Deb Markowitz, Doug Racine, and Peter Shumlin have just released a joint letter announcing their plans to campaign together during the Democratic Gubernatorial Recount.

As we prepare for the recount process we wanted to share with you our united plan to ensure that no matter what the results of the recount are, we will beat Brian Dubie in November.

With the unofficial results showing Peter winning by 197 votes, we all agree that he should continue to campaign as the presumptive nominee. We’ve also agreed to campaign together while the recount takes place. Our vision for Vermont is dramatically different than Brian Dubie’s and as this process unfolds, it is critical that Vermonters understand the contrast between Brian’s vision and our own.

See the complete letter from the three highest vote getters in the primary below the fold.

I have been incredibly impressed by the Democratic candidates grace and unity throughout their campaigns, the primary election itself, the close vote, the unity rally, and now the decision to recount.  Each of the five candidates honor the meaning of being a Democrat in Vermont.  What’s your take?

As we prepare for the recount process we wanted to share with you our united plan to ensure that no matter what the results of the recount are, we will beat Brian Dubie in November.

With the unofficial results showing Peter winning by 197 votes, we all agree that he should continue to campaign as the presumptive nominee. We’ve also agreed to campaign together while the recount takes place. Our vision for Vermont is dramatically different than Brian Dubie’s and as this process unfolds, it is critical that Vermonters understand the contrast between Brian’s vision and our own.

We will all be working together over the coming days to ensure that the recount process happens as quickly and effectively as possible so the nominee has as much time as possible to beat Brian. In addition, the three of us will continue to work together to ensure that fundraising, staffing and other efforts essential to the campaign continue.

In many ways, this may have been the most extraordinary primary in the history of Vermont. All five opponents articulated their vision for Vermont without disparaging each other. The reason that roughly 75,000 Vermonters turned out to vote is because they were energized by these positive visions. Whatever the results of the recount, the Democratic nominee will have this energy, passion, and excitement behind them as they take on Brian Dubie.

Thank you for all of your support.

Best,

Doug, Peter and Deb  

Two weeks ago, I gave a house party for Peter Shumlin, the gubernatorial candidate I believe will best guide Vermont through the tough times ahead.  At the same time, I also committed to contribute $100 as one of the 1,000 Vermonters to say yes, we will support and contribute to whichever candidate wins the August 24 primary.  There are five main reasons I support Peter Shumlin for Governor:

1. Peter’s position on marriage equality.  As a Justice of the Peace, I experienced firsthand that civil unions were separate and unequal.  I admire Peter’s willingness to risk by fighting for landmark marriage equality legislation.

2. Peter’s position on the need for early childhood education.  Peter is dyslexic, my son is dyslexic, and as a teacher for seven years, I specialized in remediation for dyslexic students.  Peter understands the need for early childhood intervention in education.   Simply put, altering the course of a young life is easier than changing behaviors after someone becomes a teen or an adult.

3. Peter’s position on Vermont Yankee.  Behind the scenes and in the media, the Douglas/O’Brien team tried hard to thwart the Public Oversight Panel’s review of VY.  Peter fought hard behind the scenes to ensure that the legislative intent of Act 189 was met and that the Public Oversight Panel’s report was not emasculated.  

4. Peter works to move the legislative agenda by bringing diverse parties to the table.  This may not produce perfect legislation, but it ends legislative gridlock so common around the US.

5. Peter is a successful Vermont business owner.  I want a governor who knows how to create jobs in Vermont, grow businesses, and invests his own money in other Vermont businesses.

While the field of Democrats vying for Governor is the strongest in years, and all of them are well qualified, I believe Peter Shumlin has what Vermont needs in the tough times we face now.  

Interesting post just came up today on Seven Days regarding Susan Bartlett’s non-appearance at last night’s gubernatorial debate.  

Cathy Resmer’s post even shares Brian Dubie’s whereabouts.  

See it here:  http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010…

Apparently, the Democratic candidate for governor was scheduled to be at a gubernatorial candidate debate, and she passed up the opportunity to spend a few hours hanging out with members of the VTSDA and the Vermont Biosciences Alliance on the Spirit of Ethan Allen III. The event, incidentally, was sold out.

Check out the other people Resmer spotted on the lower deck:

State Auditor Tom Salmon, Lt. Governor hopeful Phil Scott, Secretary of State candidate Jason Gibbs, and Lt. Governor and gubernatorial candidate Brian Dubie among the attendees.

