Overshadowed by the hype that has accompanied CNN’s airing of the pro-nuke PR gloss, “Pandora’s Promise,” is a little known but extremely consequential change to safeguards built into the permit process for nuclear energy plants.

It has always been required of those seeking a license to build and operate a nuclear power plant, that they have in place a “quality assurance program” from the very start, when core-borings and critical assesments are made in order to evaluate the suitability of a planned siting.  

As Arnie Gundersen explains in the most recent video from Fairewinds Associates, the NRC has reinterpreted its own rules so that the quality assurance program is not required to be in place until the completed application passes over the NRC’s desk, well after sensitive findings should have been collected and evaluated.  

This came to light in recent hearings held in Monroe, Michigan by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, at which Arnie gave testimony against the NRC, bringing the reinterpretation to light for the first time.  The NRC appears to have instituted the changes without advising that they had done so.

This represents a complete flip-flop on the part of the NRC from its earlier position.

A less than scrupulous applicant would have ample opportunity under the new interpretation to pass off poor or incomplete preliminary work as satisfactorily completed without any required verification.

Considering how many siting errors have been discovered in operating reactors built under the old rules, it is truly frightening to think what the consequences might be if a quality assurance program is no longer required until late in the licensing process.

Perhaps even more concerning is the impact this reinterpretation has on “whistleblowers;” those folks upon whom we must depend  to tell us when mistakes have been made so that they can be addressed in a timely manner. By moving the point at which the plant operator is regarded as an “applicant” to the end of the process, the NRC has effectively removed whistleblower protections for workers involved in the preliminary work to obtain a permit to operate.  

Removing whistleblower protections for plant workers in the preliminary development of a nuclear facility, exposes the general population to unacceptable risk.

NRC Strips Whistleblower Protection from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.

And as for “Pandora’s Promise?”  Writing in the Guardian,  John Quiggin says the arguments are just  “old news” that don’t stand-up under scrutiny.  He very effectively points to the most obvious fly in the ointment: a complete failure of the economics of atomic energy.  It’s really worth a read.

Following an exchange in an earlier thread, I listened to an interview with James Hansen.  I was curious to hear what I thought would be his own original arguments.  Instead, what came out of his mouth was a stream of talking points; the same old tired talking points that we’ve heard so often from industry shills: there’s a shiny new generation of nukes just around the corner that will solve all of our problems; and we can’t get off of coal except through nukes.

Yeah; well those shiny new nukes are far from “just around the corner;” and they are equally far from being without their own unique set of byproduct issues.  And the choice between coal and nukes is a false one, which completely overlooks the role that improved efficiency can and must play in meeting our energy needs.

In closing, here’s an intriguing  little something to chew on…and it’s all about the efficiency opportunities that are available just in terms of LED lighting.  Enjoy!

St. Albans City was recently given the title of “This Old House’s 2013 Best Old House Neighborhood, Northeast.”  But do we really deserve this distinction?

Last night, the City Council refused to participate any further in efforts to reclaim the Owl Club/Smith House, sitting some 200 years on the corner of its historic downtown campus,  from demolition and redevelopment into a cheap clapboard office building that involves major reconfiguration of quiet Maiden Lane in order to accommodate fifteen additional parking spaces.

The City Council thinks it has done “enough;” and from one perspective, it certainly has.  

The Council was responsible for appointing all members of the Development Review Board, who gave their approval for the destruction of the house, which is on the National Register of Historic Properties, despite the fact that the developers of the property had not provided all of the essential documentation that is required under City statutes.

In fact, they allowed the developer’s own engineer, who was engaged specifically to build the office building on that site, to render the opinion that the historic building could not be saved.

Not only did this engineering firm have a conspicuous conflict of interest motivating them to render such an opinion; but they did not even provide the detailed information that is required by law, concerning the costs associated with restoring the building.

But that is not where contamination of the process ends.  The Chairman of the Development Review Board, Meghan Manahan, is the first cousin of the Connor brothers, who were the applicants  seeking a permit from the DRB.

Her brother, former mayor Marty Manahan is the downtown redevelopment “tzar.”  

The ease with which the Connor brothers slid through the permit process must be questioned.

