Vermont Yankee: ‘yup, tires still bald’

Entergy, according to the Times-Argus, is seeking NRC permission for Vermont Yankee to halt a currently required inspection routine.

Instead of inspecting the steam dryer every time it shuts down for refueling, on average every 18 months, as currently required, Entergy wants to inspect it every seven refueling outages, or once every 10 years or so.

This is as if Vermont Yankee, having been granted permission to drive a 40-year-old nuclear vehicle with bald tires well above the legal speed limit, has grown bored; bored with examining their old worn tires and repeatedly finding them still worn and treadless: ‘yup, still bald.’ So they want to stop the bother and expense of looking altogether. Simply put, if they ain’t looking, they ain’t finding.

[more follows after the jump]  

According to reports, as of July 2010 required VY inspections discovered a total of 65 cracks. Entergy maintains that despite these “non-relevant” cracks, the steam dryer is in “good shape”. The routine inspections are part of requirements the NRC placed on Entergy VY when it permitted the 40-year-old plant to operate at 20 percent greater power production than the original design. A steam dryer is used to remove water from steam before it enters the power plant turbine. While not officially considered safety equipment by the NRC, dryer failure can impact components that are. A test power up-rate of less than VY’s 20 percent at a similar US Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) plant resulted in major steam dryer failure.  

Not long ago in 2009 VY was happily bragging about their NEI industry trade group award-winning (cost saving) remotely operated steam dryer inspection mechanism. Certainly a clever thing but it wasn’t as if Entergy had an award-winning repair to any “non-relevant” cracks in the worrisome steam dryer. They just found a slick way to monitor the steam dryer’s aging – and naturally cut costs.

An annual reduction of 3.6 person-rem of radiation exposure is expected along with a minimum $500,000 cost reduction per outage.  

Wasn’t that long ago Entergy hired a Vermont PR firm to splash on a quick fresh coat of PR paint.

The IAMVY.com campaign and tagline – safe, clean, reliable – that resulted ring just as hollow now as in 2009 just before tritium leaks were disclosed. Now Entergy requests permission to practically stop required steam dryer inspections. I propose a new tagline for Vermont Yankee in the form of a question: VY: What could possibly go wrong?  

Looking back at a busy week

Lots o’politics going on in Vermont these days, mainly to do with the opening of the Legislative session. So much going on that I found it difficult to keep up with, let alone write GMD posts. But there’s some stuff worth commenting on — and providing a space in the GMD comments section for your two cents’ worth.

In no particular order, the topics are: Governor Shumlin’s budget address, the latest on the relocation of state workers displaced by the flooding of Waterbury, the debate over how best to replace the Vermont State Hospital, and Randy Brock’s attempt to make health care reform an issue in the gubernatorial campaign.

Strap in, buckaroos… deets after the jump.  

Shumlin’s budget address. One thumb up, one thumb down. The upside — and this cannot be overemphasized — is the Administration’s success (so far) in keeping the ship afloat in very tough budgetary times. Remember 2009-10, when Jim Douglas was castigating the Leglsiature for refusing to take a meataxe to the budget? When he warned of dire consequences in the next biennium? Well, so far, his successor has managed to avoid those consequences. Which either means that Shumlin’s done a heck of a job, or… maybe ol’ Jim was exaggerating just a bit?

Probably both.

Okay, the other thumb. Given the budget situation… given the expense of post-Irene rebuilding… and, frankly, given the weakness of Shumlin’s potential opposition… this would have been a great time to propose a tax hike on upper-income Vermonters. It could have helped restore past cuts in human services and forestall future cuts. It could have allowed Shumlin to propose an increase in higher-ed funding (aside from his ideas for specific new programs) when tuition is already too high. It could have allowed him to avoid a real headscratcher of a budget cut: delaying Medicaid reimbursements for autism treatments for young children. Maybe this makes sense, but from the outside it sounds incredibly meanspirited.

There’s also the fact that, although he would hold the line on income, gas, and sales taxes, his budget would shift costs onto local school districts by permanently cutting the General Fund transfer to the Education Fund. Local districts would face a tough choice between cutting their budgets and seeking property-tax increases.

Besides all of that, Shumlin’s stance reinforces the Republican shibboleth that higher taxes kill the entrepreneurial spirit and cause rich people to flee. There is absolutely no evidence for those assertions. And when Democrats adopt them, they bolster the conservative case and cede precious ground in our political dialogue.

Relocation of state workers. Shumlin’s plan, if I understand it, is a pretty fair attempt to satisfy everyone. Waterbury would retain the vast majority of its former state workforce, and Barre would get a modest influx. In the past, I’ve warned against a move to Barre purely on political grounds: why should Shumlin hand a major victory to Thom Lauzon and thus elevate him as a potential statewide Republican candidate?