“But who watches the watchdog, especially if he shows signs of distemper?” wrote Ken Picard of Seven Days in his lengthy piece about the Vermont State auditor’s race in last week’s Seven Days entitled Which Watchdog.

 If the latest press and press releases are any indication, Vermont State Auditor Candidate Doug Hoffer isn’t shy about focusing on the facts and campaigning in the process.

More than a month ago, auditor candidate Hoffer chastised the other auditors currently campaigning for the seat, past auditor Ed Flanagan and current auditor Tom Salmon, for calculation errors in their campaign finance reports.  Last week Hoffer focused on the integrity required by the office (see quotes below), and now this week is chastising Tom Salmon for not releasing the audit of the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Fund that was requested by the state legislature almost three years ago.

According to Dan Barlow in the August 7 Rutland Herald article Policy analyst Doug Hoffer is proud to run on his record,

The mistakes – ranging from carry-over funds mysteriously showing up to double-reporting contributions to inflate the total – were embarrassing for his opponents, especially since they are running for an office that audits state government.

“I don’t think either of them had any bad intent, it was just sloppy work,” Hoffer said during a telephone interview this week from his Burlington home. “But considering the job they are running for, they shouldn’t have made these mistakes.

Maybe its Hoffer’s legal training or his 17-years as an independent business consultant to the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington, just to name two of his clients, but Hoffer appears to be on top of the facts, thorough in his research, and doesn’t mince words.

Hoffer’s press release this morning was entitled,

“Hoffer calls on Salmon to Release Overdue Entergy report”

Democratic candidate for State Auditor Doug Hoffer today asked Tom Salmon to explain why his office has not released an audit of the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund requested by legislators nearly three years ago.  

More below the fold…

In his direct email request to Salmon, Hoffer said,

From: drhoffer@comcast.net

To: tom.salmon@state.vt.us

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:26:47 AM

Subject: comment

Tom — It has now been almost three years since four state senators asked you to conduct an audit of the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund (letter sent 11/6/07).  The owners of the plant are gearing up for the coming legislative session and the information requested by the senators is extremely important.  I am unclear why it has taken so long to complete the audit but policymakers and the public need to see it.  I hope you will release the audit as soon as possible.

Thank you – Doug Hoffer

The firm I founded in 2003 and incorporated in 2005, Fairewinds Associates, Inc, first alerted the State Legislature to the issue of the lack of funding in the fall of 2007.  Until I read Hoffer’s press release today, I had forgotten all the details and efforts leading up to our report(s), subsequent legislative action, and the complete lack of action by current auditor Tom Salmon for more than 3-years!  

Hoffer included this letter, which I had totally forgotten about, in his press release.  With all the oversight work Fairewinds has done on Vermont Yankee and on the lack of money in its decommissioning fund, I had forgotten that Senator Shumlin; Senator Cummings; Senator MacDonald, and Senator Lyons had written to auditor Salmon requesting a complete review almost 3-years ago.  My experience with the auditor began months before this letter and the issuance of the Fairewinds’ Report.

November 6, 2007

Dear Tom:

We are writing to express our concern about the status of the fund for decommissioning Entergy Nuclear’s Vermont Yankee power plant in Vernon.  The enclosed information, compiled by Fairewinds Associates, Inc., raises serious questions about the size of the fund relative to projected decommissioning costs, the management of the fund by Entergy Nuclear, and the corporate structure of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee relative to its parent company and the potential ramifications of that structure for Vermont taxpayers.

As legislative leaders, it is our responsibility to ensure that the decommissioning fund – which is composed of ratepayer dollars – is managed and used in a way that best benefits the State and its citizens.  We would like to request an independent audit by your office to explore whether or not this is the case.

Senator Shumlin; Senator Cummings; Senator MacDonald, and Senator Lyons

Fairewinds Associates, Inc is a paralegal services and expert witness firm that I founded in 2003 after earning my paralegal certificate from Burlington College.  My intent upon my career change from teaching to paralegal was to work with kids in juvenile justice, but a request by New England Coalition for my services in the Vermont Yankee Uprate Case before the Public Service Board started me down a different path.  The request came because in addition to my paralegal background, I also had years of experience in the nuclear industry, first in nuclear reload core design as an engineering assistant and later in nuclear public relations, sort of the female Rob Williams of the site to which I was assigned.

