Tag Archives: Entergy Nuclear

NRC asked to take a breather

On Friday, April 15, 2011, the good Bob Audette, staff reporter for the Brattleboro Reformer, reported that “forty-five groups and individuals either opposed to or in support of increased safety measures at nuclear power plants around the nation submitted a petition Thursday to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking it suspend all re-licensing activities of existing plants and all licensing activities of proposed plants.” in order to give the NRC the opportunity to determine what lessons can be learned from the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan. (http://www.reformer.com/ci_17851311)

One spokesperson, attorney Diane Curran, who specializes in nuclear safety and security, has gone so far as to state that the NRC has violated the law in granting the 20-year license extension to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee within days of the damage done to reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

It seems quite reasonable that the NRC — whose role is to REGULATE nuclear power plants — would want to wait and see and carefully consider the events at Fukushima before granting a twenty year license extension to a leaking plant at the end of the lifespan it was designed for. Remember that Vermont Yankee is a boiling water reactor, the same type as the plant in Fukushima.

Japanese nuclear regulators declared this week that the severity of the disaster at Fukushima has been classified a Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, putting it on par with the 1986 accident at Chernobyl. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/france-wants-nato-to-fight-harder-against-gaddafis-forces/2011/04/12/AFxrFEND_story.html and http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/16/japan.nuclear.reactors/?hpt=T2)

The license extension for Vermont Yankee is one of 21 proposed nuclear reactor projects in 15 states that would be placed on hold until the post-crisis analysis can be completed. There was a year and a half hold on nuclear projects after the accident at Three Mile Island. It is good common sense to step back now and learn everything possible about the events in Japan so that we can carefully assess our risk potential in light of this new and quite tangible information.

I wish to extend my thanks to the organizations like the New England Coalition and Pilgrim Watch — and the many individuals who comprise them — for their continued efforts to enforce common sense through legal channels, especially when the regulatory body we rely on does not appear to have the best interests of the public as their foremost priority.

Now is the time for continued damage control, thorough assessment, and thoughtful conclusions so that all current and future nuclear projects can be reviewed with greater clarity and accuracy.

wakethehellup.wordpress.com

Advertisements

NRC petitioned to do their job

Ray Shadis, technical consultant to the New England Coalition, offered the following commentary on yesterday’s article in the Brattleboro Reformer by the good Bob Audette:

“This article captures the gist of an enforcement petition meeting with the NRC’s Petition Review Board.  The PRB has agreed to recommend that NRC take up four of seven issues (regarding Entergy’s management and maintenance failures be and defects in NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process) raised by New England Coalition in its February 8th enforcement petition. The PRB recommended that three issues (regarding omissions and/or inaccuracies about aging management of buried piping  in Entergy VY’s License Renewal Application (LRA) do not meet the criteria for NRC review because these issues can be handled via the licensing hearing. This is a bit of a struggle as the hearing record has been closed for over a year and the hurdles to reopening are high and many. It is our understanding that this portion of the LRA is already under examination by NRC, but without our involvement, we fear a lack of vigor and rigor.  Paul M. Blanch of west Hartford, Connecticut was also on the PRB call and made it plain that the question was not what water quality regulations have been violated, but what regulations pertaining to management and operation. Paul reiterated NEC’s tentative conclusion, based on NEC’s site visit, that there remains inadequate assurance that Entergy has identified all leaks contributing to groundwater contamination. It should also be noted that Entergy VY lead engineer, Jim Divincentis, also attended the PRB meeting, but offered no comment on the petition or petitioners remarks when afforded the opportunity by the PRB. Likewise, NRC legal counsel refused to elaborate when asked on the PRB decision that License Renewal Application issues should be handled via the licensing hearing.”

Thursday May 6, 2010

Critic: NRC inspectors are ‘too cozy’ with Entergy

By BOB AUDETTE / Reformer Staff

BRATTLEBORO — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has failed the public, said a pair of anti-nuclear activists during a teleconference with the NRC’s petition review board (PRB) Wednesday morning.

The review board heard arguments from Thomas Saporito, of endangeredplanetearth.blogspot.com, and Ray Shadis, of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, who have been contending that Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon should be shut down until a number of maintenance issues are resolved, including the remediation of tritium-contaminated groundwater.

Saporito said the NRC’s resident inspectors at Vermont Yankee are “too cozy” with plant personnel and because of that, violations and unsafe conditions are not being detected in a timely manner.

He asked that the NRC’s Office of the Inspector General conduct an audit of the resident inspectors’ activities.

“The NRC’s resident inspectors are not doing their jobs to an effective level,” said Saporito, while Entergy has been violating numerous safety margins.

The NRC also failed to tell state agencies that contrary to what Yankee representatives were saying during hearings in Montpelier, the power plant has a number of underground piping systems that carry radionuclides, he said.