We will persist with our efforts to have the permit vacated; but in light of our limited personal resources, and with no help from the City, our prospects are diminished.  

Make no mistake, environmental court is theoretically accessible to all citizens; but, like elected office, the reality is that it is only as accessible as one has the funds with which to access it.

If the Connors prevail in the appeal process, not only will the historic home of John Smith and J. Gregory Smith be demolished and replaced with an ugly block of clapboard offices; but the entire length of Maiden Lane from the library to Congress Street will be reconfigured for diagonal parking in front of that office building, adding fifteen spaces to that tiny one block lane way.

All of the gently sloping greenspace that currently fronts the historic home will be eliminated to allow for additional parking; and our children and grandchildren will have to compete with diagonal parking as they make their way to and from the library on their bikes and skateboards.

I just thought my neighbors deserve to know that it is our neighborhood…the 2013 Best Old House Neighborhood…that is at stake here.

Here we go again.

Did you catch the bit in the Freeps today, straight from the AP, that four scientists have sent letters to environmental groups and politicians in support of nuclear energy?

With five domestic nuclear facilities performing their swan songs and the actual cost of nuclear energy finally coming to light, it was just a matter of time before the nuclear industry would harness a few gullible climate scientists to the masts of its sinking ship.

Who exactly comprises this band of brothers?  I had a look on the Google.

Kerry Emanuel is a conservative climatologist, whose stand on climate change, back in 2012, so riled his Republican friends that even his wife received threatening email following his video-taped appearance at a climate change conference for Republicans in New Hampshire.  He is the director of MIT’s Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate Program.

Mr. Emanuel is to be praised for acknowledging the human face of Climate Change; but it can’t be overlooked that, as a conservative with Republican ties, his bias in favor of the nuclear industry is not surprising.  Add to that the fact that MIT is deeply in bed with that industry and has a nuclear research facility with compelling economic reasons to favor a nuclear future.  We have seen MIT’s participation in pro-nuclear public relations efforts (and in questionable research on the effects of radiation) repeatedly over the past couple of years.

James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist, bases his support for nuclear energy as the solution to the climate crisis on new and unproven nuclear technology that comes with a host of its own environmental and security issues.

Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institute has a background in software and a Ph.D in Atmospheric Sciences; and the fourth climate scientist to sign the letter, Tom Wigley, is associated with the University of Adelaide in Australia.

As far as I could determine, none of them has any background in nuclear engineering.

The challenges are already coming from environmental activists who insist that nuclear energy is as wrong for the planet as carbon-based energy production; and two wrongs won’t make a right:

“These guys need to go to Fukushima,” said long-time anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman…”It’s astonishing anyone could advocate MORE nukes while there are 1331 hot fuel rods 100 feet in the air over Unit Four, three melted cores at points unknown, millions of gallons of contaminated water pouring into the oceans, and so much more.”

You may have also noted that CNN just happens to be promoting its pro-nuclear documentary, “Pandora’s Promise,” this week.  It’s an interesting coincidence, I think.

It’s curious that CNN, which flatters itself to be a legitimate arbiter of news, has chosen to step into an advocacy role on behalf of what is unquestionably a very controversial industry in the aftermath of Fukushima.

This is just another example of the manner in which the network has tracked steadily toward a less and less legitimate claim on being a news organization since its promising early years.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Just to round things out with a pitch for the “good guys”…There is a fundraiser Wednesday evening for Vermont’s own standard bearer in the fight for a nuclear-free future.  From 4:30 until 10:00 PM Fairewinds

Associates will be the beneficiary of 10% of total sales at Bluebird BBQ at 37 Riverside Avenue in Burlington. Reservations are recommended: (802) 448-3070.  

So, if you can be in Burlington Wednesday night, please make an effort to get to Bluebird because the fundraiser will only take effect if they can get twenty-five people there, and Fairewinds deserves all the help we can give them!

Just like we did in college when we didn’t have enough money to go to the movies, State Auditor, Doug Hoffer  turned over a few sofa cushions in the State’s “telephone lounge” and came up with $300,000 in lost tax dollars!

(I couldn’t resist that opener even though it’s only metaphorically true.)

