|
Home
Home
 |
Watch documentary The Battle of Chernobyl
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/99692/detail/
Belgians
warned over iodine leak
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588926.stm
BBC News: Friday, 29
August 2008 18:21 UK
Belgian authorities have warned people in the south
of the country not to eat locally grown produce after a leak from a
nuclear research institute.
A safety alert was issued after a leak of radioactive iodine gas from
a laboratory in Fleurus, near the southern city of Charleroi.
Locals have been told not to eat locally grown fruit, vegetables or
dairy products as a precaution.
The Belgian nuclear control agency has described the leak as serious.
The authorities have been criticised for initially playing down the
incident, which took place earlier this week.
The Institut des Radioelements laboratory halted production on
Tuesday, but the leak was initially announced as not representing a risk
to residents in the area or to the environment.
However, precautionary measures were eventually taken after grass
samples showed higher-than-expected contamination.
Fleurus's population and residents of villages located within a 5km
radius have been asked not to eat fruit and vegetables from gardens or
drink milk from neighbouring farms, until further notice.
The institute produces radioisotopes for medical imaging and for
treating cancer.
Cameco
landfill may be breaking provincial laws
news@waterkeeper.ca Aug 26, 2008
Lake Ontario
Waterkeeper has teamed up with Port Hope area residents to file an
Application for Investigation
alleging that Cameco Corporation may be breaking Ontario's
environmental laws. The uranium company manages a radioactive waste
site in Welcome, just outside of Port Hope.
Earlier this
spring, residents discovered that a 2.5-kilometre long pipe
discharging wastewater into Lake Ontario has broken. The pipe now
spews an alarming cocktail of uranium and arsenic onto a public
beach.
"The
Environmental Bill of Rights grants every Ontario resident a right
to call upon the province to investigate violations of provincial
law. In my experience, dumping uranium, arsenic and radium onto a
public beach is about as clear a violation as you can get," says
Waterkeeper and environmental lawyer Mark Mattson.
Samples
collected from the pipe show uranium levels nearly 50 times higher
the province's interim water quality objectives. Arsenic is nearly 5
times higher than what Ontario considers safe for human and aquatic
life.
Full details
of the alleged contraventions can be found in the
Application for Investigation*.
The Application was submitted to the Environmental Commissioner of
Ontario on Monday, August 25. The Application will be acknowledged
within 10 days. The Ministry must decide whether or not to
investigate in 60-70 days (early November, 2008).
By JOHN SEEWER Associated Press
Writer August 26th, 2008TOLEDO, Ohio (AP)
- Jurors on Tuesday convicted a former
nuclear plant engineer of hiding information
from government regulators about the worst
corrosion ever found at a U.S. reactor.
Prosecutors said Andrew Siemaszko and two
other workers lied in 2001 so the Davis-Besse
plant along Lake Erie could delay a shutdown
for a safety inspection. Months later,
inspectors found an acid leak that nearly
ate through the reactor's 6-inch-thick steel
cap.
Siemaszko covered up the damage to the
plant's reactor vessel head and lied to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal
jury said.
It's not clear how close the plant,
midway between Toledo and Cleveland, was to
an accident.
Siemaszko faces up to five years in
prison and $250,000 in fines. He was
convicted on three of five counts, including
concealing material information from the
government. The jury cleared him on two
counts of making false statements.
Following the discovery of the leak, the
NRC beefed up inspections and training and
began requiring detailed records of its
discussions with plant operators.
Siemaszko's attorneys said the plant's
owner set him up as a scapegoat because he
spoke out about safety concerns. They will
consider an appeal.
"I'm disappointed," Siemaszko said. When
asked what message the verdict sends, he
said: "Do not go against a big company."
Siemaszko was responsible for making sure
the reactor vessel head was cleaned and
inspected. He said he was wrongly fired and
that he had told supervisors the reactor
needed to be cleaned. He said managers
rejected his requests.
Defense attorney Billie Pirner Garde said
nuclear workers will be less likely to raise
concerns about safety. "This makes the
nuclear industry less safe," she said.
The plant's operator, Akron-based
FirstEnergy Corp., said Siemaszko deserved
to be fired and should have caught the
damage.
FirstEnergy paid a record $28 million in
fines a year ago while avoiding federal
charges. It also spent $600 million making
repairs and buying replacement power while
the plant was closed from early 2002 until
2004.