The OIG should conduct an additional investigation to determine if the NRC was negligent in not notifying Vermont, said Saporito.

He pointed to a number of issues that could have been prevented if the NRC had been doing its job. They include:

— Not conducting an adequate risk assessment for maintenance activities that affected the availability of the low pressure coolant injection subsystem;

— The failure of Entergy, which owns and operates Vermont Yankee, to initiate corrective actions related to the plant’s cooling towers;

— Entergy’s failure to take timely and appropriate corrective actions to address a repeat functional failure of the reactor’s high pressure coolant injection system, and;

— Entergy’s failure to initiate a condition report related to water accumulating in the turbine building supply fan housing plenum area, which led to the inoperability for four hours of one the plant’s emergency diesel generators; and its failure to perform an engineering analysis of scaffolding installed in the cooling tower meant to shore up safety-related pipe supports.

In its 2009 fourth quarter plant inspection findings, the NRC stated all of the failures were of very low safety significance and that Entergy had taken or was in the process of taking actions to address all those issues.

Saporito contended that all of Entergy’s maintenance activities related to those issues were the result of a “systemic and pervasive” failure by the licensee to properly identify and resolve the deficiencies and were contrary to NRC regulations demanding timely resolution.

Because of that, it was a failure on the part of the NRC to protect the health and safety of the general public and the environment, he said.

Shadis told the review board that the coalition had identified several examples where it believed there was not enough follow through on maintenance issues and where the reactor oversight process had “apparently failed to track maintenance and management issues from one event to the next.”

The NRC should take time to review all documents related to accidents and equipment and maintenance failures at Yankee since Entergy bought the plant in 2002, said Shadis.

Then the NRC should ask itself if it has the appropriate “questioning attitude” and ability to posit possible problems to conduct its oversight of nuclear power plants, he said.

Shadis also questioned if enough work has been done to rule out the plant’s condensate storage tank as a source of the leak of tritiated water.

“Everything we saw and heard from the company gave us no confidence that the leaks that have been found represent all the leaks,” he said.

Saporito said because the licensee had lied under oath to the state the NRC had “no reasonable assurance” Entergy was supplying it with correct information related to the leak of tritiated water.

“The NRC can’t be sure the tritium hasn’t entered the environment at some point not captured by the wells,” he said.

Shadis did admit that the levels of tritium detected in the groundwater do not exceed the NRC’s “as low as reasonable achievable” radiation standards or the Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water limits for tritium.

“The groundwater however certainly exceeded the EPA maximum concentration limits by a factor of 100 or more,” he said.

The pair also contended that Entergy doesn’t fully understand the power plant’s design basis and that Yankee’s buried tanks and underground inspection program is inadequate.

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

Original article: http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_15027404

wakethehellup.wordpress.com

Massachusetts residents living downstream from Vermont Yankee tell Douglas to shut down the plant now

From: http://vtdigger.org/2010/02/11/massachusetts-residents-living-downstream-from-vermont-yankee-tell-douglas-to-shut-down-the-plant-now/

February 11, 2010

Dear Governor Douglas:

I believe the tritium leak at ENVY is a greater environmental disaster than you realize. Just one gram of tritium contaminates 500 billion liters of water up to the fed. limit of 20,000pCi/L. The leak has been allowed to continue at full speed for over one month. The level of tritiated water found in groundwater monitoring wells is now at 2.7 million pCi/L, near the level of the reactor water itself.  This represents a breach of containment, understood as the systems in the reactor and powerplant intended to isolate radioactive contamination from the public.

The groundwater belongs to the public, not to ENVY. ENVY’s leak has polluted our groundwater to the second highest level of all tritium leaks from reactors in the country. NRC rules have allowed contamination of groundwater resources at 27 leaking nuclear reactors. This is illegal in Vermont. Your agencies can stop the leak by shutting down the reactor, but they are waiting for you to give the nod. You must protect public trust resources. Please instruct your agencies (DPS, ANR, VDH) to act swiftly to turn off the reactor water that is contaminating the groundwater by shutting down the reactor.

It is not necessary to run the reactor at overpressure levels to find the leak. Drilling wells just maps the toxicity and extent of the plume, it does not find the leak. All power plants have design drawings, sophisticated gauges and flow meters on their pipes and engineers who can do mass balance calculations to detect leaks.  This has gone on far too long, is based on industry lies and incompetence and NRC tolerance of groundwater pollution, and MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY. Please do the right thing and act.

Thank you for your rapid consideration of my concerns.

Sally Shaw

Gill, Mass.

An 11th generation Vermonter and mother, living in the EPZ.

A letter from Sally Shaw’s husband, Bart Bales, follows.

Leak detection in plant systems with regard to the VT Yankee tritium leak.