Focussing on State-issued cellphones, the Auditor’s office found that, just like many households, Vermont isn’t getting the best value for its money from existing plans and patterns of usage.

Even though cellphone service is contracted on behalf of all State agencies by the Dept. of Buildings and General Services, decisions governing cellphone purchases and management of their use is left to the discretion of the individual agencies; and, up until now,  there has been no real oversight or review process to determine if opportunities exist for significant savings.

‘Turns out that there are, indeed!

Some of the 2012 numbers:

.The State had 115 cell phone pools in 2012, and these pools purchased a total of approximately 11 million voice minutes. The audit team found that over 5.1 million minutes went unused (47% of the total).

.Of the 2,899 cell phones with bundled voice and data service plans, 42% used no data or less than 25,000 KB of data per month.  These little used phones cost the State about $272,000.

.Based on the responses of 42 out of 45 surveyed State entities, less than half have policies or procedures for managing cell phones; only 19% had written criteria to guide decisions regarding who should be assigned a cell phone; and about 10% had written policies addressing monitoring cell phone costs.

The long and the short of it is that the Auditor’s Office identified opportunities to save over $300,000. just by tightening-up management of State-issued phones.

Secretary of Adminstration Jeb Spaulding agrees with the Auditor’s findings and plans to use them to develop a statewide management plan for both cell and land lines.

It’s nice to know we have an Auditor on the job who is using his time gainfully; looking for ways through which the State can save money other than by slashing essential services.  

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

Vermont’s own Johnny One-Note, Art Woolf is saying pretty much what he says every week in the Freeps;

that Vermont is doomed by a declining population (blah, blah, blah…)

Instead of repeating the usual rebuttal, I thought it would be fun to see the other side of the “How We’re Doin‘” story; the one that doesn’t get a weekly half-page to sell the same old line with the same old selective pie-charts and graphs.

So, this morning, we are taking a look at what Vermonters for a Sustainable Population has to say on the subject.  

VSP, under the direction of George Plumb and with support from the Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club, recently released its Optimum Sustainable Population Report, which is available online.  

The report, which has met with praise from a host of population think-tanks, explores the population question in much greater complexity, adding the prism of sustainability; which we already know from his enthusiastic embrace of Walmart, is of little interest to Mr. Woolf.

Not surprisingly, the VSP arrives at a very different conclusion from Mr. Woolf.  

Defining a sustainable system thusly:

A sustainable human population is one where the people living in a given politically or geographically defined area (such as Vermont) do not live beyond the limits of the renewable resources of that area for either input (energy and matter) or output (food, material goods, and absorption of pollution). They then purchase or trade from environmentally-aware sources those necessities that cannot be locally satisfied, either in sufficient amounts or at all. They will thereby be living in a manner that present and future generations of people, and all other life native to that area, will be able to enjoy a healthy habitat over the long term;”

the VSP analysis suggests that Vermont has already passed its ideal population number, based on the guidelines above.  

I will not do the report justice here, so simply suggest that readers check out the 53-page original.

There may be some disagreement over the conclusions, but no one can dispute the value of the study, nor its scope and the care that has been taken in its preparation.

What is the ideal population depends on the lens through which you are filtering the data.  The report suggests a number of conclusions; but no matter how you parse it, the message is clear: we’re already a little…or a lot…past “there”:

Biodiversity:

working toward a human

population in Vermont of 310,000 would give us a significantly improved chance of being able to sustain the totality of genes, species, and ecosystems found in Vermont. It would be a significant step toward conserving biodiversity in Vermont and the world.

Democracy:

For the best democratic representation, communication, and transparency, the optimal population size of Vermont is not any greater than our current population of 626,011.

Ecology:

The ideal, sustainable population size for Vermont, with an ecological footprint of 9.57 (American typical footprint), is 150,000 people.

Food Self-sufficiency:

Based upon these assumptions, Vermont can support a population of 432,923.

Forest:

To retain forest cover at the current percentage a sustainable population for Vermont is approximately 600,000.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: (assuming that a number of remedial measures detailed in the report have already been taken)

Assuming other factors mentioned in the preceding paragraph result in additional reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, a sustainable population for Vermont is likely somewhat less than 400,000.

