A seemingly underplayed story: The grid doesn’t need Vermont Yankee (+)

by: jvwalt

Thu May 24, 2012 at 13:37:59 PM EDT

The story came out Monday on Vermont Public Radio:

The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is not needed for the stability of the New England electric grid, according to grid operator ISO New England.

Just last year, ISO had said Vermont Yankee was needed to ensure the stability of the region’s power grid.

Now ISO says transmission upgrades and new generation means that Yankee is no longer needed to maintain grid reliability.

Which, as the Conservation Law Foundation’s Sandra Levine noted, undercuts the main argument for continued VY operation.

“The lights will stay on, the electricity will keep flowing, and we will continue to have more than adequate power supply without Vermont Yankee,” she said.

Since Monday, the story has kind of slowly piddled out in the Vermont news media.  

This would seem like a fairly dramatic development in the Yankee saga. But aside from the VPR report, it’s gotten short shrift in the state’s media. The Associated Press issued a very brief article,obviously cribbed from the VPR account. The Burlington Free Press’ only coverage, as far as I can tell, is that very brief AP account.

The Brattleboro Reformer buried the ISO pronouncement in an article about last night’s public meeting with representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(The Reformer says that ISO made the announcement on Wednesday. Which is curious, since VPR reported it two days earlier  

This might be a media conspiracy to downplay the story, but I don’t think so. As a veteran of the biz, I suspect that the real reason is simple competitiveness. News sources hate to follow up on stories broken elsewhere. They have to credit the original source, and they have to spend time and effort basically catching up with someone else. The result — worthwhile stories getting underplayed — is a disservice to us all, but it’s just the way self-interested organizations and human beings tend to work.  

“I pledge to take action to close the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor in Vernon, Vermont.”

Please take the VY Pledge by completing and submitting the simple form at Safe & Green’s website. This pledge is sponsored by the SAGE Alliance and its member groups: Safe & Green Campaign, Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance, Citizens Awareness Network, NIRS, Beyond Nuclear, and Clamshell Alliance. Only your name, town and state will be public. Contact information may be used to provide you with notice of actions to close Vermont Yankee.

To sign the Pledge, click here.

As Deb Katz of the Citizens Awareness Network puts it: “Entergy’s lawyers cherry-picked legislators’ questions about safety” from a previous debate relating to nuclear waste. “Judge Murtha supported the corporation over the will of the people.”

Making Vermont Yankee Accountable

WHAT:  Forum with Panel discussion and Q&A to address what will happen when Vermont Yankee (VY) shutters in 2012. A three-person panel will talk about the federal court case of Entergy vs State of Vermont, VY transition, clean-up, long-term waste storage and the role citizens can play in the process.

WHERE: Montshire Museum of Science, Norwich, VT

WHO: Deb Katz, Executive Director of the Citizens Awareness Network;

         Chris Williams, Organizer for Vermont Citizens Action Network

         Robert Stannard, Citizen Lobbyist for the Vermont Citizens Action Network

         Denis Rydjeski, Sierra Club

The overwhelming vote in the Senate to reject Vermont Yankee as part of Vermont’s Energy future and the legislature’s refusal to return to the issue in 2011 was a great victory, but the debate continues with Entergy suing the state and continuing its campaign to wear the legislature down to get a deal ro continue operation. So citizens must remain engaged and demand continued legislative action to support a successful transition to sustainable energy and stricter decommissioning and operational standards going forward. How Entergy will address the issues of transition, closure, decommissioning is more significant than ever.

Vermont Yankee’s power has already been replaced. But questions remain. Can citizens play a role as VY is properly dismantled, cleaned up and radioactive waste safely stored? With the slow motion Fukushima disaster highlighting the   vulnerabilities of Mark ! reactors, how will the state deal with increased vulnerability of this aged reactor?

  CAN has been involved with closure and decommissioning of other reactors in New England. The forums were scheduled because network members believed there is a lack of relevant information on decommissioning, the choices Entergy is making and the industry standard on decommissioning.

A Big Deal

Entergy says it’s no big deal; but what’s so great about having tritium leaking into the ground water?  What’s so great about finding tritium in the Connecticut River or a fish with strontium in it? What’s so great about Vermont Yankee dumping hot water into the Connecticut River undermining the shad population? 

 Entergy says it’s no big deal again and again.

What’s so great about having a rogue corporation suing Vermont to undermine the will of the people?   Doesn’t seem so great to the people of Vermont or the tri-state community does it?

Would this be a big deal to Entergy?

Is this what we have to look forward to in 2012?  What’s so great about having the State’s radiological health officer say time and again that radiation leaks are nothing to worry about?