Now nearly 85% of my Fairewinds Associates’ business revolves around nuclear safety and nuclear engineering issues with the remaining 15% divided between basic paralegal services on small business or personal contracts (rental agreements, etc) and pro-bono child abuse work.

In July 2007, with Fairewinds 4-year history in nuclear safety and engineering analysis, we went to newly elected auditor Tom Salmon to ask for clarification regarding significant discrepancies Fairewinds Chief Engineer Arnie Gundersen and I had found in the VY decommissioning fund.  We met with auditor Salmon and members of his staff several times during that summer and early fall.  We asked questions and provided them with all the information we had.  

I had assumed that the auditor would have answers to some of our questions.  He did not.  I hoped we would get answers quickly so that we could speak with legislators during the fall and the legislature could address Fairewinds’ concerns beginning in January.  I did not want to see VT taxpayers stuck with a huge tax liability when VY was decommissioned because the fund was underfunded.  

I felt like I was sending this critical information into a black hole.  I was told that the auditor had more important issues on his desk and it might be many, many months before he would be able to adequately review this issue.  Of great concern to me was the fact that I was not just asking Salmon to review VY’s fund, although that is the auditor’s job, but I was also asking for information as a member of the public and as a taxpayer with legitimate concerns.  Neither of which I received.  

Finally, I took my Fairewinds’ internal document, bundled it and took it to the only person I knew at the time who might be interested, Senator Virgina Lyons.  I picked Senator Lyons because she was the Chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and one of the Chittenden County Senators I had met at several events.  Senator Lyons was stunned by Fairewinds analysis and took it for review by Senator Shumlin, Campbell, and Cummings, all of whom were equally concerned and therefore requested the audit from Tom Salmon.

Back to present time, Hoffer said in today’s press release:

“These were not idle thoughts by the senators,” said Hoffer.  “Their concerns were based on information provided by Fairewinds Associates about the adequacy and management of the funds.”  

Shortfalls in the decommissioning fund led to passage of S.373 in 2008 that required Entergy to guarantee funding now instead of decades hence.  The bill was subsequently vetoed by Governor Douglas but the issue is alive and unresolved.  

“With Vermont Yankee’s owners gearing up for a fight in the next legislative session, it is critical that legislators and the public have access to the audit,” Hoffer said.

Hoffer noted that the Auditor was visited by officials from Entergy during the legislative debate over S.373.  Shortly thereafter Salmon sent a letter to all legislators expressing concern that “S.373 could add undue risk to the state.”  The letter was sent on April 22, 2008, over five months after the Auditor was asked to audit the decommissioning fund.

But Hoffer asked “having not completed the audit, on what basis did Salmon decide that S.373 ‘could add undue risk to the state.'”  

Hoffer continued, “We will never know what transpired in those conversations between Tom Salmon and Entergy officials, but it is not unreasonable to ask whether Mr. Salmon feels at all biased or personally impaired in the matter.  

Government Auditing Standards make it clear that ‘auditors…must be free from personal impairments’ to objectively carry out their duties.”  

Hoffer concluded, “In any event, two and a half years ought to be sufficient to complete even the most complex audit.  The legislature needs the requested information and Tom Salmon should release the audit and explain why it has taken so long (and tell us the cost of the audit as well).”

Doug Hoffer’s quote that

Government Auditing Standards make it clear that ‘auditors…must be free from personal impairments’ to objectively carry out their duties.

really struck me and reminded me of Hoffer’s Opinion piece sent out last week and featured in full in VTDigger entitled Hoffer: As auditor, I will ensure taxes are spent effectively

The State Auditor is the elected official responsible for ensuring the integrity of every tax dollar spent. In carrying out that responsibility, the Auditor’s office itself must conduct its business with the highest integrity.

As Auditor, I will restore the integrity of the office. I will do this in two ways: first, by adhering to a personal code of conduct appropriate to the Auditor’s position, and by revitalizing the office to be a robust watchdog for Vermont taxpayers.

I believe confidence in the State Auditor is at a new low because of personal conduct issues. Of most concern to me is the use of taxpayer dollars for political campaign use. This has been well-documented and reported, and yet it bears repeating.

As a business owner who brought an issue of legitimate concern forward to our state auditor, I am appalled that in more than three years, Salmon has been unable to write a report that was almost written for him.  The issues raised by Fairewinds became part of a large national story broken by Vermont AP Reporter Dave Gram, that showed that more than 25% of operating nuclear power plants have seriously underfunded decommissioning funds.  Vermont’s Auditor could have been leading the country in uncovering this critical issue.  