Quality of Life:

It seems likely that continued investments in the areas of education, health, the economy, culture and the environment would go far in ensuring this QOL continues to improve. It seems reasonable, then, that a population of up to 700,000 would support the high QOL that Vermonters enjoy.

Happiness: (not specifically quantified in terms of population.)

Renewable Energy Production:(assuming adoption of some guiding principles that are discussed in the report)

This path could likely be achieved with Vermont’s existing population of around 600,000 (and their current energy demand).

Rural Living/Working Landscapes:

Using the rural living/working landscape indicator, the optimal population is 450,000.

Scenic Beauty:  

Using the rural living/working landscape indicator, the optimal population is 450,000.

Spiritual Connectedness:

Using the rural living/working landscape indicator, the optimal population is 450,000.

Steady State Economy:

Under these conditions, (when enjoyment has successfully replaced consumption as the prime motivator) it’s likely that a sustainable economy in Vermont could support a population in the range of 500,000 to 700,000.

Water Quality:

it would be prudent from a population perspective to look to maintain the population status quo of about 600,000 until such time that the cost, energy, and resources required to improve water quality will be better understood. Any maintenance of water quality must be considered within the context of the other population indicators cited.

Bruce Lisman may flatter himself that he is breaking new ground with his call for greater government transparency, but well before Mr. Lisman made this his talking point du jour, Sec. of State Jim Condos rolled up his sleeves and went out to communities across the state to actually teach them how to achieve it.

Such reform is not to be accomplished with a single corrective pass-through; and so it is that Condos’  “transparency tour” is about to hit the road again.

With ten stops throughout the state over the course of November and early December, the Secretary will once again engage public awareness of the issue and provide some fundamental “schooling” for the legions of dedicated amateurs who hold office in our cities and towns.  A complete schedule is included after the “fold.”

Vermont has been getting a bad rep lately for lack of transparency relative to other states; but this is sort of a bad news/ good news situation because one of the reasons why transparency issues have not been fully addressed in the past is because the state has been relatively scandal free.

Oh, there has been that spate of embezzlement scandals, but those were crimes of individual weakness more so than indicative of any systemic corruption.  States like Illinois have made great strides in addressing transparency issues mostly because they have been roiled by high-profile scandals.

Furthermore, a contributing factor to the problem here is the intimacy of most Vermont towns, which leads to excess informality in process and the simple preponderance of conflicts of interest.

That intimacy is a byproduct of our small and fairly homogenous population.  As I have often heard it said around town, “Everyone’s related to everyone else.”

There is a lot to be said for intimacy and informality; and I like to think that they have strengthened Vermont’s democratic roots; but, when conflicts of interest result in a state with insufficient definitions and penalties for that improper influence, those cozy qualitites become our greatest weaknesses.

Mr. Lisman is just the most recent convert to the cause of greater transparency.  We here on GMD have been calling loud and long, over many years, for reforms to the laws governing conflicts of interest; and for full campaign contribution disclosures.

…And Jim Condos has been spreading the word in person about things like the Open Meeting Law since 2011, while at the same time working to make digital public records, so essential to transparent government function, much more accessible to private citizens.

“For those Vermonters who feel that dealing with government is confusing or intimidating: this is the perfect opportunity for you to get your questions answered!” Secretary Condos added that, “It is important that the public know their rights when it comes to attending meetings and access to records; an informed citizenry is what helps hold all elected officials accountable.”

So mark your calendar for a tour date near you and start compiling a list of questions now.

The time and location for each event is as follows:

Mon., Nov 4th     6pm-8pm Hartford Public Library, 1587 Maple Street,Hartford

Wed., Nov 6th     6pm-8pm Public Safety Building, 316 Main St, Lyndon

Wed., Nov 13th    7pm-8:45pm      Fox Room, Rutland Public Library, 10 Court Street, Rutland

Thurs., Nov 14th  6pm-8pm Alumni Hall, 25 Auditorium Hill, Barre City

Wed., Nov 20th    6pm-8pm Lower Theater, Municipal Building, 7 Village Square, Rockingham

Thurs., Nov 21st  6:30pm-8:30pm   City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington

Wed., Dec 4th     6pm-8pm Barton Memorial Building, 17 Village Square,Barton

Thurs., Dec 5th   6:30pm-8:30pm   City Hall, 100 North Main Street, St Albans City

Tues., Dec 10th   6pm-8pm Fire Facility, 130 River Street, Bennington

Thurs., Dec 12th  6:30pm-8:30pm    Ilsley Public Library, 75 Main Street, Middlebury

We’re all acutely aware of how our own healthcare management effects our personal bottom line, so it comes as no surprise that healthcare management of individuals under the care of the state represents significant investment.