By Bart Bales, P.E., M.S.M.E

February 9, 2010

This is an evaluation of the facts surrounding the VT Yankee tritium leak as reported in the press and to the public through the VT Dept. of Health’s website. It is the opinion of a registered mechanical engineer with twenty-five years of professional experience in energy engineering. It provides approaches to leak detection in power plant piping systems in general, and evaluates the approach being employed, according to public information, to find the tritium leak at VT Yankee.

1.    A plant operator should have up-to-date schematics for all piping and the expected pressures and flow rates throughout the piping network.

2.    Design pipe layouts and as-built pipe layouts are necessary elements for responsible operation and maintenance of a power plant.

3.    Use of design and as-built drawings and specifications along with gauge and instrumentation operating parameters should provide information sufficient to determine expected flow rates and pressures in the piping networks.

4.    The design documents at VT Yankee should enable plant personnel to identify a limited number of pipes that could contain tritiated water.

5.    Plant personnel should determine actual flows through and between elements and components of those piping networks that contain tritium, and determine quantities in various storage vessels by a mass balance calculation.

6.    These calculations can determine flows from within the plant enclosure to the piping network and storage vessels outside the enclosure and should provide information sufficient to identify the leaking pipe loop.

7.    Differences in flows into and out of parts of the network can help localize the leak as the mass balance will indicate a shortfall in expected values for the piping network containing the leak.

8.    This is a more prudent approach to leak detection that can allow the plant system to be operated at lower and safer pressures and flow rates until the leak is found and repaired.

9.    It is expected that there would be existing flow meters on all the various piping loops, especially those conveying radioactive liquids or gases. These should be calibrated, serviced or replaced and rendered reliably functional to determine flow rates and diagnose leaks.

10.     Maintenance of full pressure ratings throughout the power plant should not be necessary to accomplish leak detection. Maintenance of even moderate pressures in the piping will produce a sufficient gradient for leak detection.

11.     There is no justification for maintaining pressures at uprated or even original design conditions for leak detection.

12.     Fluid flow through holes in the leaking pipes erodes the edges of these holes.  Larger holes result in even higher rates of leakage.

13.     It should be recognized that the higher the pressure the greater the flow through leaks, and the faster the introduction of contaminants into the groundwater.

14.     A higher influx rate into the groundwater increases the rate of migration of the plume into adjacent areas and into the Connecticut River.

15.     A more responsible leak detection protocol would be to shut down the plant, evaluate and model analytically, prioritizing the pipe systems most likely to be leaking tritium, then test each system progressively in order of probability that it is the source of the leak.

16.     This approach to leak detection methods from inside the plant employs existing flow gauges or installation of mechanical measuring gauges, and use of ultrasonic or inflow measurements.

17.     For a plant operator or engineer to lack knowledge of location of piping networks and their contents is an unacceptable situation, especially in the handling of potentially hazardous fluids.

Indian Point is apparently aging, too

From The Journal News,http://lohud.com/article/20090515/UPDATE/90515003/-1/SPORTS

Valve problem shuts Indian Point

May 15, 2009

A reactor at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan has been shut down because of a valve problem.

Entergy Nuclear says Indian Point 3 was safely turned off at 1:53 a.m. Friday with no release of radiation.

The issue centered on a valve that controls the flow of water into a steam generator.

“Indian Point Unit 3’s operators manually tripped the reactor after the main feedwater regulating valve for the 33 (one 3 designating Unit 3, the other 3 the third steam generator for 33) steam generator experienced a failure (failed open), resulting in rising coolant levels in the steam generator that could not be corrected,” wrote the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a statement.

Read the full story >

the nuclear plants are old and failing

Bribery will get you nowhere… if people are AWAKE

From the PUTNAM COUNTY NEWS and RECORDER in Cold Spring, NY on 5/20/09:

Entergy Contributes to Fire Hall

Entergy, which operates the Indian Point nuclear generating plant in Buchanan, NY, recently contributed $15,000 to the new North Highlands Fire Department fire hall on Fishkill Rd. The hall would be used for decontamination purposes in the event of an incident at Indian Point.

http://www.pcnr.com/news/2009/0520/general_stories/013.html

New England Coalition for the People – vs – Entergy Nuclear

You go, Ray!