Now all I see in Salmon is someone hiding and most likely manipulating data in order to attempt to boost his election credibility with a report release during the last 3-months of his reelection bid!

I remember when I first moved to Vermont in 2001, how impressed I was with reports from the auditor’s office.  To me this seemed like a great state where an elected official had the awesome responsibility of protecting the taxpayers of the State of VT.  



Doug Hoffer gives me the confidence that he will protect all of us from the over-reaching arm of any corporation as well as any state agency.  

I think Hoffer is already doing the job he will be elected to do in November – if you vote.

**********

PS

I wondered, isn’t there some type of oath that state officers must take to uphold the integrity of the office???  I know that I take an oath with documents I prepare; I take an oath as a Justice of the Peace and as a notary public; and I take an oath as a City of Burlington Public Works Commissioner.

Here is the oath of office that I found in the Vermont Constitution that State Officers like Tom Salmon take:

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE; OATH OF OFFICE

§ 56. Oaths of allegiance and office (notes)

Every officer, whether judicial, executive, or military, in authority under this State, before entering upon the execution of office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation of allegiance to this State, (unless the officer shall produce evidence that the officer has before taken the same) and also the following oath or affirmation of office, except military officers, and such as shall be exempted by the Legislature.

The Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance

You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will be true and faithful to the State of Vermont and that you will not, directly or indirectly, do any act or thing injurious to the Constitution or Government thereof. (If an affirmation) Under the pains and penalties of perjury.

The Oath or Affirmation of Office

You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will faithfully execute the office of __ for the __ of __ and will therein do equal right and justice to all persons, to the best of your judgment and ability, according to law. (If an oath) So help you God. (If an affirmation) Under the pains and penalties of perjury.

Late last night a friend of mine in Washington, DC wrote to tell me that Michele Boyd at Physicians for Social Responsibility in DC was alerting folks that the Senate Appropriations Committee will take action today on its Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2011.

Currently, what’s proposed, which we just learned late yesterday, is:

$10 billion in new nuclear loan guarantees (that’d be enough to finance another new reactor, at taxpayer financial risk)

$7 billion in fossil fuel loan guarantees

Up to $3.8 billion in renewables and efficiency loan guarantees.

This notice and a subsequent conversation early this morning concerned me greatly, so I wrote to both Senator Leahy and Senator Sanders.  

This winter, Fairewinds Associates’ chief engineer Arnie Gundersen uncovered a significant safety flaw in the new generation of nuclear plants, the AP1000.  The NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) took his report so seriously that it asked Arnie to testify in late June for more than an hour.  These are the reactors that the Senate is considering for loan guarantees.

The entire letter I sent to Vermont’s Senators is posted after the fold.

In response to my letter and emails, I received the following responses from our Senators.

From Senator Leahy’s staff this morning:

We are hearing rumors this issue may come up in the Appropriation Committee this afternoon.  If it does it will  be an amendment offered in Committee and not be a vote in the full Senate.

If an amendment is offered we believe it would be aimed at including additional funds to the loan guarantee program, which Senator Leahy will vote against.

More below the fold.

While today’s vote is limited to the appropriations committee and will not come to the full Senate floor, Senator Sanders’ staff notified me that the appropriate staff will read the letter and also pass it on to the Senator.

As I said in my letter to the Senators:

Burdening U.S. taxpayers with tens of billions dollars of additional liability for new reactors is not just unwise it is cavalier, given the industry’s inability to assure the safety of its technology, resolve interim or long-term radioactive waste storage issues, reduce the soaring capital costs of its proposed new reactors, and the industry’s history of cost overruns and default.  Moreover, Vermont’s taxpayers should not have to bear this outrageous tax burden for nuclear plants that have not been adequately reviewed and for which there is neither need nor adequate waste storage or terrorist protections.  The huge cost per kilowatt-hour for new nuclear power plants simply does not compute in today’s economy.

You may find Arnie Gundersen’s power point presentation here:  

http://www.fairewinds.com/AP10…

Here are the links to the whole report and the summary with technical drawings:

http://www.fairewinds.com/cont…

http://www.fairewinds.com/AP10…

Matt Wald of the New York Times featured Arnie’s testimony to the ACRS in the NY Time Green Energy Blog.  

