( – promoted by Sue Prent)
My my. Another lawsuit? Wow. As all VY watchers await the next chapter in the “VY v VT” lawsuit — that is the decision to be handed down by Judge Murtha, just when ya think we’re lawsuited-out, here comes another one.
– Currently, Entergy Louisiana is suing the state of VT claiming VT cannot stop the plant from operating if NRC has relicensed the plant.
– Previously, Entergy unsuccessfully attempted to recieve a court injunction to continue operation after the scheduled closure date of 3/12/2012 as the lawsuit winds its way through the courts.
– Some VY employees are suing VT claiming VT violated constitutional rights that they claim they are entitled to per the licenses they hold, that if they go to another plant they must reapply & are not guaranteed the positions they now hold.
– VT is also claiming VY license invalid because Entergy failed to include or seek the required water quality permit, appears NRC just rubberstamped the application.
Now VT utilities, GMP & CVPS are suing Entergy Louisiana claiming cooling tower collapse cost the utilities as well as ratepayers an unnecessary expense as a result of their negligence.
(See full press release below the fold.)
Press release via VTDigger:
http://vtdigger.org/2012/01/10…CVPS, GMP sue Entergy-Vermont Yankee over cooling tower failures
by Press Release | January 10, 2012For immediate release
January 10, 2012Source
MarketwireCOLCHESTER, VT-(Marketwire – January 10, 2012) – Seeking to recover costs resulting from Vermont Yankee cooling tower failures in 2007 and 2008, the state’s two largest distribution utilities have filed a lawsuit against Entergy-Vermont Yankee (Entergy) in Vermont Superior Court in Windham County.
“This case arises out of Entergy’s breach of its contractual obligation to use ‘Good Utility Practice’ in its management and operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station,” Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power said in a joint statement today. “Entergy’s failure to implement and exercise sound practices with respect to the maintenance, repair and improvements of the facility’s cooling towers caused tower failures in August 2007 and July 2008. The failures resulted in significantly reduced power output, which in turn deprived us of power due to us and our customers at specified, below-market prices.”
In the first instance, a tower failure on Aug. 21, 2007 caused the plant to reduce output by 65 percent for 11 days. A subsequent Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigation blamed the failure on over-tightened bolts and salt and fungal degradation that went undetected by Entergy. The NRC found the failure to find the problem was the result of Entergy’s reliance on “remote” inspections, rather than direct, hands-on inspections.
“In failing to carry out hands-on inspections, Entergy failed to take into account considerable and relevant industry operating experience that had previously identified the importance of that kind of direct examination,” CVPS and GMP said. “That led directly to the first tower failure.”
In the second tower failure in July 2008, the plant reduced output for 12 days. This failure was caused by failed pipe supports within the tower. In both cases, CVPS and GMP contend that Entergy’s failure to use “Good Utility Practice” led directly to the failures.
“The failures and omissions of Entergy in managing and operating Vermont Yankee led directly to both tower failures,” the companies said. “This was a clear breach of Entergy’s obligations under its power purchase agreement with CVPS and GMP.”
The companies are seeking compensatory damages of $6.6 million to cover increased power costs and lost capacity payments resulting from the tower failures, plus interest and all legal costs.
“We filed this action only after lengthy efforts to reach a settlement with Entergy,” the companies said. “Due to the statute of limitations and Entergy’s failure to accept responsibility for its failures and contract breaches, we reluctantly must take this action now.”
The companies have requested a trial by jury.
Some history:
Cooling tower collapse:
Video detailing some of the many ‘mishaps’ at the troubled plant:
http://vtdigger.org/2011/06/30…
http://vtdigger.org/2011/08/17…
by Olga Peters | June 24, 2011
http://vtdigger.org/2011/06/24…
http://vtdigger.org/2011/09/15…
CVPS and GMP see no reason not to burn any bridges with Entergy.
But it’s just business,nothing personal,they’re all mature corporate persons after all.
“Some VY employees are suing VT claiming VT violated constitutional rights that they claim they are entitled to per the licenses they hold, that if they go to another plant they must reapply & are not guaranteed the positions they now hold.”
Those poor workers were blindsided because no one had any clue that VY would have a 40 year lifespan – nobody saw that one coming. And they are suing because we live in a rigidly controlled communist state where everyone is guaranteed their perfect, dream job for life.
“…appears NRC just rubberstamped the application”
That is the NRC’s job: rubber stamping everything the nuclear power industry demands.
That is why everyone hates the current NRC chair. He seems to think that the NRC is some kind of regulatory body and not just a sinecure.
It is well established that no nuclear power plant anywhere on earth has ever had any problems, that there is no use for a regulatory agency (the Republicans are right, we have to abolish regulations, especially the NRC!), and all nuclear power workers are infallible and can handle any possible problem. Everyone that isn’t a nuclear power worker should shut up and go away and let them do their jobs just as perfectly as they have for the last 60 years.
http://vermontdailybriefing.co…
http://www.greenmountaindaily….
http://greennuclearbutterfly.b…
VY Deepthroat contacts Arnie Gundersen:
page 24:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3013…
There’s more:
Plot thickens
Hmm. This happened shortly after the “ratepayer protection policy” expired. What a strange coincidence. Could it be that Entergy Louisiana was running down the clock to the expiration of the “ratepayer protection policy” required after the uprate by delaying repairs, so that VT ratepayers would be forced to foot the bill for their negligence:
Bernie intervenes:
http://sanders.senate.gov/news…
And here we are, once again, arriving at yet another chapter in the ongoing saga.