None of the company's senior leaders was
charged in the investigation.
Another former worker at the Davis-Besse
plant was sentenced to three years'
probation in May for concealing information
from the government. A private contractor
was acquitted.
Private operator in bid
to build nuclear plant
on Mediterranean coast
Tyler
Hamilton "Energy reporter"
Toronto
Star Aug 22, 2008
First it got
a foothold in Ontario. Then
it started to woo Alberta
and Saskatchewan. Now
nuclear operator Bruce Power
has its sights set on
Turkey.
Reports out
of Istanbul list Tiverton,
Ont.-based Bruce Power as
part of a consortium that
wants to build the first
nuclear power plant in
Turkey, a Balkan country
with a population of 70
million. The Turkish
government has outlined
plans to build a 3,000- to
5,000-megawatt nuclear power
plant in the city of Mersin,
which is situated on the
Mediterranean coast.
The project
represents Bruce Power's
first foray outside of
Canada, said company
spokesperson Steve Cannon,
confirming reports. "We'll
look anywhere where there's
a potential business
opportunity," he said.
Bruce Power
is Canada's first private
nuclear operator and is
co-owned by uranium giant
Cameco Corp., power plant
and pipeline builder
TransCanada Corp., the
Ontario Municipal Employees
Retirement System and two
power-industry unions.
Its first
and so far only generating
station, located on the
shores of Lake Huron near
the town of Kincardine,
supplies about 4,700
megawatts to the Ontario
grid. Another 1,500
megawatts will come into
service in 2010 as part of
the two-reactor Bruce A
restart.
Over the
past year company chief
executive Duncan Hawthorne
has announced plans to build
nuclear power plants in
Saskatchewan, Canada's
uranium heartland, and
Alberta, where energy-hungry
oil sands operations are
driving up the province's
power needs.
Sources say
Bruce Power is also eager to
build a nuclear plant in
Nanticoke to replace
Ontario's largest coal-fired
generation station there
when it shuts down as
planned in 2014.
Steve Aplin,
head of energy consulting
with Ottawa-based HDP Group
Inc., said Bruce Power has
established itself as a
strong operator in Ontario
and is ideally positioned to
take on similar roles
outside of Canada.
"This is
another signal that they
have worldwide ambitions,"
Aplin said. "They're one of
the top four or five nuclear
power operators on the
continent in North America,
and they understand natural
uranium reactors. If that's
what the Turks are looking
for, then Bruce Power has
got it."
Dogan Enerji,
the energy subsidiary of
Turkish conglomerate Dogan
Holding, signed a contract
to work with Bruce Power on
a formal bid, along with
partners Unit Investment NV
of Belgium and
Istanbul-based industrial
conglomerate Anadolu
Endustri Holding.
Cannon said
Bruce Power's role would be
to operate the plant, but he
wouldn't say which reactor
technology would be at the
heart of the bid, which must
be submitted by Sept. 24.
The Turkish government's
request for proposals,
however, indicates it is
interested in light-water
reactors of the kind
supplied by Areva, GE
Nuclear and Westinghouse, or
"pressurized heavy water
reactors that utilize
natural uranium."
Aplin said
the most obvious reactor
design for Bruce Power to
back would be the
heavy-water Candu 6 design
that Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd. has sold in places such
as China and Romania. The
Candu 6 is similar to the
earlier Candu reactors now
in operation at the Bruce
generating station.
AECL's
next-generation ACR 1000
reactor, which uses slightly
enriched uranium, has been a
harder sell. Turkey
specifically excluded the
design from its request, and
Romania has also backed away
from the ACR for future
plants because the design is
not yet complete.
Meanwhile, a
memorandum of understanding
recently announced between
AECL and Jordan is focused
on the Candu 6 design. "All
these countries, for fuel
security reasons, like the
natural uranium (Candu 6)
because they're not reliant
on an outside supplier of
enriched fuel," said Aplin.
Contentious overhaul of
the aging Gentilly-2
site to cost $1.9
billion, possibly
prolong its life to 2040
Aug 20, 2008 04:30 AM
The Canadian Press
BECANCOUR, QUE.–Quebec will
retain its toehold in the
nuclear industry by carrying
out a major retrofit of its
lone nuclear power plant.
Hydro-Québec
announced yesterday it will
spend $1.9 billion to
overhaul the aging
Gentilly-2 plant near
Trois-Rivières.
