder to request formally that the Commission issue and order effective immediately that Entergy's IP2 LLC and IP3 reactors be placed into COLD SHUT DOWN until their Emergency Sirens are fully approved by FEMA and the NRC, and the system is operating within the 96 percent acceptable zone. Additionally, it is requested that the Commission use its vast discretionary powers to fine Entergy $130,000 per day from today, September 28th, 2007 forward until such time as they have complied with the NRC's Confirmatory Order. Almost eight months after the original due date for delivery of this alarm system, and we as a community are STILL AT RISK. Yet, during that time, Entergy has found time to file License Renewal Applications, file a formal request for license transfer for over half of their fleet, and rammed through a SIGNIFICANT license amendment.

Placing the reactors into Cold Shut Down until the siren system functions as required will significantly lower our community's risks, and the fines should be adequately incentive for Entergy to place their corporate priorities where they belong, which is taking care of Public Health and Safety as JOB ONE.

Respectfully Requested,


Sherwood Martinelli
FUSE USA

Peekskill, New York 10566

My name is Gary Shaw and I live less than six miles from Indian Point.

IF NRC CAN’T DEFINE STANDARDS, THEIR JUDGMENTS CAN’T BE VALIDATED

My name is Gary Shaw and I live less than six miles from Indian Point.

I work as a designer of marketing research projects and a data analyst, so I am very familiar with the use of benchmarks and action standards. I spend considerable energy to ensure that the metrics in my research that are used as the basis for business decisions are well defined and consistent with established protocols. That is one of the reasons that I am so concerned about the NRC’s evaluations of Indian Point and the relicensing process overall.

One of the terms that the NRC uses repeatedly is “reasonable assurance,” and this term is used in evaluations of a range of operations and systems, but is not at all clearly defined. A primary example of this is the agency’s approval of the Indian Point Emergency Evacuation plan after James Lee Witt issued a report that the plan was “inadequate to protect the public from an unacceptable dose of radiation,” On a Friday in July of 2003, FEMA, under the infamous Michael Brown, approved the Evacuation Plan and that judgment was quickly accepted by the NRC, saying the plan provided reasonable assurance that it would be effective. Ironically, on that very day, all the major roadways in Westchester were jammed through the entire day because of a single accident on the George Washington Bridge during the morning rush hour. I still wonder how the NRC defined “reasonable assurance” for that ridiculous judgment. When I think of that day I have a mental image of those traffic jams happening while Indian Point’s sirens wailed. That is, if the sirens were working that day.

Now the NRC is considering extending the operating licenses of Indian Point units 2 and 3 for twenty more years beyond their expirations in 2013 and 2015 respectively, and will cite reasonable assurance that the plants will remain safe and environmentally benign for that twenty year extension. We know that there are an undetermined number of leaks of radioactive elements into the environment and that the sources of those leaks remain uncertain. Consequently, there are no known plans to stop the leakage. Especially disturbing is that large sections of pipes are not accessible to inspection, and the only way for the NRC to evaluate whether those pipes have corroded or will remain viable for twenty more years is to dig test wells and declare that there is not currently a leak at that site at that time. And since Indian Point 1 has been non-operational for decades and that plant is leaking with no plan for stopping the leakage, wouldn’t the discovery of additional leaks at some point in the future simply mean that we have more uncorrectable problems?

If the NRC is not capable of stating how many linear feet of piping are inaccessible or how many thirty-five year old welds are inaccessible, and where each of them is located, how will they define “reasonable assurance” that those pipes and welds will be viable until the years 2033 and 2035? Since we already know that this is the only nuclear plant in the country leaking Strontium 90 and Cesium 137, wouldn’t that information would be important.

We also know that prior test wells found concentrations of contamination at many times the EPA level for drinking water, but since the leaks are not currently going into known drinking water sources, the NRC has dismissed them as non-hazardous. I would like to know what specific radiological readings would define an unacceptable level that is not going directly into a known drinking source.

In other words, if the NRC cannot provide a well defined set of metrics, how can they establish standards that must be met to warrant twenty additional years of operations for this aging and leaking facility. We have already seen the NRC’s idea of reasonable assurance. With the potential danger of radiological contamination, how can we accept this agency’s judgments if they cannot define their standards and prove the validity of their metrics?