I still feel that way. But Shumlin’s plan seems to lean Waterbury’s way, and it doesn’t give Lauzon a huge victory. I’m satisfied with what I’ve seen on the issue.

The Vermont State Hospital. I won’t spend much time on this because I’ve already made my views clear. But I will say that, while Shumlin wants a fast-track adoption of his plan, there’s a rising tide of opposition from the medical community and a lot of questions being asked in the Legislature. (See Vermont Digger’s stories posted on January 6 and January 12.) This ain’t over, and I doubt Shumlin will win approval for his plan without some significant changes.

Randy Brock’s desperation heave. The Republicans would dearly love to make health care reform an issue in the gubernatorial campaign. Can’t blame them; Shumlin’s gonna be awfully hard to beat, given (a) his performance in keeping the budget in check, described above, (b) his post-Irene leadership and the impressive accomplishments in the recovery effort, and (c) Vermont’s track record of re-electing incumbents even if they don’t deserve it. (Tom Salmon, come on down!) And health care reform, as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could tell you, is an issue ripe for demagoguery.

So the putative Republican nominee for Governor, Randy Brock, has introduced a bill that would move the due date for the Green Mountain Care Board’s reform plan from January 2013 to September 2012. (The bill would also call for the hiring of an independent contractor to review the plan’s financing, rather than the Joint Fiscal Office.)

On purely political grounds, the bill makes perfect sense. If GMCB had to release its plan in September, the Republicans could certainly find grounds — or pretexts — to attack it and raise all kinds of fears about it.

But, well, given the Democrats’ sizeable Legislative majorities, Brock’s bill is DOA anyway. He’s just hoping to manufacture a talking point. I can’t blame him; he doesn’t have much to work with.  

Martin Luther King says:

“What has happened to my/our/your country?  Guantanamo?  Afghanistan?  Wall Street?  And men and women Candidates of God preaching hate, intolerance, injustice, and fear?  My the Almighty Spirit have mercy on you.”  

Protect IP Act is all-but dead… what next for Leahy?

Thank god. From Benen:

Until now, the Obama administration had not taken a position on the issue. The response was published yesterday as part of the online “We The People” petition initiative launched by the White House last year.

Though the administration did issue a formal veto threat, the White House’s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form.

A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.

[…] It’s possible that a related version of SOPA could come back at some point down the road – though probably not this year – but for now, the push against the bill has succeeded beautifully.

Dead in the House means pointless in the Senate, thankfully.

The opposition to these bills had become virtually omnipresent. The beginning of the end came last week, when the bills’ lead sponsors (Patrick Leahy in the Senate, unfortunately) announced their intentions to amend the bills to apply the most controversial element (unilaterally messing with the domain name system when a company complains, thus threatening the integrity and security of the internet) only after its full implications had been studied.

Seriously? Since when do you pass a law that includes provisions to make sure it is a good law after its passed? Don’t you make that determination first? Oy.

This is Leahy’s second try at a draconian law designed to protect copyright infringement that would have given corporations unlimited power to roll over first amendment and “fair use” rights, so the safe bet is that he’ll try again.

If so – how about a real attempt to address the actual problem, rather than just going for another one-sided corporate gimme? There are issues with internet piracy, sure. There are also plenty of cases of corporations using the existing system to squash people’s rights under the premise of protecting intellectual property.

A real attempt to address this issue would honestly and equally look at both sides of the issue. Don’t just talk to the Hollywood crowd on the piracy issue, bring in the ACLU on the freedom of expression issue. Work on something that solves the problem – but not at the expense of our fundamental freedoms, the integrity of the internet, and artistic, social, and technical innovation. Allow for honest judicial review of cases before giving corporations unfettered power to drop bombs on people.

And no, having a handful of employees at the Department of Commerce mull over industry demands requests before implementing them is not a serious protection of individuals. Please.

Seriously, Senator – if next time you approach this the right way, you might finally get what you’re looking for – and without tearing the internet and civil liberties to shreds. C’mon.

Football fans: This should clear things up.

Found this in the comments of a Chicago Sun-Times sports column:

GOD WANTS TO TEACH TIM TEBOW A LESSON FROM BOTH PLAYOFF GAMES

Playoff Game 1: 316 passing on 10 Completions

John 3:16 (The verse relates to Jesus Christ… He was strengthening Tebow)

10 Completions: 10 Commandments

That game showed the benefits of serving Christ and upholding the 10 Commandments

Playoff Game 2: 136 Passing on 9 Completions

John 1:36… When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God.”

Jesus did not stop to help Tim Tebow against the Patriots.

9 Completions: 9 Commandments out of 10 Commandments

The 1 Commandment that Tebow missed was Commandment 1…

“You shall have no other gods before Me. – Exodus 20:3

Tim Tebow honors NIKE… the pagan goddess of victory.

God hates it and wants Tim Tebow to stop!