It hopes to
extend the power plant's
lifespan to 2040.
Hydro-Québec
described Gentilly-2 as a
reliable and clean source of
energy that helps stabilize
Quebec's power grid.
"We'll go
ahead with the renovation of
Gentilly-2 because it's a
plant that has been used
safely for 25 years,"
president Thierry Vandal,
said at a news conference.
"The site of
the plant is very safe, as
much for production as for
storing nuclear waste."
Gentilly-2's
future has been the subject
of heated debate for years.
Environmental groups object
to the plant because of what
they see as murky long-term
plans for dealing with
radioactive waste.
"(The
government) has had a policy
that won't accept a
used-fuel waste site in
Quebec," said Greenpeace's
Shawn-Patrick Stensil.
"Today,
however, they have given the
okay to producing more
radioactive waste. That's
hypocritical."
Businesses
and unions welcomed the
refurbishment as a boost for
the central Quebec region.
The
renovations will result in
about $600 million in
spinoffs for Quebec and will
create about 800 jobs over a
20-month period, in addition
to the station's current
staff.
Gentilly-2
came online in 1983 and
produces about 3 per cent of
the province's energy
output.
By Holger Dambeck Spiegel Online
International - Aug 11-2008
France is proud of having the
world's most developed nuclear energy infrastructure, but a
series of incidents at the Tricastin nuclear power plant has
shaken its self-confidence. Is public sentiment about nuclear
power about to shift?
The winegrowers have already made their move. No longer will
they label their product Côteaux du Tricastin. Why? Because
the name Tricastin is slowly beginning to stand for
something far removed from fine wine. The vintners fear
that sales might be hurt by a
series of recent accidents
(more...) at a
nuclear power plant near Avignon bearing the same name.
"Nuclear energy and food don't really go so well together in
the minds of consumers," said Henri Bour, president of the
local Appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC) wine
association, in late July. From now on, the wine will likely
bear the label of origin "Grignan," after the place where
the association is based.
Since the first accident in early July, the situation has
only worsened. Last week, radioactive material leaked out
once again from Tricastin, this time when radioactive
isotopes were released into the atmosphere during a nuclear
waste disposal process. It took the authorities weeks to
come clean about this incident though it happened a month
ago. This incident also puts the reactor over its limit for
the permissible annual release by 5 percent, according to
France's nuclear safety agency (ASN). But the amount of
radioactive exposure only amounts to "several thousandths"
of the permissible limit, the public has been assured.
The French anti-nuclear umbrella group Sortir du
nucleaire, or Abandon Nuclear Power, has documented the
series of incidents at Tricastin. According to the group's
count, in July alone, the nuclear power plant experienced
three other incidents:
During the night between July 7 and 8, 75 kilograms (165
pounds) of unenriched uranium were released into nearby
rivers and ground water. The local population was only
informed about the accident hours after it took place.
On July 23, 100 people were exposed to the radioactive
substance Cobalt 58 after a leak at a reactor that had been
shut down for refuelling. ASN estimated their exposure was
40 times below the permissible limit. The incident was
classified as a Level 0 accident -- "anomaly" -- on the
International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
On July 29, personnel were evacuated following an alarm
at Tricastin's reactor number four. The facility's operators
report that medical examinations of the employees returned
no sign of elevated exposure. Sortir du nucléaire
contradicts the report, claiming that slight traces of
radioactivity were found on two of the 45 employees
examined.
France's love affair with nuclear energy is decades old
-- no other country in the world is as dependent on the atom
as France is. The country's 58 reactors produce nearly 80
percent of its electricity, meaning France only has to
import half of its total energy needs. Furthermore, whereas
Germans have long been deeply suspicious about nuclear
technology, the French have few doubts. What matters are
stable energy prices, thousands of guaranteed jobs and the
profits derived from exporting nuclear power plant
technology.
A Change of Heart?
But is that still the case following the series of
accidents at Tricastin? Stephane Lhomme, a spokesman for
Sortir du nucléaire, has his doubts. "This series of
accidents will leave its mark on the public conscious,"
Lhomme says. "This will change people's minds about nuclear
energy."
Reaction to nuclear accidents in France tend to be much
different than in Germany. While almost every broken screw
unleashes a new debate in Germany about the future of
nuclear energy, they're almost nonchalant about such things
in France. In Germany, the Federal Office for Radiation
Protection (BfS) regularly publishes a comprehensive list of
all the accidents at German nuclear power reactors. For
2007, for example, the office reported 104 Level 0 incidents
and two Level 1 ("incident") occurrences on the INES scale.
