Entergy: Fear should not be PSBa guide

Entergy: Fear should not be PSBa guide

There are 59 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Aug 12, 2009, titled Entergy: Fear should not be PSBa guide. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

Unsubstantiated claims and arguments submitted to the Vermont Public Service Board by parties opposed to the relicensing of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant should not stand in the way of the plant's continued operation past 2012.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Poppycock

Brattleboro, VT

#1 Aug 13, 2009
Balderdash!
Hmmm

Holyoke, MA

#2 Aug 13, 2009
Sounds pretty reasonable, once you take the emotion out of the equation.
kkrevetski

Rutland, VT

#3 Aug 13, 2009
The NRC promised Vermont a national repository for radioactive spent fuel rods as a condition of allowing VY to be built here. Time is up.
In the 1980’s, the NRC’s believed that environmental soundness of on-site storage extended only for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life span of operating reactors. Today, with most nuclear reactors coming to end of their lifespan, the NRC has now expanded that timeline to suit the nuclear industry. Now they tell us that spent fuel can be safely and securely stored on site for at least 100 years without significant environmental impact. Vermont and our future generations now own it while Entergy works with their lawyers to spin it off to a front. Unlike people suffering the effects of old age, they wants us to believe that storage of radioactive spent fuel has improved with age… like fine wine. VY’s 103-ton dry casks were built before 9/11 and were designed to last about 20 years. The NRC now reports that cask certification process is expensive and cumbersome, which has deterred some manufacturers from attempting to design and certify new packages so we have to settle in using these huge vintage casks that are completely visible by airplane and are stored at or near the flood plain level but they don’t believe the floodplains flood either. VY has already produced over 500 metric tons of highly toxic material uranium, plutonium and numerous elements like neptunium, americium, and curium with plutonium-239 being hazardous for 250,000 years. Safe and reliable is the discussion now not that Entergy and the NRC now believe the plant should be mothballed for our children to clean up.
Jan Hale

Plainfield, VT

#4 Aug 13, 2009
It costs everybody involved to file frivolous complaints.
The anti nuclear groups lose credibility when such complaints are filed, the PSB wastes time and human resources, Vermont Yankee is forced to focus on irrelevant complaints instead of safety and running the plant, and it is ratepayers who will ultimatly pick up the tab.
Whit

Rochester, VT

#5 Aug 13, 2009
Keep in mind that Entergy has failed to supply the data to the state that the state specifically requested. Now their claim is that the negative assessments of the plant are not based on data. And they still want to spin off ownership of the plant so as to relieve the parent company of responsibility for the costs of decommissioning.

Personally, I'm for continued operation of the plant. But not with Entergy or its spin-off company in charge. They're just too sleazy. It should be a condition of continued operation that Entergy either (1) top of the decommissioning fund now while committing not to spin off the plant, or (2) sell the plant to a more responsible corporation, with the requirement that the decommissioning fund be immediately made whole.

Since: Nov 08

United States

#6 Aug 13, 2009
it doesn't matter who owns VY, it never has in the past and it won't in the future, the antis will still plead that the owners are sleazy and untrustworhty, that it's a jalopy leaking radiation filling their organic whole living selves with evil.It will always be something. It's always been that way and Entergy has not owned the plant all that long. It's just a ploy in their sick uninhabited minds.

Think, state of VT and antis, of the grief, aggravation, and the amount of wasted time you have caused the owners and such of VY.
kkrevetski

Rutland, VT

#7 Aug 13, 2009
Entergy made billions last year paying their CEO 26 million yet they have not maintained their VY reactor and they are refusing to fund the decommissioning fund. The latest Vermont Yankee Reliability studies are available on the DPS website and reports that Vermont Yankee is now considered among the 25 worst nuclear plants in the United States according to the “Equipment Reliability Index”
VY’s main transformer is not off-the shelf or an in stock item from a manufacturer. To obtain a replacement transformer in a timely manner could potentially take several years for delivery according to this reliability study. The current designated spare transformer at VY is a previously broken one that was removed from service prior to the uprate of the plant. The transformer was experiencing gassing issues. The spare transformer, the broken one, is considered to be the backup if the currently installed transformer fails, but the gassing issue in this broken transformer was not repaired.
According to this reliability study, VY’s condenser has been in operation for 37 years. Yet most nuclear power plants replace their condensers between 20 and 30 years of operation. You think it was working well. Not according to the this reliability study:“VY recognizes that they have issues involving the plant’s condensers. Chemistry index continues on an adverse trend. The options to retube or replace the condenser with erosion resistant materials to mitigate these effects or to increase demineralizer capabilities are on hold until the decision is made regarding the plant license extension. Actually, Entergy is delaying the repairs until 2014.