With the number of prison detainees on the rise in Vermont, Corrections healthcare costs for prisoners represents an important opportunity for review by the state auditor’s office.  

To that end, State Auditor Doug Hoffer has just concluded an examination of the Dept. of  Corrections healthcare costs under the contract it holds with Correct Care Solutions.  

Here is a link to the entire 41-page report; but, if you want to cut to the chase (ie. Opportunities for Cost Savings), turn to page twelve.

Some clear opportunities for savings exist in ensuring that when inmates are covered by programs such as Medicaid, healthcare costs are billed to those programs rather than to the State of Vermont,  a practice that has not been universally observed in the past; and in providing inmates, upon release into the community, with their prescribed medications drawn from the more economical Dept. of Corrections pharmacy rather than sending them to outside retailers at Corrections’ expense.

The objective is, of course, to provide quality care to the incarcerated population but not at a premium price.  As often proves to be the case, the ideal balance has been difficult to achieve.

Auditor Hoffer sees better monitoring as essential to protecting both interests.  Noting that monitoring of the contract has improved since 2012, Hoffer says

“Since it’s a cost-plus-management fee contract, the state bears the financial risk and the contractor lacks incentive to minimize costs.” The audit report stated that DOC’s “cost monitoring was not robust during the earlier years of the contract

and

“DOC’s failure to levy contractually allowed penalties for two years represented a lost opportunity for the State to offer a monetary incentive for CCS to correct its deficiencies in a timely manner.”

The report identifies “personnel and operational changes in the Department” as contributing to this failing; once more demonstrating how government cost-cutting efforts that target staff don’t always have the desired effect.

I am proud to serve on the board of the VCV and wanted to share news of a challenging job opportunity with our GMD readership who I know are so well-equipped to get the word out to everyone who should become involved.

On October 9, the Vermont Natural Resource Council and Vermont Conservation Voters announced an exciting new partnership, intended to empower both organizations with a palette of collaborative  possibilities through which to effect positive change for the environment and for sustainable communities.

As Executive Director, Brian Shupe has the full confidence of both entities to conduct a search for a shared Political Director. This is a new position, created to increase the capacity of  both organizations to fulfill their complimentary missions.

It’s a wonderful opportunity for a bright and dexterous candidate, with a strong commitment to our sustainable future, to truly make a difference.

Although the VNRC/VCV is already receiving many excellent applications from highly qualified individuals, they recognize that, in order to maximize the potential of this powerful new union, it is necessary to find just the right person who will compliment the culture of the VNRC’s excellent program staff with strong political skills and a sensitivity to the distinct missions of the partnered organizations.

This means that they are not just looking at those with by-the-book educational qualifications, but are expanding their invitation to those whose broad experience in activist leadership has gained for them a political acumen that compliments their commitment to shared principles of responsible communites, and land and resource stewardship.

If you have a mind to throw your hat in the ring, here is a list of what they are looking for:

•    excellent writing and presentation skills;

•    the ability to work collaboratively in a busy work-environment;

•    excellent verbal and written communications skills, including the ability to communicate complex policy positions in a concise, value-based manner that resonates with average Vermonters;

•    Excellent political and strategic skills, including an ability to read the political landscape and design effective strategies for navigating that landscape whether it involves a campaign to enact legislation or to elect a candidate to office;

•    effective fundraising skills, including an ability to nurture donor relationships and identify and solicit new donors;

•    a working knowledge of state and federal election laws; and

•    a passion for Vermont and protecting its environment and communities, and a belief that individuals working together can affect positive change.