This kind of transparency is much less common in France,
which is generally much more centralized than Germany. The
official nuclear safety agency ASN only publishes total
numbers of incidents (for 2007, 708 Level 0 and 56 Level 1
incidents). Individual incidents are only made available on
the agency's Web site if they reach Level 1. It is left to
the discretion of agency officials whether they publish
information about Level 0 incidents. In 2007, this happened
only four times -- while the other 704 Level 0 incidents
went unmentioned.
Cover Up?
The French media tends to follow suit -- either they
publish a few stories about nuclear accidents each year, or
they publish none at all. These days, though, things appear
to be changing dramatically. The problems at Tricastin
became front page news.
"The media coverage after the most recent events was
huge," says Helmut Hirsch, a nuclear expert from Hanover,
who numbers Austria's minister of the environment and
Greenpeace among his consulting clients. "And understandably
so, seeing that it actually involved the release of
radioactivity." Hirsch adds that, in his opinion, the ASN
does provide experts with comprehensive information about
accidents. "These things are actually fairly well
publicized," Hirsch told SPIEGEL ONLINE, "but the media
coverage varies."
Officials at Sortir du nucléaire don't see it that way.
"We don't learn anything about things that cause actual
problems," says Lhomme. "They're covered up."
Lhomme also says that the most recent incidents at
Tricastin were only publicized due to the danger that the
news would leak out on its own. The first instinct of
nuclear power plant operators, he says, is to say nothing.
When they do go public though, says Lhomme, the message is
always the same: The incident wasn't that bad. To back up his claim, Lhomme points to an incident in
December 1999 when a hurricane flooded the Blayais nuclear
power plant in France's Bordeaux region, forcing the reactor
to be shut down. It was only days later the the public
learned that not all had gone according to plan -- Sortie du
nucléaire spoke of a "serious accident." The IAEA later
classified it as a Level 2 event.
The operators of German nuclear power plants are also no
strangers to hushing up or playing down accidents. Following
an incident in June 2007, which saw a fire break out in a
nuclear power plant near Hamburg, the plant's operator
Vattenfall -- one of Germany's leading energy companies --
only provided incremental information. Ultimately, two
executives and a public relations official with Vattenfall
Europe lost their jobs. But the impression remained that
nuclear power executives are about as trustworthy as used
car salesmen.
After the most recent incidents at Tricastin, Sortir du
nucléaire has renewed its calls for Socatri to be shut down.
This subsidiary of nuclear giant Areva is in charge of
processing radioactive waste at the nuclear power plant and
has been responsible for two of the four incidents.
Lhomme is intimately acquainted with the attitude of the
French toward the nuclear industry. "Up to now," Lhomme
says, "most people have believed that power plants are safe
and clean, that France is the world champion of nuclear
power." But that, he adds, is changing.
Ducking
Responsibility: Entergy Spins Its Nukes
By Shay
Totten, Special to Corpwatch - August 4th, 2008
When Vermont regulators approved the sale
of Yankee Nuclear, the state’s only nuclear power plant, to Entergy in
2001, many heralded it as a move that would promote cheap, safe power.
Vermont Yankee would be run by one of the nation’s largest nuclear
operators — a Fortune 500 company to boot — rather than a group of
in-state utilities.
But rather than getting top-notch industry expertise and management,
Vermonters saw a spate of mishaps at the plant. Just last year a spent
fuel rod went missing and there was the spectacular collapse of cooling
tower sections. The bad news led Republican Governor Jim Douglas to say
that it seems as if “Homer Simpson is running the place.”
Now, seven years after buying the plant, Entergy is using a complex
restructuring scheme to back away from its ownership of Vermont Yankee
and the rest of its northeast fleet of nuclear reactors.
This move is mirrored throughout the nuclear industry as older plants
reach the end of their productive lives and must be decommissioned at
enormous cost to owners, taxpayers or both. At the same time, many
utilities are trying to cash in on the image that nuclear power is part
of the climate change solution and reap record profits as a spike in
natural gas and oil costs boosts power prices.
One way the nuclear industry is dealing with the changing energy climate
is though shell games: They are restructuring and setting up complex
holding companies that push profits to shareholders, while reneging on
side agreements that made license extensions, power up-rates or
ownership changes palatable to state and local regulators.