New England Coalition on Nuclear Polution

NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION

FIGHT FOR THE CENTURY

NEC for the PEOPLE -vs – ENTERGY NUCLEAR

11 DAYS IN THE RING

STARTING ROUND: MAY 18, 2009

VENUE: VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD HEARING ROOM- MONTPELIER

THE PRIZE: OUR HEALTH, HOMES, ENVIRONMENT, FARM PRODUCTS, TOURISM AND OUTDOOR SPORTING ACTIVITIES

RINGSIDE SEATS: WATCH THE MATCH IN PERSON OR AT WWW.NECNP.ORG

The sparring started May 18: several weeks of technical hearings (similar to a trial and courtroom) before the Vermont Public Service Board. Entergy is seeking a Certificate of Public Good to operate their reactor until 2032 – 20 years beyond it’s design life and present scheduled closure in 2012. NEC is the sole intervenor challenging Entergy on technical, environmental and safety issues. While others concern themselves only with economics, we are fighting for our (and future generations) health, homes and livelihoods. You are encouraged to show your support for NEC by attending the hearings and bear witness to this historic battle. It’s inspiring to look over a shoulder in the courtroom and see friends like you while Staff Advisor Raymond Shadis and attorney Jared Margolis representing NEC in this docket present our case against Entergy and their lawyers from a 900 attorney law firm.

At this pivotal time your financial contributions are critical to maintaining our stamina in the ring. If you have made a donation recently, Thank You! Secure donations can be made online using PayPal or a credit/dept card or by mailing a check. Thank you for your support.

The People’s Advocate for Safe Energy Since 1971

P.O. Box 545, Brattleboro, VT 05302 802.257.0336

http://www.necnp.org/

Since 1971 NEC has advocated for safe energy in New England and has provided education and resources for alternatives to nuclear power. New England Coalition is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. All contributions are tax-deductible.

NRC challenged in U.S. Court of Appeals for easing safety requirements at Indian Point

Finally! An autocratic agency with Byzantine regulations is being called to account by the State of New York and Representative Richard Brodsky.   Granting exemptions to existing licensing at the behest of Entergy without public hearings is a violation on the NRC’s charter to protect public health and safety.  The serious matter of fire safety cannot be brushed aside.   This issue strikes to the very heart of the way safety and the public’s right to know has been systematically ignored. Under any reasonable, transparent review process this would have been handled as part of an amendment licensing process and not through a obscure back door out of the public eye.”  – Marilyn Elie, Founding member of Westchester Citizens Awareness NetworkPublic Advocacy Groups and Attorney General to Argue Against Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Unsafe Fire Safety Exemption Granted to Indian Point before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

On Monday, May 11 oral arguments will take place at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Ceremonial Court Room, 9th floor, 500Pearl St., New York City at 10:00 a.m. in a case that has been brought against the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by several public interest groups including the Westchester Citiz en’s Awareness Network (WestCAN), the Rockland County Conservation Association, Inc. (RCCA), the Public Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE), the Sierra Club’s Atlantic Chapter, and Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), and  New York State Attorney’s General Office has filed an amicus brief.  The groups challenge the NRC’s decision to exempt Indian Point Nuclear Facility Unit 3 from fire safety regulations that reduced fire safety standards from one hour to twenty-four minutes.

Under the NRC regulations, a nuclear power facility built prior to 1979 must enclose the cable and equipment necessary for a safe shutdown by using a fire barrier with a one-hour fire rating. According to the exemption Indian Point’s fire rating has been reduced to twenty-four minutes, a 76% reduction fire safety standard.

Since 1993, the NRC has known that the fire barrier utilized at Indian Point does not meet the one-hour duration.  According to the 1993 test, the fire barrier only lasts 23.2 minutes, however the NRC took no action until 2005.  The 2005 test confirmed that the fire barrier failed to perform for one hour and exceeded temperature limits within thirteen to forty-two minutes.

In 2006, the NRC issued a letter to certain nuclear plants requesting that they propose a resolution for the problems associated with the fire barrier.  In response, the owners of Indian Point nuclear facilities, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., requested an exemption from the one hour fire safety standard.    On August 16, 2008, the request was revised requesting a reduction from one hour to twenty-four minutes for certain areas.  Thirty-four days later the NRC granted the exemption.

The NRC must not prompt any exemptions to regulations which increase the likelihood of catastrophic risks.  The public has been made vulnerable by the NRC’s secretive reduction in fire safety without notice or opportunity for hearings.”  Annie Wilson for Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter

The result of the NRC’s decision to grant the exemption from one hour to twenty-four minutes means that a single fire must be detected, fire brigade assembled and fully extinguished in less than twenty-four minutes.  Like most operating nuclear reactors, Indian Point Unit 3 contains miles of electrical cables that control and power safety systems, including valves, pumps, motors, and gauges designed to ensure the prompt shutdown of the nuclear reactor.  A fire at Indian Point that damaged those cables could disable the critical systems served by the cables preventing safe shut down and ultimately may lead to a major radiation release that could have a disastrous impact on the health and property of the people of New York.

Petitioners will argue that the NRC improperly granted the “exemption”, lacked authority to grant exemptions, failed to allow required public participation, failed to give proper notice, failed to consider relevant evidence in making its decision, and violated National Environmental Policy Act.  Petitioners will further argue that the NRC created a potentially illegal loophole by permitting mischaracterization of the request as an “exemption” rather than an amendment, thereby violating the Atomic Energy Act.