Is a New Reactor Rust-Prone?  [The Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor]

By MATTHEW L. WALD, NYTIMES, 6/29/10

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com…

April 21, 2010, 3:27 PM

Critics Challenge Safety of New Reactor Design

By MATTHEW L. WALD

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com…

“…during the past year alone, Arnie and Fairewinds Associates have provided expert testimony to the NRC, State Public Service Commissions, and other agencies regarding the Fermi 3, Susquehanna, North Anna, Bellefonte, Beaver Valley, Levy County, Turkey Point 6 & 7, and Callaway nuclear power plants.  As a technical expert, Arnie also gave a key presentation at the Pennsylvania Statehouse delineating the actual concentration of radioactive isotopes released in Pennsylvania by the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.”  

“In addition to the research and report by Fairewinds Associates to the Florida Public Service Commission, former NRC Commissioner, Vermont resident, and Vermont Law School Adjunct Professor Peter Bradford, and Vermont Law School Adjunct Professor Dr. Mark Cooper have also given formal testimony regarding the extensive cost overruns on the new AP1000 units being proposed by FPL and Progress Energy.”

Leahy Sanders Nuclear Loan Guarantees 7-22-2010R

North Beach Park, Burlington, Vermont USA • (L to R) John Odum, Bill Peberdy (BP), Jack McCullough, Caoimhin Laochdha (in back), Julie Waters (with banjo), Sue Prent, Maggie Gundersen, John Ryan (JD) and Hobbes (Hamburg Summit Mascot) – Missing GMD writers: greenvtster, mataliandy NanuqFC, and kestrel9000 (Ed Garcia)

The Annual Hamburger Summit. There is no political barbecue quite like the Hamburger Summit, held jointly each year by VDB (Vermont Daily Briefing) and those of us here at GMD (Green Mountain Daily).

Some call us a motley crew, but here we are.  I couldn’t get hold of this photo to put it up with Julie’s post picnic post, so get the whole story from Julie here on GMD.

Once again, the Hamburg Summit, Blogger’s Picnic was a special event.  The weather held and this was one of the best weather days we’ve had for this event.

Our newer GMD members Sue Prent and BP, brought tons of food, and BP’s wife Amy relieved me from my time on the grill.  Julie wowed us all with banjo music.

Sue, you promised to share your special deviled egg recipe.

Linda from the NE Kingdom asked me to post two links regarding TMI and the new nukes proposed with federal loan guarantees, so Linda, here are the links:

The Three Myths of the Three Mile Island Accident

And, the AP1000 Nuclear Design Flaw Addressed by Arnie Gundersen Expert to NRC Safety Committee (ACRS)

Lastly to those who sometimes claim that GMD’ers are hiding behind phony pen names, that’s just not true.  If you had attended any of the other Hamburg Summits, you would have met the rest of the GMD motley crew who’s family or work commitments sadly precluded their attendance at the 2010 Summit.

I’m wishing you all a wonderful summer.  And, thanks Philip Baruth from Vermont Daily Briefing for organizing this years’ event and to Don Shall for the great GMD group photo.

Yesterday NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko made an unprecedented trip to Vermont to meet with seven intervenor and environmental groups to discuss ongoing safety and aging management issues at Vermont Yankee.

Jaczko had a 90-minute discussion with representatives from the New England Coalition, Citizens Awareness Network, Conservation Law Foundation, Vermont Public Interest Research group, Safe and Green, Nuclear Free in 2012, and the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance in Brattleboro followed by a private tour of Vermont Yankee and meeting with Entergy officials.

While I had a meeting and could not listen to the whole event on the phone bridge provided by NRC, I did hear the first few minutes during which Chairman Jaczko thanked Vermont State Representative Sarah Edwards for setting up this meeting with the representatives of the seven groups.  This statement received a round of applause from a majority of the group in attendance. In addition to the seven groups given time to speak, there were a myriad of observers from the press, the Congressional Delegations, state employees like Department of Health health physicist Dr. Bill Irwin, various elected officials, and concerned individuals.  I have asked for a transcript and will post it when it is available.  In the meantime Nuclear Free Vermont and VPIRG have sent me copies of their statements which are posted in their entirety below the fold.