Gary Shaw
Member of the Steering Committees of Croton Close Indian Point (CrotonCIP) and the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC).

Exelon and Entergy Now Hiring...position...Sleeping Security Guard

Well, seems we have yet another example of SLEEPING GUARDS at the nations two largest nuclear giants, Entergy and Exelon. Not to worry though, the NRC swears we are safe from a terrorist attack, and even if there is one, these fine sleeping men are ready to DEFEND.

Sep 26, 2007 12:10 am US/Eastern

Nuclear Plant Guards Caught Sleeping On The Job

Walt Hunter
Reporting

(CBS 3) YORK COUNTY, Pa. Major security changes are underway at an area nuclear plant following the discovery of several guards sleeping on the job.

The guards were caught on tape sleeping on duty, secretly taped by a fellow officer.

The images are all the more disturbing because their job is protecting the Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant, which is one of America's largest.

"It's outrageous that they're not ready to go," Peter Stockton said.

Stockton is with a government watchdog group.

The area where the guards were taped sleeping on different shifts and days, is called "the ready room."

The sleeping guards are supposed to be poised to spring into action immediately if there is an emergency.

"Certainly every one of these officers should have been wide awake and ready to go," said a former Peach Bottom officer who asked not to be identified. "Some of these officers should have been patrolling the facility."

The owner of Peach Bottom, Exelon Nuclear, said the sleeping is in its words, "not acceptable" and they've now terminated their contract with Wackenhut Security to protect Peach Bottom.

Exelon does maintain that, because the sleeping guards are only part of a much wider security net, there was no risk to the public.

"The actions we have seen on the videotape and found in our internal inquiry did not directly impact the safety and security of the plant," a statement from Exelon read.

Wackenhut Security, the same company providing security at Peach Bottom, also protects three other Exelon facilities: Three Mile Island outside Harrisburg, the Limerick Nuclear Plant in Montgomery County, and Oyster Creek in New Jersey.

However, while Wackenhut is being removed from Peach Bottom, Exelon said the company will continue to protect the other three nuclear facilities, pending the outcome of a security review.

"You're only as strong as your weakest link, and you don't want your weakest link to be a security guard sleeping on the job," Eric Epstein of a nuclear watchdog group.

Epstein, chairman of a community nuclear watchdog group "Three Mile Island Alert" said the sleeping guards show nuclear plant owners should stop outsourcing security to private companies and instead rely on officers trained and managed by the Federal Government.

"Clearly we're concerned about what we saw," Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrator Sam Collins said.

After viewing the tape, the NRC now has a special five member team conducting what it calls a "special security inspection" at Peach Bottom.

"What we saw is not aligned with our expectations or Exelon's expectations and we will pursue it on that basis," Collins said.

The NRC will issue a report 30 days after its inspection.

Meanwhile, Wackenhut calls it quote "an anomaly," and said "it was a small number of security personnel that were not performing as they should have."

PowerShift2007 "firmly against nuclear power"

From:
Josh Lynch

Hello Remy,

Thanks for getting in touch with Energy Action Coalition. We are firmly against nuclear power.

In our Youth Statement of Principles (http://www.climatechallenge.org/statement_of_principles), we state:

"A just climate and energy policy cannot rely on any forms of dirty energy such as so-called “clean coal” or nuclear power. We must recognize the disproportionate impact of global warming and dirty energy on low-income, people of color and indigenous communities and ensure a just transition that improves and supports their physical, social and economic health."

The goals of Power Shift are laid out here (http://www.powershift07.org/about). Power Shift is a unique opportunity for young people from all walks of life to have their voice be heard in the halls of Congress. Monday will be a lobby day on Capitol Hill during which we will be promoting the main asks in the Youth Statement of Principles and calling for bold solutions.

If you are interested in becoming a sponsor of Power Shift, please check out the resources here (http://www.powershift07.org/sponsor). For an interesting article on the topics you bring up, read this - http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/01/25/anatomy-of-an-addiction.
in peace,

--Josh Lynch
Partnerships and Alliances Director
Energy Action Coalition
San Francisco, CA
o - 415-575-5536 c - 415-297-0572
http://www.climatechallenge.org
http://www.itsgettinghotinhere.org

Give $30 to the youth climate movement and Google will give us $10 more! http://www.google.com/checkout/holiday/charity/ccc.html

Come to POWER SHIFT 2007, the First National Youth Summit on Global Warming in Washington, DC - November 2-5
http://www.powershift07.org

Summer Rayne Slams $50 Billion Loan Guarantees!