Previously, VY had a stable workforce. However, the study notes that there has been an influx of new employees, especially in the Operations Department and the Maintenance Department Electrical and Instrument and Controls sections. These newer individuals are thought to be more dependent upon detailed procedure guidance. In recognition of these procedure shortcomings, ENVY supposedly developed an action plan to improve station procedures that supersedes the procedure efforts previously ongoing in the Maintenance Department. NSA review found VY procedures were technically correct but not up to current industry standards as they lacked specific guidance with ‘if desired” and “when necessary” statements, which left it open to interpretation and judgment by workers.
NSA also found issues with Human Performance at VY that did not meet expectations and even with training, the issues are ongoing. Benchmark data showed that ENVY is in the bottom quartile with respect to OSHA employee reportable incidents when compared to the sister plants.
Entergy is paying the Vermont Department of Health for their oversight which has been good for Entergy (they too forgot to monitor the radiation off the dry storage casks but abominable for Vermont public health. This is what we are able read off the website. We learn the rest from their continued noncompliance being revealed as oversights. These are the facts. See for yourself.

Since: Nov 08

United States

#8 Aug 13, 2009
kkrevetski wrote:
Entergy made billions last year paying their CEO 26 million yet they have not maintained their VY reactor and they are refusing to fund the decommissioning fund. The latest Vermont Yankee Reliability studies are available on the DPS website and reports that Vermont Yankee is now considered among the 25 worst nuclear plants in the United States according to the “Equipment Reliability Index”
VY’s main transformer is not off-the shelf or an in stock item from a manufacturer. To obtain a replacement transformer in a timely manner could potentially take several years for delivery according to this reliability study. The current designated spare transformer at VY is a previously broken one that was removed from service prior to the uprate of the plant. The transformer was experiencing gassing issues. The spare transformer, the broken one, is considered to be the backup if the currently installed transformer fails, but the gassing issue in this broken transformer was not repaired.
According to this reliability study, VY’s condenser has been in operation for 37 years. Yet most nuclear power plants replace their condensers between 20 and 30 years of operation. You think it was working well. Not according to the this reliability study:“VY recognizes that they have issues involving the plant’s condensers. Chemistry index continues on an adverse trend. The options to retube or replace the condenser with erosion resistant materials to mitigate these effects or to increase demineralizer capabilities are on hold until the decision is made regarding the plant license extension. Actually, Entergy is delaying the repairs until 2014.
Previously, VY had a stable workforce. However, the study notes that there has been an influx of new employees, especially in the Operations Department and the Maintenance Department Electrical and Instrument and Controls sections. These newer individuals are thought to be more dependent upon detailed procedure guidance. In recognition of these procedure shortcomings, ENVY supposedly developed an action plan to improve station procedures that supersedes the procedure efforts previously ongoing in the Maintenance Department. NSA review found VY procedures were technically correct but not up to current industry standards as they lacked specific guidance with ‘if desired” and “when necessary” statements, which left it open to interpretation and judgment by workers.
NSA also found issues with Human Performance at VY that did not meet expectations and even with training, the issues are ongoing. Benchmark data showed that ENVY is in the bottom quartile with respect to OSHA employee reportable incidents when compared to the sister plants.
Entergy is paying the Vermont Department of Health for their oversight which has been good for Entergy (they too forgot to monitor the radiation off the dry storage casks but abominable for Vermont public health. This is what we are able read off the website. We learn the rest from their continued noncompliance being revealed as oversights. These are the facts. See for yourself.
You seriously don't have a clue. No offense, but you need to get facts that are not provided to you by the reformer or information Audette leads you too. I know many people who work there, it's actually one of the safest plants. This is the problem, people pretending to be educated on a topic when they are really illiterate on the whole industry.
intheEPZ

Bedford, NH

#9 Aug 13, 2009
There we have it, folks. Entergy's plans for post 2032? decommission? heck no, lets just extend for another 20-40-60 yrs, or maybe convert it to a MOX nuke, and use dirty plutonium fuel. Or maybe site another reactor or two. Make Vermont the greenest state in the country, per capita. A Glowing report, thanks Bob Audette.
Ray Shadis