James Moore of VPIRG was the last to speak and closed with the following points agreed upon by the seven groups.  Moore said,

To that end I have been asked by the group to share four requests with you:

1. Cease consideration of ENVY’s relicensing application promptly, and turn all regulatory focus toward ensuring safety during the transition to closure of the Vernon reactor, and implementation of comprehensive waste storage procedures. NRC should act with transparency to enforce its regulations and maintain strict vigilance so as to ensure against accidents, mishaps, and accidental releases in the interim.

2. Compile and disseminate a detailed plan for closure of Vermont Yankee. This plan should include a list of tasks and a timeline for their completion, in anticipation of closure in 2012. This plan should reflect NRC staff expertise, lessons learned from other reactors, and the particular expertise of people who have worked at Vermont Yankee or who have relevant knowledge of its operations.

3. Work with the licensee, state and local government officials, Entergy workers, independent experts and affected citizenry to form an advisory panel to advise and monitor activities directed toward a safe transition to closure.

4. Prepare and distribute monthly reports to update the public and elected officials about the closure process.

Ed Anthes of Nuclear Free Vermont, who posts often on Green Mountain Daily had the most detailed comments regarding Vermont Yankee’s key safety and reliability issues due to its age and condition.  He quoted specifically from the Legislature’s oversight of VY and its reliability issues.  See these and more information regarding Entergy’s response below the fold.

Ed Anthes of Nuclear Free Vermont focused on the recent assessment of VY ordered by the Vermont Legislature.  See Anthes entire statement at the end of this post.  

In 2008, the Vermont Legislature enacted a law requiring an inspection of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, to help ensure that legislators could make a responsible, informed choice when deciding if Vermont will switch to renewable energy sources, or allow Entergy Nuclear to operate their reactor in Vernon for twenty years past its design life.

A summary of the NSA inspectors’ evaluation is Appendix B, Vermont Yankee Benchmark Report.  The Benchmark Report compares Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to all other reactors in the US. ENVY ranks in the worst group of reactors in half of the benchmark measures compared. These include:

•Plant Overall Performance

•Production Cost

•Recordable Injuries

•Number of Systems Supervised by each System Manager

•Industry Equipment Reliability Performance

ENVY vs. Sister Plants Equipment Reliability Performance

ENVY ranks 10th worst of 12 similar reactors



ENVY vs. Entergy Fleet Equipment Reliability Performance

ENVY ranks 11th worst of 12 Entergy reactors

Equipment Reliability Index

The NSA report states: “The ER Index performance does not meet industry standards.”

In addition, the inspection report identified high personnel turnover, significant staffing vacancies, and poor levels of experience in two key departments: Maintenance and Equipment Reliability. As ENVY enters its final operating run, the importance of some of these critical deficiencies loom larger.

During the group’s closing remarks, VPIRG’s James Moore began his discussion emphasizing who VPIRG represents and then delineating breaches of NRC trust.  In VPRIG’s entire statement pasted at the end of this post, Moore said,

I am the clean energy program director for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG).  VPIRG is the largest consumer and environmental organization in Vermont and we have worked on Vermont Yankee related issues since 1972, when Vermont Yankee reactor was commissioned.

We are here today in part because Vermonters have good reason not to trust Entergy Vermont Yankee, and because we have good reason not to trust the NRC.  

This mistrust has grown out of NRC’s actions and apparent willingness to side with the nuclear industry at the expense of being straight with the public and putting safety first. Vermont Yankee is one of the oldest reactors in the country and we need a real cop on the beat.

Rutland Herald reporter Susan Smallheer has written a thorough recap of the meeting entitled NRC chair hears state has lost trust in his oversight.  VPR also interviewed Smallheer and you may listen to the Smallheer interview here.

Not all Vermonters have been happy with Chairman Jaczko’s meeting with the nuclear safety advocacy groups that both the press and the industry try to portray as simply biased anti-nukes.  

•Yesterday the Brattleboro Reformer posted a nasty editorial criticizing anti-nuclear activism and theatrics,

•The Vermont Energy Partnership sent a letter to Chairman Jaczko and the different newspapers and blogs criticizing the Chair’s private meeting.  

•Finally, pro-nuke blogs from around the country, led by Vermont’s own Nuclear Energy Institute’s connected Yes Vermont Yankee, also jumped in to condemn the NRC meeting with the Intervenors.

It is especially interesting to note that according to Source Watch the allegedly independent Vermont Energy Partnership includes Entergy Nuclear, IBM, Green Mountain Power, and former Governor Tom Salmon as key members.

See Membership List Here.