A master’s degree in political science, environmental studies or related field is preferred, although direct experience running political campaigns, grassroots organizing, policy advocacy and/or lobbying are highly valued and can substitute for academic background.

It is my personal hope that a lot of excellent female candidates and people having diverse backgrounds will apply.

C’mon people, let’s live in full color!

And while we’re on the subject of Art Woolf;  I was not surprised that, in his October 17 “How We’re Do’in” column in the Freeps, Mr. Woolf characteristically missed the forest entirely while extracting just the bit of data he chose to from observing a single tree.

This time, Mr. Woolf’s topic was poverty, something about which he has apparently experienced little to inform his conveniently contrived theory.

To make a rather long story short, he takes exception to the federal count of how many poor people there are in the country right now.  

Tracing a history of the USDA’s calculations on minimum nutritional requirements and how that translates to dollars and cents and then into poverty statistics, Woolf contends that we are overestimating how many people in this country do not earn enough to feed themselves.  Presumably he is implying that we shouldn’t be giving nutritional assistance such as food stamps and WIC to so many people.  

Nice.

His reasoning?  Citing the high number of students represented in Burlington’s working population, and its relatively high statistical poverty level, he argues (not unreasonably) that since students frequently get support from parents who live elsewhere and only contribute incidentally to their own support through part-time jobs, those poverty statistics are misleading for the City.

I’ll give him that, although with some reservation, because I suspect there may be some effort at compensating for such an anomaly in the federal calculus.  Perhaps Doug can enlighten us here.

Be that as it may, Mr. Woolf attempts to extrapolate from Burlington’s high concentration of well-heeled University students to urban populations all over the country.  He comes to the rather astonishing conclusion that there are so many lucky college students nationwide who enjoy the generous support of their doting parents, that their combined number skews national poverty statistics, allowing a whole lot more money to go to WIC and food stamps than is entirely necessary.

Are there no workhouses?

No there aren’t; but apparently there is no dearth of ivory tower academics who can’t quite grasp the enormity of our income inequity issues in America.

Whereas, neo-con crepe hangers like Art Woolf would have us believe that Vermont’s cup is half-empty,  according to the 2013 Opportunity Index, Vermont’s glass is way more than half-full.

The 2013 Index ranks Vermont as #1 among all states for providing its citizens with opportunity.

Apparently, it all depends on who one chooses to believe; or perhaps, about whose opportunities you are more concerned.

Ethan Allen Institute hack Art Woolf, Jim Douglas, and every Republican who has run for statewide or national office in the past twenty-five years would probably choose to believe CNBC’s take on who has the top spot in terms of opportunity. CNBC awards the top position to Texas, and places Vermont in thirty-eighth place.

That’s because, CNBC being the stock-market’s mouthpiece; their sole interest in “opportunity” is  in business opportunity, which they rather narrowly interpret as the opportunity to operate a business free of any environmental constraints or financial regulations.

If that is your standard, Texas may be just the ticket!  Of course, wholesale rape and neglect of the environment comes at a huge price to the planet as a whole and to the future of Texas in particular; but if business is happy, CNBC concludes that everybody should be happy.

The Index doesn’t necessarily agree:

The states that do best on the Opportunity Index are the states that have made investing in their people a top priority, with good schools and early childhood education, real efforts to help young people find jobs when they graduate or to keep them from dropping out, and a commitment to improving opportunity for all. Perhaps because of its investments in K-12 education, Vermont has the highest on-time high school graduation rate in the country, and more than 91 percent of its students leave school with a diploma.

Yes, Art Woolf, you read that right, we do rather well by our students here in Vermont.  If they leave to explore opportunities in other places, that is because they are well-prepared to do so.

And, I’ve got news for you: they leave other states, too.  Separation remains an important ritual in the adventure of youth.  

But we can be optimistic that the quality of life here in Vermont will draw many of our young people back home to Vermont to put down roots and raise their children here.

I have only anecdotal experience in the matter, but if my 27-year-old son and many of his friends are anything to judge by, we’re doing all right.

After living in other states and even other countries, they are returning to work hard and think creatively in order to support themselves right here in the place that nurtured them.  

Therein lies the business opportunity that CNBC might overlook, but our kids will not.,