Entergy is sailing up the river in a boat loaded with non-compliance. They are supposed to protecting the public, not accommodating private industry.”  Maureen Ritter of PHASE (Public Health and Sustainable Energy)

The NRC’s decision drastically compromises the safety of the Indian Point nuclear facilities.  Upwards of twenty million people work, live, or travel within fifty miles of Indian Point.  This case marks the first time the NRC’s right to grant exemptions without notice and hearings has been challenged.

The case will be argued on Monday, May 11 before Honorable John M. Walker, Jr., Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, and Honorable John Clifford Wallace of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky will be arguing for the Petitioners.  Assistant Attorney General John Sipos, Esq. will be arguing on behalf of the New York State Attorney General’s Office.  A representative will be arguing on behalf of the NRC, as well as a representative from  Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Fires are recognized as one of the most significant safety hazards at nuclear power plants, they are not uncommon. The NRC’s reckless willingness to dramatically reduce the safety margins to 24 minutes is an egress abdication of is responsibility.    The regulations that were exempted are critical safety regulations related to the electrical cables and where enacted in response to the Brown’s Ferry fire.   Brown’s Ferry fire started in the insulation of electrical cable trays, it raged for nearly 7 hours, burnt and reactors were out of control for almost two days.” Michel Lee, Board member of Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) and Chair on Council on Conservation & Intelligent Energy Policy (CCIP)

Massachusetts joins NY and CT in appeal of NRC ruling

State appeals NRC ruling

GateHouse News Service
PLYMOUTH — Attorney General Martha Coakley and her counterparts in New York and Connecticut are appealing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission decision that could impact the relicensing of Pilgrim Station Nuclear Power Plant.

Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut officials have filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York challenging the NRC’s ruling that there was no “new and significant information” on the risks of severe accidents in the spent fuel pools at nuclear plants, including Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee, caused by terrorist attack, human error, equipment malfunction, or natural disaster.

In 2006, Massachusetts filed a petition claiming that new and significant information on these risks to Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee, both owned by Entergy Nuclear Operations, and should be part of the relicensing process for each nuclear power plant.

“Our appeal is intended to ensure that the NRC give due consideration, including a meaningful opportunity for public comment, on these important environmental and public safety issues,” Attorney General Coakley said in a press release.

Original article: http://www.wickedlocal.com/plymouth/news/x2133272855/State-appeals-NRC-ruling (published May 6, 2009)

Words of fury, despair

Vermont Yankee is old and unsafe

Vermont Yankee is old and unsafe

An editorial published on RutlandHerald.com:

Vermont Yankee produces about 30 tons a year of the most toxic and long-lasting waste known to man, which will stay forever on the banks of the Connecticut River in casks that, over its half-life of 250,000 years, will crack every 100 years or so, leaving this unspeakable waste to thousands of generations of our children (if they live). Ray Shadis called it “the gift that keeps on killing.” Every minute of the day and night it releases radioactive material in the air, none of which is safe, and since children are most vulnerable, they, our children, have been and will continue to be, victims of cancers and leukemias as long as the reactor is rattling along like a broken down old car.

On top of all that there is a sneaky connection between nuclear reactors and the military, with “depleted” uranium (which is making the world for the world’s children a radioactive wasteland) and nuclear bombs, which are all part of the atom-smashing process. Helen Caldecott called Vermont Yankee a “cancer and a bomb factory that must be shut down.”

I understand completely why Sally Shaw placed compost (which she called “good waste”) on the table behind which Entergy’s officials and the NRC sat. Anyone who doesn’t understand, and because of that, not only condemns her, but in the Legislature, might vote to poison us and keep us in constant fear for our children and grandchildren for 20 more years, was never on the side of desperate parents and grandparents anyway, and care nothing about our children.

There are times when I am so tired of feeling sad, hopeless, and cynical in the face of corporate power, that I can hardly find the right words. However, criticism of Sally’s despair and fury, which I share, made me find some.

Thank you, Sally.

JANE NEWTON
South Londonderry

(Thank YOU, Jane. You are NOT alone!)

We don’t need dirty money for our playgrounds

Vermont Yankee needs a “Certificate of Public Good” in order to get the 20-year extention to operate beyond the nuclear power plant’s scheduled closing. In a county of just over 40,000 people, there were approximately 75 who bothered to show up for the latest meeting of Vermont’s public service board to weigh in on whether Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee deserve the required certification.

According to the Brattleboro Reformer’s news story of May 1 (http://www.reformer.com/ci_12270340), the audience appeared evenly split on whether to grant this certificate or not. Reporter Bob Audette notes that those opposed focused on the environmental impact, the potential costs involved, and the negative impact the over-extended plant will have on the Vermont brand.