You can’t serve God and honor the pagan goddess NIKE expecting to be blessed!

I asked God if I could post all of that and God led me to go to His Word, open it up without looking… and place my pen down without looking. My pen was touching 3 words… 2 words on the line above… 1 word on the line below… the 3 words are “God that teaches”.

Panel to discuss Vermont Yankee on Tuesday 1/17

Panel to discuss Vermont Yankee on Tuesday 1/17

Making Vermont Yankee Accountable

WHAT:  Forum with Panel discussion and Q&A to address what will happen when Vermont Yankee (VY) shutters in 2012. A three-person panel will talk about the federal court case of Entergy vs State of Vermont, VY transition, clean-up, long-term waste storage and the role citizens can play in the process.

WHERE: Montshire Museum of Science, Norwich, VT

WHO: Deb Katz, Executive Director of the Citizens Awareness Network;

Chris Williams, Organizer for Vermont Citizens Action Network

Robert Stannard, Citizen Lobbyist for the Vermont Citizens Action Network

Denis Rydjeski, Sierra Club

The overwhelming vote in the Senate to reject Vermont Yankee as part of Vermont’s Energy future and the legislature’s refusal to return to the issue in 2011 was a great victory, but the debate continues with Entergy suing the state and continuing its campaign to wear the legislature down to get a deal ro continue operation. So citizens must remain engaged and demand continued legislative action to support a successful transition to sustainable energy and stricter decommissioning and operational standards going forward. How Entergy will address the issues of transition, closure, decommissioning is more significant than ever.

Vermont Yankee’s power has already been replaced. But questions remain. Can citizens play a role as VY is properly dismantled, cleaned up and radioactive waste safely stored? With the slow motion Fukushima disaster highlighting the   vulnerabilities of Mark ! reactors, how will the state deal with increased vulnerability of this aged reactor?

CAN has been involved with closure and decommissioning of other reactors in New England. The forums were scheduled because network members believed there is a lack of relevant information on decommissioning, the choices Entergy is making and the industry standard on decommissioning.

http://www.nukebusters.org/

Stand Clear(ed): AG Sorrel Investigates Hartford PD Again

On Friday the 13th (before a long three-day holiday weekend) Attorney General Sorrell made available a report that finds no basis for charges against Hartford Police officers involved in two recent incidents involving excessive force – sorry, alleged excessive force.

In one incident a woman involved in a domestic dispute suffered a concussion and assorted bruises when officers attempted to take her into “protective custody.”

In the other event a man was dragged from his home, taken into custody, and cited for leaving the scene of an accident after his unoccupied vehicle was found off the road nearby. However he was released a short time later and charges were withdrawn.

Here is the local paper’s description of the second case:

Darrek Daoust, 49, told the newspaper he had had a pizza and glass of wine at a restaurant earlier in the evening. No alcohol charges were filed. He said he’d intended to deal with his vehicle in the morning.

After police arrived, he talked to officers through his screen door, but refused to step outside. They entered his house and detained him, pressing his face into the crushed rock of his driveway as they subdued him. He also was struck [four times] by an officer wielding a flashlight, a police report said.

 

No strangers to this sort of problem, the Hartford Police were investigated and cleared by AG Sorrell in another – alleged – excessive force event that took place in May 2010. In that case, following reports of a burglary, Hartford police found an African American man, who was unconscious and had a medical condition, pepper sprayed him, hauled him naked from his own home, and handcuffed him on the pavement. An officer threatened a neighbor with arrest while trying to tell police they were arresting the home owner. (The question of press access to police reports in this case, and potentially others like it, is under consideration by the Vermont Supreme Court.)

In these two recent cases Attorney General Sorrell found no cause to bring charges against officers.  Regarding the Daoust case he states:

Although the officers did not obtain a warrant or consent to enter the Daousts’ home, the question of the legality of the arrest does not determine the outcome of the review of the officers’ use of force to the resistance.

Under Vermont law, there is no right to resist an arrest, even an illegal arrest. The remedy for an alleged illegal arrest is suppression of any evidence wrongfully obtained, or the filing of a lawsuit for civil damages. These legal principles support an underlying public policy of discouraging citizens from fighting with police any time they think the police may be acting in error.”

 

Sorrell’s five-page report notes that the town had taken “steps in the right direction” and should continue ongoing training for officers to properly serve the community. Perhaps there are a few Dirty Harry’s on the Hartford force, but the principle that the ends (arrests, however unsupported by facts or due process details like warrants) ‘justify’ the means usually gets passed down from the top.

Apparently in Vermont there can be lots of smoke, but Attorney General Bill Sorrell – who, among other responsibilities, is supposed to protect Vermonters’ civil rights, even, or especially, against over-zealous police forces – can’t see a fire anywhere. Citizens apparently have no recourse, in his very laissez faire point of view, except by filing a lawsuit for civil damages.