Pro-nuke blog Yes Vermont Yankee is written by an industry insider who makes her money working for the industry as does Rod Adams with his Atomic Insights.  Although they all portray themselves as independent concerned citizens, all receive income from the nuclear industry and are part of an online group that spreads the same biased throughout the country. Like the Vermont Energy Partnership, these blogs are heavily connected to the lobbyists and nuclear industry groups of which they claim to have an unbiased opinion.  [Don’t believe what I say, do the research yourself via SourceWatch and Google.]  

The pro-nuke blogs are similar to the resurrected I AM VY site, which features plant employees supposedly telling their own stories, although former Entergy legislative liaison Dave McElwee is no longer featured.  You may remember that he was the Entergy employee who denied the existence of buried underground pipes carrying radioactivity to the legislature and condemned my firm Fairewinds Associates, Inc for bringing this critical environmental issue forward to the Joint Fiscal Committee in a report and testimony.

Lastly, check out Vermont Digger for two key reports Jaczko verbatim: Trust gap is “something I’d like to improve” which includes a photo of Jaczko and Environmentalists blast Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman, which is a piece by Olga Peters of The Commons that came to Vermont Digger through a special arrangement with commonsnews.org.

Ed Anthes_ Nuclear Free Vermont Statement to NRC Chair Jaczko remarks 7-14-10

James Moore_ VPIRG Statement to NRC Chairman Jaczko 7-14-2010

When the Vermont Department of Health (DOH) does the heavy lifting, Entergy’s Vermont Yankee plant doesn’t have to lift a finger.  

STRONTIUM 90 FOUND IN MORE FISH according to the DOH website late Friday afternoon.

New fish samples taken from the Connecticut River on April 23 and analyzed by Vermont Yankee’s contract laboratory have tested positive for strontium-90 (Sr-90).

Concentrations of Sr-90 detected in the inedible portions of these fish are in the range of what would be expected as a result of fallout from nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s, and the Chernobyl release in 1986.

Specifically, the laboratory results for Sr-90 were 70 pCi/kg from fish taken near the plant in the Vernon Pool, and 100 pCi/kg from fish taken about 5 miles upstream, near the Route 9 bridge as it crosses the river north of Brattleboro. A New York study found background levels of Sr-90 in fish to be in the range of 120 to 360 pCi/kg

But of course, according to DOH, Strontium 90, which has not been found in fish in the CT River until recently is not due to the recent tritium and strontium leak from the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, but is due to old 1950’s bomb testing and the 1982 Chernobyl reactor accident.  

How convenient that

Vermont Yankee reported these latest test results to the Health Department on June 30.

and DOH was able to post it on their website late on the afternoon prior to one of the region’s biggest holidays… NEWS DUMP.

Want the truth about fish?  Ask David Dean River Steward for the Connecticut River Watershed Council.

It has already been a tough week for Vermont Yankee and Entergy, maybe that is why DOH took care of new piece of disturbing news.  

The first bad news for Entergy and Vermont Yankee was detailed by VPR’S John Dillon in Regulators Question Underwater Cables At Vermont Yankee notes that

Federal inspectors have called attention to a new potential safety problem at Vermont Yankee.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the plant has electric cables that are frequently submerged in water. That raises the possibility they could short-circuit and disable safety systems.

VPR’s John Dillon has more:

(Dillon) The NRC flagged the issue of the electric cables in a May 10 inspection report. The document says Entergy Vermont Yankee has allowed cables that control safety systems to be continually submerged in underground trenches.

The problem is the cables are not designed to be soaked in water. The NRC said this could cause the cables to degrade and fail. The report said – quote – “this finding is more than minor because if left uncorrected, the performance deficiency has the potential to lead to a more significant safety concern.”

Dillon is not just talking about reliability issues, but he is talking about the dreaded word safety concern.

The second shoe to drop for Entergy involves a submittal to the Public Service Board docket by the environmental advocacy group Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) against the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant

claiming the facility has violated the state’s latest groundwater public trust law.

, according to the Brattleboro Reformer

In a testimony filed with the state’s Public Service Board today, the Vermont Natural Resources Council asserts the tritium leak at the Vernon-based nuclear station breaches a 2008 act approved by the Legislature declaring groundwater is a public trust resource.

“Every Vermonter owns Vermont’s groundwater,” said Jon Groveman, the VNRC water program co-director.

“If Vermont Yankee is claiming they have not violated Vermont law because the groundwater they have polluted has not spread to drinking water wells off their property, they are wrong,” he said.