Those in favor of granting the certificate seemed to focus only on the tens of thousands of dollars that Entergy has “donated” to local non-profits, as if the local towns would suffer harshly without such charity. It seems to me that a rudimentary review of profits reaped by Entergy Nuclear versus their supposedly charitable investment in local towns would render this argument laughable in the face of the financial burden their spent fuel rods will cost to contain and secure once they have divested themselves of the no-longer-viable plant… twenty years beyond when it was scheduled to close… twenty years beyond when it was built to last.

Let us remember that we were promised a national storage facility for spent nuclear fuel rods… the Yucca Mountain fantasy that will never be. Have we considered the financial burden to the state and to the country based on the reality that the facility will never be built? Has any Vermonter looked over to Maine to review the state costs related to the decomissioning of Maine Yankee in light of the lack of federal safe-keeping of their spent fuel rods?

Fuck Entergy’s playgrounds. Who the hell wants a new playground built from the supposed charitable contributions from a corporation who maintains facilities like this?

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee on August 21, 2007

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee on August 21, 2007

June 18, 2004 - Fire at Vermont Yankee

June 18, 2004 - Fire at Vermont Yankee

Are your tire swings worth it? Why don’t you show the children these photos and ask them if they think it’s worth it to accept their money for playgrounds or little league? I trust that the children will know better. In fact, I already know that they do know better.

A “Certificate of Public Good”? You must be JOKING. Where is the public good in this equation? It DOES NOT EXIST.

Wake up, Vermont. These Louisiana folks are not your friends… and no amount of playground building changes the fact that they want to squeeze as much profit out of a dangerously aging nuclear power plant as they are able to, without regard for the potential short- and long-term financial burdens placed on the state and its residents.

Do not sit idle while your playgrounds are glowing. WAKE UP. Please.

Thanks, again, Bob Audette, for reporting on the safety issues at Vermont Yankee

From the good Bob Audette of the Brattleboro Reformer (http://www.reformer.com/ci_10961916):

More cracks found in VY steam dryer

Wednesday, November 12
BRATTLEBORO — Opponents of the relicensing of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant want to know why a press release announcing the successful refueling of the reactor did not include notification that 16 additional cracks had been found in the plant’s steam dryer. In its press release Yankee stated the steam dryer had been inspected and it “remains in very good condition.”

No mention was made of the cracks, said Rob Williams, spokesman for Yankee, because they were not new and had been discovered using enhanced inspection techniques. Inspections of the steam dryer during three refueling outages were required by Vermont’s Public Service Board when it authorized the plant to increase power production by 20 percent in 2004.

“In our best engineering judgment, these cracks have been there since the early days of plant operation,” said Williams.

“Why should we trust them?” asked Ray Shadis, technical consultant to the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, which raised issues with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board about fatigue cracks in the dryer.

Shadis said Entergy, which owns and operates Vermont Yankee, has not been totally up-front about problems at the power plant, including a failure last May of a gantry crane used to move nuclear waste and the collapse of a cooling tower in August 2007.

“They would not have told us about the collapse except for the fact that the photos got out,” said Shadis. Pictures of the cooling tower collapse were forwarded to NEC by an anonymous source several days after the failure. Shadis said Entergy doesn’t do themselves any favors by not being as forthright as possible with information about the plant.

“Just tell us the way it is.”

A spokesman for the anti-nuclear Citizen Awareness Network also expressed his dismay.

“Frankly, there is no reason to trust them based on their previous behavior,” said Bob Stannard. “We have been told time and time again that things are fine there. The state was assured the cooling towers were fine just a couple of days away from having it almost collapse again.”

Earlier this year Entergy revealed changes to the cooling towers meant to prevent a collapse such as had occurred in 2007 had led to sagging in a distribution pipe’s support system. Entergy voluntarily supplied the information to the media after the problem was discovered.

The cracks identified during the most recent refueling outage and were not of the type that were of concern to NEC, said Williams.

“All were determined to be due to intergranular stress corrosion cracking.”

NEC was concerned with metal fatigue, said Shadis, which happens when metal is flexed. The steam dryer is a static device with no moving parts meant to extract water vapor from steam produced by the reactor before it is sent to the power turbine.

Intergranular stress corrosion cracks occur “due to the relief of metal stress first induced by the heat of the original weld process,” said Williams.

None of the additional cracks nor any of the previously identified cracks have grown since the last inspection, he said, nor were they related to metal fatigue.

The additional cracks weren’t included in the original press release, he said, because close to 5,000 tasks were performed during the outage — including inspections and parts replacements — making it nearly impossible to inform the public of everything that was done while the reactor was being refueled.

It’s up to the licensee to inspect the plant and up to regulators to oversee the process, he said.

“The dryer is in good condition and that’s why it passed the inspection,” he said.

Entergy is required to submit a report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission following all outages, wrote Neil Sheehan, NRC spokesman, in an e-mail to the Reformer.