Holyoke, MA

#10 Aug 13, 2009
intheEPZ wrote:
There we have it, folks. Entergy's plans for post 2032? decommission? heck no, lets just extend for another 20-40-60 yrs, or maybe convert it to a MOX nuke, and use dirty plutonium fuel. Or maybe site another reactor or two. Make Vermont the greenest state in the country, per capita. A Glowing report, thanks Bob Audette.
Why not? Sounds like there is money to be made.
flat lander

United States

#11 Aug 14, 2009
talk about making money on this as like you for the last decade and beyond C-notes for you and millions for them is it the right thing or the money thing on which side of the fence. Just like the sun the closest you get the warmer it is. oh ok just step back but better look where your stepping while backing up. If you were to turn around and look and they said not to would you to turn into a salt statue.
Wally

Tampa, FL

#12 Aug 14, 2009
Why listen to factal evidence when the unsupported legal arguments, perceptions and anecdotes are so much more fun to hear and ponder. I would never have heard of "Cow Power" were it not called out as a replacement for VY in one of these anecdotes. Wonder how many Vermont greenies pay the extra $0.04/kwh to get their electricity from cows.
PChildress

Lynchburg, VA

#13 Aug 14, 2009
kkrevetski wrote:
The NRC promised Vermont a national repository for radioactive spent fuel rods as a condition of allowing VY to be built here. Time is up.
In the 1980’s, the NRC’s believed that environmental soundness of on-site storage extended only for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life span of operating reactors. Today, with most nuclear reactors coming to end of their lifespan, the NRC has now expanded that timeline to suit the nuclear industry. Now they tell us that spent fuel can be safely and securely stored on site for at least 100 years without significant environmental impact. Vermont and our future generations now own it while Entergy works with their lawyers to spin it off to a front. Unlike people suffering the effects of old age, they wants us to believe that storage of radioactive spent fuel has improved with age… like fine wine. VY’s 103-ton dry casks were built before 9/11 and were designed to last about 20 years. The NRC now reports that cask certification process is expensive and cumbersome, which has deterred some manufacturers from attempting to design and certify new packages so we have to settle in using these huge vintage casks that are completely visible by airplane and are stored at or near the flood plain level but they don’t believe the floodplains flood either. VY has already produced over 500 metric tons of highly toxic material uranium, plutonium and numerous elements like neptunium, americium, and curium with plutonium-239 being hazardous for 250,000 years. Safe and reliable is the discussion now not that Entergy and the NRC now believe the plant should be mothballed for our children to clean up.
KK, where in the world do you get your "facts"? The spent fuel storage casks designed in the 1980's were designed to last well over one hundred years, and I helped design them! Give me one credible source for your information and the failure mode that source used. The materials used are highly reinforced concrete and stainless steel, gee those are the same things used for windmills, guess those will collapse in 20 years too.

And how has 500 metric tons been created in a reactor? A small portion of the uranium is changed into other elements (plutonium, iodine, etc) during the fission process, but no new mass is created. Learn your physics before you try to teach it.
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#14 Aug 14, 2009
The problem with evidence is, the little people peons never get to inspect and eye ball a cask.
Anemone

Concord, NH

#15 Aug 14, 2009
Mike Mulligan wrote:
The problem with evidence is, the little people peons never get to inspect and eye ball a cask.
Most Vermonters would not recognize "La Moulade" by Henri Matisse if they eyeballed it. So what is your point?
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#16 Aug 14, 2009
So you are saying the Vermonters wouldn’t be able to perceive the beauty and emotions in his pictures? They wouldn’t recognize he had something special in his hands.

Does the name even matter, would you think less of the paintings if you didn’t know who painted it.

The point is you ask for evidence, but we are never granted access to it, and allow us to collect what we want.

You say you have this painting of a pretty naked women...but we can never see it?
Anemone

Concord, NH

#17 Aug 14, 2009
Thank you for illustrating my point so beautifully, the painting is not of a naked women it is a landscape. If you have no idea what you are looking for, how is it you understand once you have found it?
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#18 Aug 14, 2009
You know, fundamentally emotions are critical for creating and storing memories.

And emotions are fundamental for usable intelligence and accessing memories.

He taps into our memories with rudimentary brush stokes...but it represents beautiful seascape images already in our collective heads. The magic is not that it is beautiful...it is beautiful to so many people.

It comes from the mystery of our massively parallel brains, billion of neurons...the intermingling of memories and emotions.

That painting is exquisite, because our brains are exquisite and beautiful beyond understanding!