There’s certainly smoke in the Hartford PD – in 2010 when officers were cleared of wrong-doing, and now a relatively short period later, after another two incidents. Sorrell ought to be hosing down the source of the smoke and not simply wagging his finger at those mischievous pyros while waiting for six-foot flames.

VT Housing and Conservation Fund Under Attack!

The following letter was sent from the Vermont Sierra Club to Governor Shumlin on January 12th, 2012

Governor Peter Shumlin,

    The Vermont Sierra Club understands that there are some in the General Assembly who are advocating that we eliminate funding for the VT Housing and Conservation Fund for the year, and instead put that money into our Irene recovery efforts.  While the three thousand members of the Vermont Sierra Club clearly recognize the challenges facing our state in the aftermath of Irene, we are unequivocally opposed to this specific proposal. At best it is is short sighted, at worst it is politically motivated.

    As you have said, Irene was an indication of what we can expect as our climate changes, and as our weather becomes more extreme.  Therefore, we should not cut our limited funding for conservation efforts as conservation of our forests helps with carbon sequestration (therefore reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and can help make our game populations more resilient to the negative impacts of climate change (see the Two Countries/One Forest Report).  

    Conserved forests, if in the form of local “community forests” also help with rural economic development, as they can be sustainably logged for local public revenue, can be a source of recreational tourism (snow mobilizing, mountain biking, hiking, etc.), and can provide free or cheap fire wood to low income and elderly Vermonters.  In addition, to cut funding to our statewide affordable housing efforts (which this fund also supports) during these difficult economic times, is simply the wrong road to go down.

    For all of these reasons, we strongly disagree with the suggestion that this fund should be cut.  In fact we contend that the state should expand our conservation resources by creating a new Vermont Community Forest Fund of 3.5 million dollars in order to build a stronger, more resilient environment and to further economic development in our rural towns and counties.  If we are to truly combat climate change and poverty, we must step forward and not back.

Sincerely,

David Van Deusen,

Conservation Organizer,

Vermont Sierra Club

149 State Street

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

(802)229-6399

Cc: VT Senate Pro Tem John Campbell, VT House Speaker Shap Smith, Senator Ginny Lyons, Senator Vice Illuzzi, Senator Anthony Pollina, Senator Jane Kitchel, Rep David Dean, Rep Martha Heath, Rep Tony Klein, Rep Helen Head, Rep Robert Lewis, Rep Jim McCullough, Rep Bill Botzow, Rep Chris Pearson    

More Santorum

It’s not just in the Times, it’s also on NPR, and some people are unhappy.

Take this ombudsman’s note defending their coverage of the Santorum story.

The ombudsman found that covering the story was a legitimate journalistic enterprise.

I have to say that for myself, I sympathize with Wolff but agree with Sydell. It would be disingenuous to ignore what anyone can see on Google. We Latinos call that trying to cover the sun with a finger. Sydell’s story, at least, gives a responsible explanation of why you find what you find on Google. And why Santorum has a problem.

Of course it was. Journalists have no business pretending a real news story isn’t news. Even if the subjects of those stories don’t like it.

My favorite part of this whole thing, though, is the phrasing of the letter of complaint. Read this sentence:

All Things Considered has stepped out of bounds for this cheap political smear.

He said it, I didn’t.

I’ve always been partial to Bob Kerrey’s definition of Santorum, but I have to agree that Dan Savage has really topped him.

Don’t you wonder, though, why Santorum‘s friends are working so hard to keep the meme alive?

Jessamyn West: “More and more of our information is being brokered through massive corporations”

(Jessamyn is a smart, insightful person on information technology issues. Her ideas are well worth exploring.   – promoted by jvwalt)

For those of you needing introduction to Jessamyn West, let me start by offering links explaining how she came to be dubbed an internet folk hero.

With her professional blog librarian.net and her personal blog jessamyn.com, she spans a wide range of topics of interest concerning technology, information access, and life in central Vermont. She frequently travels to discuss the digital divide and her book Without a Net: Librarians Bridging the Digital Divide was published last summer. Randolph is lucky she lives here and I was thrilled she was able to trek up to the ORCA studio in Montpelier for this interview.  

Hear Jessamyn explain the factors that put Vermont in a “technological shadow.”

Watch as she obliterates the argument that the internet has made libraries obsolete.

Learn librarian terms like “recall” and “relevance.”

Marvel as she uses a drug war analogy to explain SOPA and PROTECT IP.

We also got to discuss Wikipedia and her work on the Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. And last was an inspiring discussion about the Occupy Libraries in places like New York and Boston, which sprung out of the Radical Reference movement.

So check out her work online and in print if you are looking for lots of fun with a depth of insight concerning the potentialities in our future. Her writing is both well-informed and punchy and I was glad we were able to capture some of that special combination in this interview.