“They will need to document for us the results of their steam dryer inspections, as they have in the past,” wrote Sheehan. “(But) Entergy does not need to file a report with us on every task undertaken during the outage.”

Sheehan wrote that the NRC supplements its regular inspection program during outages because they are periods of high activity.

“That includes bringing in specialists coming in to evaluate discrete outage activities, such as the replacement of large components.”

Whether Entergy is required to submit a report to Vermont’s Department of Public Service was not known Tuesday night. DPS did not return a phone call for comment on matter.

In addition to determining the steam dryer was in good condition, Entergy inspection teams checked the reactor vessel as well as its surrounding containment structure and both were found to be in good condition, according to Williams.

Upgrades to the plant during the outage included service water valves and piping, the safety-related cooling tower cell, installation of a new main feedwater pump motor and routine refurbishment of the main turbine valves.

“Our team carefully selected the tasks to be done, planned each task and brought the plan together in a very successful outage,” stated Entergy Vermont Yankee Site Vice President Mike Colomb.

The next refueling outage is scheduled for the Spring of 2010, at which time another inspection of the steam dryer will be conducted.

Though it’s too late to bring the new cracks to the attention of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which is reviewing evidence on metal fatigue cracks in the steam dryer submitted by NEC, Shadis said the organization will present the information to the Vermont Public Service Board, which is reviewing whether the plant should receive a certificate of public good to continue to operate from 2012 to 2032.

“That’s for certain,” he said.

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

[ BLOGGER’S NOTE: GO RAY! ]

The Rutland Herald also reports: Legislators want rewrite for plant radiation rules

November 14, 2008

Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Vermont lawmakers want the state Department of Health to rewrite a rule about how radiation from Vermont Yankee is measured.

And the special legislative panel wants to be sure the public has a chance to comment on it.

Opponents of the nuclear plant have said the Health Department reinterpreted a rule on how it calculates radiation releases, allowing radiation at the edge of the plant’s property to exceed state limits.

On Wednesday, a special legislative panel voted unanimously to declare that part of the rule was unclear.

Lawmakers say changes made to the rule never went through a formal rule-making process.

Health Commissioner Wendy Davis plans to review the committee’s findings.

Rutland Herald reports: New Yankee discoveries raise doubts about NRC

November 14, 2008

By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff

BRATTLEBORO — The discovery of more degraded wooden support beams in Vermont Yankee’s cooling towers — this time in the reactor’s only safety dedicated cell — raised questions Thursday about how thorough a special Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspection was this summer.

Workers at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant had to immediately replace five deteriorated major support columns in the one safety-related cell of the reactor’s two cooling towers during the plant’s recent refueling outage, according to the NRC.

The degraded columns, which are about 40 feet tall, were discovered after Entergy Nuclear started its gradual overhaul of the two cooling towers, replacing the wood with fiberglass. The overhaul is expected to take a couple of years.

Entergy Nuclear spokesman Robert Williams said the columns were bowed and cracked. “All could have been deemed acceptable for continued service, but we conservatively chose to replace them rather than wait until the next refueling outage,” Williams wrote in an e-mail.

He noted that two 2-by-4-inch “transverse” timbers were also replaced.

The news of the compromised columns surprised the Department of Public Service, which said the safety cell of the west cooling tower had been inspected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this summer, after other problems developed in the east cooling tower.

“We are eager to hear the NRC’s explanation,” said Stephen Wark, spokesman for the department, noting that the NRC had sent a special team of inspectors to the Vermont reactor in July, after a large leak developed in the eastern tower because of a lack of adequate supports.

Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC, declined to say exactly what was wrong with the wooden timbers, saying only they had to be replaced because of “aging.” But he said workers have been classifying all the wood in the cooling towers according to how quickly they should be replaced, giving each a grade of 1, 2 or 3. The timbers in question required immediate replacement, he said.

“Entergy replaced four or five columns as well as a number of diagonal braces. As for other timbers in the cell, they were categorized based on their condition. Some were determined to be in need of immediate replacement and they were changed out. Our senior resident inspector observed the work as timbers were being taken down and replaced,” Sheehan said.

“This will improve the structural integrity” of the cell, he said.

The cooling towers are currently not in service because of the cool weather and the cool temperature of the Connecticut River, which is used for cooling water by the reactor. Typically, the cooling towers are not in service from mid-October until mid-May.

Sheehan noted that the safety cell provided back-up cooling for the reactor in the event of a “catastrophic” event, such as the loss of cooling water from the Connecticut River.

Wark said that Uldis Vanags, the state nuclear engineer, had been informed by Entergy Nuclear about the problem, as well as the five panel members of the state’s special inspection team.