According to experts there are no safe levels of radiation.  Radiation leaking from any nuclear plant it is not a good thing. Its not supposed to happen. So what is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doing?  Nothing.

Currently 37 out of 104 plants are leaking and the NRC is doing nothing to ensure that the remaining 67 plants don’t. It’s not a safety issue. Not to NRC; not to Entergy.  And of course the state of Vermont and the people can’t ever talk about safety right?  Entergy will take us to court. Meanwhile the NRC commissioners are attacking their Chair, Greg Jasczko, because he’s attempting to implement safety measures as a result of Fukushima.

This week we learned that the tritium leaking from pipes that Entergy officials testified repeatedly did not exist, is now appearing in the Connecticut River.  Entergy and our state radiological health officer, Bill Irwin, state that it’s only a little tritium and it’s not harmful, so it’s no big deal right?

Remember that Entergy’s spokesman, Larry Smith, stated if those underground pipes that didn’t exist leaked, tritium would never be detected in the river.  Remember, tritium has the same characteristics as water and is very, very difficult to detect.  The fact that it was found in the river is disturbing.

Who ever thought it was a good idea to allow this corporation to dump 100+ degree water into one of New England’s most important waterways?   It’s compromised the Shad population along with anything else that has a hard time living in heated water.

Why is Entergy heating the river?  MONEY.  If it couldn’t use river water to cool VY, then Entergy would be forced to use its cooling towers years round.  Remember those towers?  They are the structures that Entergy deferred maintenance on until one fell down; not once, but twice.  It’s understandable why Entergy wants to use our river to cut its operating costs.  But why is it good public policy to allow this corporation to heat up our river?

Why is it good public policy to let this corporation contaminate groundwater, heat and contaminate the river, and assure us again and again that none of this matters? 

Why is our governor allowing a “what me worry” civil servant serve in a role designed to protect Vermonters.

Instead of Entergy, and some state officials, trying to convince us that this is no big deal, shouldn’t the real question be what’s so good about the cumulative effect of all this?

Why?

Deb Katz

Exec. Dir. Citizens Awareness Network

Terri Hallenbeck

 MONTPELIER — Twice the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant curtailed its power output because of cooling tower problems, forcing Vermont’s two largest utilities to buy replacement power elsewhere.

 Both times the plant’s owner should have prevented the problem, Green Mountain Power Corp. and Central Vermont Public Service Corp. argue in a lawsuit filed this week in Brattleboro. 

 The utilities are suing Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Corp., seeking to recover the $6.6 million extra they say they spent on power during the two incidents in 2007 and 2008.

Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said the company would have no comment on pending litigation.

According to the lawsuit filed in Vermont Superior Court in Windham County:

• On Aug. 27, 2007, Vermont Yankee reduced power to 35 percent for 11 days after a cooling tower collapsed. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that the tower collapsed because of over-tightened bolts and salt and mold degradation to support columns. Entergy should have detected those problems, but did not because it relied on remote rather than hands-on inspections.

• On July 11, 2008, Vermont Yankee reduced power for almost 12 days after a sagging pipe and leak were detected in another cooling tower. The pipe’s failure was connected to insufficient work done to shore up the tower following the 2007 collapse, the lawsuit alleges.

In both cases, Entergy failed to enact known practices in the industry, the utilities allege.

As a result, GMP and CVPS, which contract with Vermont Yankee for power, had to buy that power on the open market at a higher price, the lawsuit says.

The utilities have tried to recover those costs from Entergy in the ensuing years without success. Facing an imminent statute of limitations for recovering the costs, the utilities filed suit, said Steve Costello, spokesman for CVPS.

The utilities are seeking the $6.6 million cost of electric power, the cost of losing capacity credits, plus attorney fees.

Vermont Yankee is the subject of another lawsuit in which a ruling is expected soon. Entergy is suing Vermont, challenging the state’s authority to shut the plant down when its certificate of public good expires March 21.

Smith, the Vermont Yankee spokesman, said he could not comment on whether Vermont Yankee was preparing to shut the plant down as of that date or was acting under the premise the plant may continue to run, as it has argued in court. 

 The two utilities’ contracts for power from Vermont Yankee end that same date. Regardless of what happens with Entergy’s lawsuit against the state, the utilities will no longer be buying power from the plant as of that date.

 Margo Schepart 
Westchester Citizens Awareness Network
 REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE

Radioactive Fish in Connecticut River…so much for those radioactive leaks having no effect on the river ..

Judges Decision

http://www.vtd.uscourts.gov/Supporting%20Files/11cv99%20Mot%20for%20Prelim%20Inj.718.pdf