Third, it was announced today that NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko may visit Vermont Yankee in July according to the Rutland Herald.

NRC spokesperson Neil Sheehan said

it is not unusual for Jaczko and other NRC commissioners to visit nuclear plants, troubled or otherwise, but it coincides with some of the more troubled months of Vermont Yankee’s history, since a radioactive leak of tritium and other radioactive isotopes was confirmed in January.

“The chairman and Commissioners visit nuclear power plants all the time. It affords them the opportunity to familiarize themselves with specific sites and, on occasion, meet with stakeholders to hear their concerns,” Sheehan said in an e-mail.

No wonder Vermont Yankee did not want to let all the press know about more contaminated fish and needed some DOH help with the NEWS DUMP.  Hope folks along the Connecticut River aren’t planning any fish fries for the holiday weekend.  Best to throw them back.

Kagan Supreme Court Hearings – Listen to live audio of Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings beginning at 12:30pm ET on VPR

UPDATEVPR has Senator Leahy’s prepared opening remarks here.

We meet today to consider President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. Just last year, this Committee and the Senate reviewed her record, and a bipartisan majority voted to confirm her to be the Solicitor General, the top lawyer representing the United States before the Supreme Court. With her confirmation, Solicitor General Kagan became the first woman in America’s history to serve in that position, often referred to as the “Tenth Justice.” She was nominated to be Solicitor General while serving as Dean of Harvard Law School, the first woman to hold that position in the school’s 193-year history.

Today’s National Law Journal (NLJ) has a terrific interview with Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the confirmation hearings today for the possible appointment of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice.  

In his post Managing the Kagan Confirmation Hearing, author David Ingram queries Senate Judiciary chairman Leahy as to why “questions about the nominee’s personal life are off-limits”.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has participated in the confirmation hearing for every U.S. Supreme Court justice since Sandra Day O’Connor’s in 1981.

The National Law Journal: With President Obama’s nominees, you often use your first question to ask about a controversial subject. For example, your first question to Eric Holder was about waterboarding. Would you say you try to deflate the opposition in these hearings?

Sen. Patrick Leahy: No, I want to learn as much as I can about the person, especially on a significant nomination. My questions are usually designed to answer things that I’m most interested in. And if it goes into controversial issues, obviously I assume that a lot of people are interested in the same issues.

My favorite part of the interview is here:

Leahy: I went through a great deal of questions with her privately and in the hearing when she was up for solicitor general. I will ask more when she’s before us for this confirmation hearing. Primarily, I want the American people to hear from her. I think we can do a great service to the American public by making sure they get some sense of who the nominee is.

NLJ: There have been complaints in the past that that’s hard to do, because senators are seen using their time to draw attention to themselves rather than to ask about the nominee. Is that something that you, as chairman, try to regulate?

Leahy: Every senator has to speak for himself or herself. Most of my questions are pretty short. I want to hear from the nominee. Outside of the opening statements we all make, I don’t feel any need to give long speeches to either impress the nominee or the American public.[emphasis added]

What is your take on the NLJ interview and the Kagan hearings?

I don’t know about you, but Obama’s oval office speech was a real let down.  I wanted something inspiring, some FDR-type fireside style chat that tells Americans that we are facing a real tragedy, yet if we all pull together and we shift the paradigm it will make a difference.  You know a JFK “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”.  Shifting the paradigm away from corporate greed to protection of the American-way of life.

Something inspiring, something that reflects the reality of the situation. A speech that acknowledged the bare minimum that we expect our President and our government to accomplish. The speech Rachel Maddow gave, for instance:

I wish Rachel Maddow’s Fake presidential speech was what President Obama really said.  It is clear and to the point, inspiring, and shifts the paradigm with no ambiguous language.  In my opinion, it is Presidential.  What’s your take?

 

In his post What Side Are the Parties On, Jack shows us what trash talk the President is up against for the soul and future of America.  

Rush Limbaugh, the intellectual head of the Republican Party: “Who’s gonna get this money? Union activists? ACORN people? Who’s gonna get this money. Let’s keep a sharp eye on who Feinberg gives this money to. Because I’m telling you, this is just another bailout fund, called something else, and we’ll see who gets it.”

By the way, if you haven’t read Fake Rob, Vermont’s satirical take on Entergy’s PR Rep Rob Williams, it’s worth a read on a regular basis.