The cooling towers have become a persistent source of problems at the Vernon reactor, ever since the west cooling tower partially collapsed in spectacular fashion on Aug. 21, 2007. The plant sharply reduced power for weeks as it made emergency repairs. Problems cropped up twice this summer in the west cooling tower, also causing Entergy Nuclear to cut power production.

Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.

Cooling towers at Vermont Yankee continue to be uncool

State wants more tower inspections

By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff

Saturday, September 20
BRATTLEBORO — Recent problems with Vermont Yankee’s cooling towers “are totally unacceptable,” stated Vermont Department of Public Service Commissioner David O’Brien, in a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

“We need your help in getting to the bottom of these repeated cooling tower failures,” O’Brien wrote Friday, requesting the NRC conduct additional inspections of the system.

Recently, the NRC sent an inspection team to the nuclear power plant in Vernon to determine whether prior cooling tower problems were affecting the operation of a cooling fan cell designed to be available during an emergency.

The NRC has not yet indicated when that report will be available to the public.

“Our special inspection of the cooling tower leakage identified at Vermont Yankee in July is still open,” wrote NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, in an e-mail to the Reformer. “We are evaluating the most recent event against what we saw during the special inspection.”

On Tuesday morning, a Yankee maintenance worker discovered a 60-gallon-per-minute leak in the pipe that feeds water to the east bank of cooling fans.

Yankee has two banks of 11 cooling fan cells each. In August 2007, one of the 11 cells in the west bank collapsed due to the failure of rotted wooden support members.

Yankee management admitted the collapse was due to shortcomings in the plant’s tower maintenance and inspection program.

During the in-house review, Yankee technicians developed a program to replace certain wooden supports with fiberglass supports.

On Wednesday, Yankee employees identified several wooden beams that required replacement ahead of the schedule created after the August 2007 collapse.

Last month, brackets used to attach the header pipe to new fiberglass supports in the east tower failed, causing a leak of about 100 gallons per minute. The leak was blamed on a faulty bracket design.

“The cooling towers have presented problems over the last two years with leaks due to faulty or degraded materials that comprise the towers,” stated DPS spokesman Stephen Wark, in an e-mail announcing the letter to the NRC. “We are asking the NRC to come back and do additional inspections to determine if this new development impacts safety or the seismically rated cells.”

If there is any “new and significant information,” that arises from this latest leak, wrote Sheehan, the NRC has the option of keeping the special inspection open to further evaluate the cooling towers.

“We’ll review (O’Brien’s) request and respond to it in a timely manner,” wrote Sheehan. “As we’ve noted in the past, our primary focus is on the safety-related cell in the west cooling tower since that could, under some very low-probability scenarios, be needed for the shutdown of the plant.”

One cooling fan cell of the west tower is specially designed to withstand natural disasters such as an earthquake or hurricane. The NRC’s special inspection team came to Vernon to evaluate the safety cell’s integrity in light of the recent problems with the cooling towers.

Entergy, which owns and operates Vermont Yankee, has applied to the NRC to extend the power plant’s operating license for another 20 years, from 2012 to 2032. The NRC has indicated it has found no significant safety or environmental reasons for not issuing the license renewal and is expected to release it final decision in November.

Vermont’s Public Service Board is conducting hearings to determine whether Yankee should receive a certificate of public good to continue operations past 2012. The PSB must decide whether keeping the plant online for another 20 years is in the best interest of Vermonters.

The state Legislature also has the power to prohibit continued operation of the plant.

To inform both the PSB and the Legislature, “a thorough, independent, and public assessment of the reliability of the systems, structures, and components of the Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee facility” was authorized by the state.

“Our comprehensive vertical audit inspection team will be looking at the failures from a reliability standpoint through engineering and management assessments,” wrote Wark.

A spokesman for Vermont Yankee said plant managers were working with DPS and the NRC to make sure both agencies get the information they need. The spokesman had no comment on the DPS request for additional inspections.

“The NRC will do what is appropriate,” said Larry Smith. “They’ve been fully briefed on the cooling tower issue.”

The plant was expected to be back up to 100 percent early Friday night.

Original article: http://www.reformer.com/ci_10516112

Wake up, all you Harrys

http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/

Please have a look. Paul Fusco’s photos were what made indesputible the photos my friend had brought back from Pripyat and the area around the plant.

Twenty three years ago, the area looked a lot like southern Vermont. Until their nuclear power plant had an accident. Now it is expected to take up to 20,000 years (as if) for that piece of earth to heal from the contamination.

Entergy Corporation wants to extend the license of Vermont Yankee for another 20 years — that’s TWENTY YEARS beyond the date that the original architects designed it to operate for,

Are we safe from accidents?

June 18, 2004 - Fire at Vermont Yankee

June 18, 2004 - Fire at Vermont Yankee

August 21, 2007

August 21, 2007

 I said, are we SAFE FROM ACCIDENTS at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee?

HELL NO. WAKE THE HELL UP.