NRC helping Entergy Corp. in Vermont Yankee lawsuit

If anyone doubts that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn’t the least bit interested in the interests of the people, an exchange at a Senate hearing this week should remove any doubt. The NRC is squarely in the corner of the nuclear industry and considers the wishes of the people utterly irrelevant.

NRC staffers are working with the owners of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant in their lawsuit against the state of Vermont, and have been meeting with the Justice Department as well to enlist their assistance.  

And the NRC has refused a request by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders for information regarding a secret meeting of NRC commissioners to discuss the Vermont Yankee situation with the Justice Department.

Sanders later learned that the NRC has voted 3-2 to support Entergy Corp. in their lawsuit claiming that Vermont has overstepped its powers in refusing to grant the plant a license approval to continue operating.

In Senate hearings this week, NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko conceded that staffers from his agency had met with Entergy Corp officials to discuss the lawsuit. No similar meeting have been held with Vermont state officials or with representatives of any groups opposed to the relicensing. When asked about the secret meeting, Jaczko refused to discuss it.

“We generally like to keep those closed matters, “ he told the senators.

NRC stands by bogus Vermont Yankee license renewal

While the operators of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant were struggling to contain the seemingly endless leaks of radiated water at the 40-year-old plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission obediently approved a 20-year extension to its operating license. After all, they have a reputation to uphold. They have yet to turn down a single license renewal application.

“We believe that Entergy, through the exhaustive review we have done, meets all of the requirements and standards to be able to operate for another 20 years,” said NRC commissioner Gregory Jaczko at the time. Of course it was merely coincidence that the approval came just a few days after Jaczko received a letter from two influential Republican senators – neither one from Vermont, but one was from Louisiana, where Entergy Corp., is headquartered.

But despite Jaczko’s claim of an “exhaustive” review, they seemed to have “overlooked” two key points: Vermont Yankee has neither a water discharge permit nor a clean water certificate, both of which are required under the Clean Water Act. And given the contaminated groundwater surrounding the plant, and the threat to the Connecticut River, this is unlikely.

Does this bother them? Of course not!

A spokesman for the NRC told the Brattleboro Reformer today that it’s “doubtful” that the NRC would put a hold on its approval of the plant’s license.

U.S. Nuke plants to enter digital age – soon

Just when I thought the U.S. nuclear industry couldn’t get more pathetically ridiculous than it already is, a news item today proudly announces that a nuclear reactor in South Carolina will become the first in the country to have digital controls installed on its safety and operating equipment.

Think about it.

The technology they’ve been using to ensure the safety of everyone around them is no more advanced than your grandfather’s wind-up alarm clock and slide rule.

Pilgrim Nuclear goes on “unplanned” shutdown

As long as we’re on the subject of safety, the Pilgrim Yankee Nuclear power plant in Plymouth suddenly shut down two weeks ago. The company would only say it was “operator error,” but couldn’t say how long it would stay shutdown. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, meanwhile, said its sending a special investigative team to find out what happened, something that they’ve done only a handful of times before.

Seabrook concrete weakened by water seepage

Just up the coast from Plymouth is the Seabrook Nuclear plant in Seabrook, NH. A report issued last week found that groundwater was undermining the concrete housing of the cables that run the plant’s safety system. Leakage into the tunnels could short circuit the safety system. This was first discovered sometime last year, but not publicized until last week. No sense rushing things. The NRC is happy to report no danger to the public.

It might be useful to remember it wasn’t the earthquake that caused the meltdown at Fukashima, but water from the tsunami that short-circuited the backup safety system.

In Case of Nuclear Disaster, Don’t Call the President

I had always thought that should a major nuclear disaster occur, something like Fukashima, that the response would be in the hands of the president. Not so.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal points out that the sole authority for the response to an emergency lies with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. What measures to take to control the situation will come from the NRC chairman, currently Gregory Jaczko. As for evacuation orders, those have to come from state and local officials, not the president.

So what can we expect?

If history is any guide, their first response will be “there is no risk to the public.” This is what they always say whenever anything goes wrong at a nuclear plant. As for accurate information, forget it. It took three years before the true details of what happened at Three Mile Island became public.

During this ongoing crisis in Japan, information has been equally hard to come by. The mainstream news media has gone on to more important things – like Schwarzeneger’s love child and the royal wedding.

 You might recall that the news media was scrupulous in not calling what was going on a “meltdown.” Now that the media is no longer reporting anything about this, the nuclear agency in Japan last week conceded that a meltdown had indeed occurred at one of the reactors. You might also recall that they kept saying how this wasn’t as bad as Chernobyl, but they eventually had to concede it’s pretty darn close.

Among the other things that have gone largely unreported – Congress has decided to cut funding for safety inspections and measures at nuclear power plants, as part of the emergency budget adopted to avoid a government shutdown.

Nuclear apologists in full-court press downplaying Japan disaster

To hear the nuclear industry’s lackeys describe it, the ongoing disaster in Japan is not much more than an inconvenience.

Let’s start with our friends at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Their position is, as always, “no threat to the public safety, no need to worry.” And of course, there’s the ever-popular “it can’t happen here,” line of argument, because our nuclear power plants are so much better. Just take a look at Vermont Yankee – it’s been leaking radioactive tritium for more than a year, and a cooling tower collapsed for no other reason than it was badly built.

Their position is contradicted by the facts. First, U.S. Navy ships heading to Japan changed course when their instruments detected high levels of radiation in the air. The explanation? Their instruments were too sensitive.

Then there was Callie Crossley, Boston media commentator, appearing on CNN, objecting to the use of the word “meltdown” when all the reactor did was explode. She said she felt much better that it wasn’t actually melting down. Now officials are referring to a “partial” meltdown, whatever that might be.

And then there was an NBC correspondent this evening whose story was that the quake/tsunami victims had more the worry about than a little radiation.

All these reports, and plenty of others, seem to be designed to lull the public into thinking that we should plunge on with more nuclear plants. Where are the calls to re-think this idea?