Click the image to enlarge and read the text...

Thanks Summer! Now please, come on board FUSE USA, help us shut down Indian Point!!!

Fairfield County Green Drinks to benefit FUSE USA

This morning, after word got out the New York Times had mentioned FUSE USA in their pages, our friend Heather Burns-DeMelo at CT Green Scene posted something about FUSE USA on her blog.

Heather is the host of CT Green Drinks, which will have its next gathering at Splash, on October 10th, the patio bar outside the Longshore Country club house in Westport, Connecticut.

The website David Bedell of the CT Green Party and I do together, called Greenburbs, "Everything solar and green in Fairfield County," used to host Green Drinks inside the tiki bar at Papaya Thai in South Norwalk under the name Tiki Moon Lounge, where we expect to return for one more bash soon.

CT Green Scene and Greenburbs have joined forces to promote all future Green Drinks in Fairfield County, giving parts of the proceeds to the FUSE USA organization.

Entergy Corporation CFO to Speak at Merrill Lynch Conference

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Entergy Corporation Chief Financial Officer Leo Denault plans to provide a presentation Wed., Sept. 26 at the Merrill Lynch Power & Gas Leaders Conference at the Merrill Lynch Headquarters in New York. The panel presentation is expected to start at approximately 7:45 a.m. EDT. A live audio webcast of the presentation will be available on the Investor Relations section of Entergy's corporate Web site at http://www.entergy.com. A replay of the webcast will be available later that day and archived on the Web site for approximately 14 days.

Entergy Corporation is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, and it is the second-largest nuclear generator in the United States. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.6 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Entergy has annual revenues of more than $10 billion and approximately 14,500 employees.

FUSE USA makes the New York Times

September 24, 2007
New York Times

Indian Point Faces New Challenge From Opponents
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — An antinuclear group filed legal papers with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday evening opposing the relicensing of the Indian Point 2 nuclear reactor in Westchester County.

As a result, a panel of judges must consider the validity of the assertions — setting the stage for a long and contentious new chapter in the dispute over the plant and its companion, Indian Point 3.

There is already strong opposition to the relicensing of other nuclear power plants, including Oyster Creek in southern New Jersey and Vermont Yankee, which is on the Connecticut River just north of the Massachusetts border. Panels of three administrative law judges are studying those applications as well.

A hearing is scheduled to begin Monday in Toms River, N.J., on the request for a 20-year licensing extension of Oyster Creek, the oldest commercial reactor in the country, and a hearing is also likely for Vermont Yankee. Another three-judge panel is considering hearings for the Pilgrim nuclear plant, in Plymouth, Mass.

The antinuclear group, Friends United for Sustainable Energy, or FUSE, of Spring Valley, N.Y., contends that for decades, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, improperly held the Indian Point reactors, which are in Buchanan, N.Y., to less stringent design requirements than those the government applied to newer plants.

The requirements, which lay out in broad terms what safety precautions must be built into a plant’s hardware, were often changed in the 1960s and early ’70s, when the Indian Point reactors were built. According to the petition by FUSE, the builders claimed at one point that they met the draft criteria, but actually met only the criteria the nuclear industry was lobbying for.

The commission itself focused on precisely what standards were used, and what should have been used, when it analyzed the plant again in the early 1990s. In 1992, the commission decided not to require Indian Point to meet the criteria for newer plants.

“You don’t start from scratch,” said a spokesman for the commission, Neil Sheehan, on Friday, describing the decision to consider relicensing the plant now without making it comply with rules approved after its completion.

But FUSE argues that the 1992 action was a violation of a federal law designed to ensure fairness in administrative procedures. And the failure of the builders to heed the requirements that applied to newer plants “substantially reduces safety margins,” the group contends.

Entergy, which owns the reactors, insists that the plant was safe as built and still is.