Matisse did paint a lot of naked bodies...he made regular bodies beautiful. He made caricatures of human bodies beautiful and interesting.
Mike Mulligan

Roslindale, MA

#19 Aug 14, 2009
That painting is so beautiful, only because evolution and our cosmos is so exquisitely beautiful.

Does that make our suffering beautiful?
Sheffrey

Grass Valley, CA

#20 Aug 15, 2009
Vermont is lucky to have a nuclear power plant that is already built and operating. Green nuclear power is the only practical long-term solution to (1) ameliorate global warming,(2) avoid dependence on foreign oil/gas, and (3) overcome oil/gas depletion after 2040. Only two prime energy sources, coal and uranium, can affordably deliver terawatts of "mother" electricity for:(A) heavy industry, i.e. manufacture of autos, ships, airplanes, etc; (B) power for vast fleets of future electric plug-in autos; and (C) production of portable synfuels (hydrogen and ammonia) and biofuels for long-haul propulsion of land-, sea-, and air-craft when oil is gone. However coal worsens global warming and must be preserved as raw material to make organics and plastics when oil is gone. This leaves uranium as the only "big-mama" green energy source, an "inconvenient truth".
Green solar and wind energy are useful for small-quantity power generation in select locations. But at terawatt levels, immense areas of land and/or sea would be needed, necessitating enormous maintenance operations, spoiling scenic land- or sea-scapes, and destroying local ecosystems. As scientifically documented in "The Nuclear Imperative" (ISBN 1-4020-4930-7), after 2050 only uranium and thorium can affordably sustain global energy needs for at least 3000 years, using proven fuel reprocessing and advanced reactor technology. For the USA, 500 additional nuclear reactors are required, built on 9000 acres (@$1.5 trillion), compared to 1,500,000 windmills with storage batteries on 6,000,000 windy acres (@$4.5 trillion) and the destruction of natural wildlife habitats. Ten times these numbers are needed world-wide.(Costs in 2005 dollars; for later years multiply by the inflation factor).
Contrary to false propaganda by anti-nuclear groups, the cost of tera-watts of electricity is three times less expensive with nuclear than for wind or solar. Solar and wind power generation requires expensive energy storage systems (batteries, etc) when there is no sunshine or wind. Also many miles of access roads for maintenance and repair are needed to keep blades or solar panels clean from bird droppings, dead birds, sand erosion, and storm damage, and to periodically replace electrodes on storage batteries. Should the USA limit itself to solar and wind energy, it is guaranteed to become impoverished and dependent on synfuels imported from other countries (future OPECs --> OSECs), who have nuclear power when oil fields are depleted.
Today's nuclear power plants are absolutely safe. Because of the negative "coefficient of reactivity", reactor fuel elements can only melt (an explosion is not possible) during a maximum credible accident in which the emergency core cooling system totally fails. This was "experimentally" proven in the Three-Mile-Island (TMI) accident. A negative coefficient of reactivity means that neutron multiplication is automatically stopped when the temperature in the reactor gets too high. The Russian Chernobyl reactor which took the lives of 57 people, had a positive coefficient of reactivity because it used graphite as moderator. That design for nuclear power plants was prohibited in the USA since the birth of nuclear power in 1950 and now prohibited worldwide. Furthermore the Chernobyl reactor had no containment vessel, as was/is the law in all Western countries and now globally. The assertion that perhaps thousands of people could still die from the fallout around Chernobyl is nonsense. Of the 60,000 inhabitants of Pripyat who had been exposed to fallout, about 12,000 will die at an advanced age of cancer because worldwide 20% of all people ultimately die from cancer. To ascribe those 12,000 deaths to Chernobyl's fallout is equally ridiculous as claiming that such a death toll is due to drinking coffee because 20% of all people drink coffee.
Jeff W. Eerkens,
Adjunct Research Professor,
Nuclear Science and Eng'ng Institute
U of Missouri, Columbia, 65211

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Entergy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News S&WB taps New Orleans capital projects director... (Jan '14) Jan '14 setup 1
News Entergy Provides Preliminary Third Quarter Earn... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
News Entergy Corp. (ETR) Updates FY13 Earnings Guidance (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
News Entergy Recognized as Worldwide Leader in Clima... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Fukushima Radiati... 1
News Nuclear power plant in Mississippi emits smoke ... (Sep '13) Sep '13 BDV 2
News VY still lobbies for new license (Oct '10) Oct '12 Mike Mulligan 134
News Troubled Michigan nuclear plant shut down for m... (Apr '12) Apr '12 BDV 1
More from around the web