FUSE also charged that Entergy has failed to submit an adequate plan for maintaining safety at the plant as its components age. The operators are promising merely to reach agreement later, thereby limiting public input, the group said.

But James Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, said in a telephone interview that it was in the nature of such maintenance plans that they evolved as the plant aged, and that “you never finish.”

Entergy bought Indian Point 2 from Consolidated Edison and Indian Point 3 from the New York Power Authority. The reactors are now owned by separate subsidiaries of Entergy. Plant opponents have argued that this is a legal strategy to limit the corporation’s liability in the event of an accident.

They now contend that because the reactors are separately held, Entergy cannot submit one application for renewal of both licenses. The opponents also note that while the two plants are of similar design, construction was managed by different engineering companies.

The application, according to FUSE, “creates an avalanche of a mixing of safety, technical and environmental issues caused by comingling.”

But Entergy, the first operator at the site to run both reactors, has been trying to integrate their operations. Mr. Steets said that the differences in the plants were accounted for in the details of the application for the extension, and that Entergy was seeking, for financial reasons, to bring them under the ownership of a single subsidiary.

FUSE USA Files 26 Contentions in Entergy LRA

Press Release-Fuse USA Files 26 Contentions

Public Trust in government institutions is the fundamental currency of our American democracy, our economy, and our way of life, and nowhere is that trust more important than in the regulation of our nation's most dangerous and complex industry: commercial nuclear power. On going investigative research by FUSE (Friends United for Sustainable Energy), a not-for-profit nuclear watchdog organization overseeing the Indian Point nuclear complex, has alleged in their Formal Petition to Intervene that Entergy's Indian Point reactors are in violation of NRC 10 CRF Regulations, and present a clear and present danger to human health and the environment.

For forty years the owners of Indian Point have routinely avoided complying with some of the most important federal regulations designed to protect the health of our children and families from the terrible risks of a nuclear accident or terrorist attack. The errors are so serious that FUSE has filed allegations with the NRC, and will be asking the New York Attorney General's office and Congressman John Hall to investigate. Most importantly, the 30 million people who live in the shadow of the Indian Point nuclear reactors have unwittingly been subjected to risks much greater than they were ever aware.

Worse, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency entrusted with ensuring nuclear safety, has either been party to the wrong-doing, or has utterly failed in its job to protect the public.

The problems uncovered by FUSE fall into numerous safety and aging management areas crucial to the License Renewal Application review process. These include a General Design Basis different than the one the facility was licensed too, serious fatigue, leak and corrosion issues, and a host of problems that affect public health and safety.

Before a facility can be relicensed for another 20 years of operation, it must have adequate aging management plans in place, must be capable of preventing off site radiological incidents that could affect public health and the environment. The cornerstone of meeting these critical obligations to public health and safety is a truthful and accurate General Design Criteria.

It appears the Public Trust has been broken, that Indian Point has never been in compliance with regulations, and that regulators have not been doing their job. public record shows major differences between federal nuclear guidelines and the way Indian Point Unit 2 nuclear reactor was actually built. There is a public process that the NRC should have gone through to address those differences, but that process was never followed. As a result, nuclear safety at Indian Point has been seriously compromised, and the public has been put at risk. At the very least, public trust has been seriously violated at a time when Entergy is seeking permission to run the aging nuclear reactor for another 20 years.

FUSE
21 Perlman Drive
Spring Valley, NY 10977
(845) 371-2100
http://www.fuseusa.org
(Contentions PDF document can be downloaded from the home page)

Media Contact:
Sherwood Martinelli
(914) 384-5848
(914) 734-1955
uraniumhotspot@aol.com

Dr. Helen Caldicott on Keep It Green

This week on Keep It Green, Dr. Helen Caldicott of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute returns to talk about nuclear arms proliferation around the world. In this three part interview (available in the video section on the left) Dr. Caldicott and host Simran Sethi discuss the ever-increasing dangers posed by nuclear weapons throughout the world.

Dr. Caldicott describes how the world’s nuclear weapons are still on a hair trigger alert and how the number of targeted countries has increased not decreased in the post Cold War era. Dr. Caldicott warns of potential dangers in these unstable times and asserts the best way to protect this planet from destruction is through education and disarmament.

Click here to see the interview:
http://blog.equatorhd.com