Entergy is spinning off all its plants into a separate limited liability
company, Enexus, absolving itself of any responsibility to the nuclear
reactor fleet it now owns, or to the states in which they are located.
The deal would add $4 billion to Entergy’s bottom line, but would leave
the newly created LLC saddled from the start with $4 billion in debt.
Entergy owns and operates 11 power plants with approximately 30,000
megawatts of electric generating capacity, and it is the second-largest
nuclear generating corporation in the United States, after Exelon.
Entergy has annual revenues of more than $11 billion and employs roughly
14,300 people in more than a dozen states.
Seeking Approval
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) have approved the Vermont restructuring,
but Entergy still needs the OK from the Internal Revenue Service, the
Securities Exchange Commission, and regulators in Vermont and New York.
It hopes to complete the restructuring by year’s end.
`
“We’re pleased with the staff’s decision of the transfer of the licenses
and are looking forward to the completion of the spinoff process,” said
Entergy spokesperson Michael Burns. “We strongly believe it will provide
benefits to all of the plant’s stakeholders and communities.”
In Vermont, some of those stakeholders are less than pleased with
hosting an aging nuclear power plant with a shaky safety record. When
Vermont Yankee was built in 1972, its life expectancy was 40 years. With
2012 looming, it is seeking an extension to operate an additional 20
years. In 2006, despite protests, it was granted permission to produce
20 percent more power than it was originally designed to generate. That
output boost means it sucks in more water from, and pumps hotter water
out into, the nearby Connecticut River. Some critics have pointed out
that the original plant was not designed to run so hard for so long,
and, indeed, a recent study fulfilled predictions that radiation
emissions would increase along with power.
Decommissioning, when it inevitably comes, is expected to cost at least
$800 million. The clean-up fund currently has only $400 million, which
is supposed to cover not only mothballing and purging the plant, but
returning the site to be in keeping with the nearby cow pastures, farm
crops, elementary school and white clapboard houses.
Residents and lawmakers opposed to the restructuring, and to Yankee's
license extension, have so far failed to coalesce their forces. The
woefully underfunded activists of the New England Coalition and Citizens
Awareness Network have been the underdogs in this fight — often taking
on well-heeled lawyers from both the NRC and Entergy in one hearing.
That may change. A statewide tour last year aimed to educate Vermonters
about the ongoing problems that a nuclear power plant poses to
residents. It highlighted radiation emissions and the impact a major
accident could have on the state’s agriculture and health.
And, the string of mishaps at the plant may have done more to shake the
confidence of northern residents and policymakers than could any
well-reasoned argument in the arcane hearing rooms of the NRC.
The
Spin
According to Entergy, the spin-off corporation Enexus will own six
wholesale reactors that had been part of Entergy’s 11-reactor fleet,
including two at the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, New York;
and one each at Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vermont; Pilgrim Station in
Plymouth, Massachusetts; the James A. FitzPatrick plant near Oswego, New
York; and the Palisades plant in Covert, Michigan.
Headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi, Enexus Energy Corporation says it
will be “the nation's first stand-alone, publicly traded nuclear-energy
generating and marketing company” and will “own approximately 5,000
megawatts of nuclear power generation.”
But to further complicate matters, if and when the deal is finally
approved neither of the parent companies (Entergy and Enexus) will hold
Vermont Yankee’s operating license. Rather a separate spinoff company,
EquaGen, a joint venture of the parent companies, will act as the
holding company that owns the six Northeast reactors.
Confused? So are activists and regulators looking to ensure that when
the plant needs decommissioning or if it has a serious accident, there
will be a clear line of responsibility and sufficient financial
resources to deal with the problems. In short, they want Entergy to be
the company providing the financial backstop.
“This restructuring is absolutely bad for Vermont, and Vermont taxpayers
are going to get screwed,” warns Bob Stannard, a lobbyist hired by
anti-nuclear groups to make their case to lawmakers.
If the tangled chain of responsibility is not reassuring, the name is
supposed to be. Entergy officials say the brand Enexus was chosen to
“capture the appeal of reliable nuclear power, which is virtually
emissions-free and supports U.S. energy independence, while preparing
for future energy demands.” The name is a hybrid between “energy” and
“nexus” and “describes nuclear power’s role in the nexus between the
world’s growing energy demand and the United States’ need for clean,
environmentally friendly power.”
Certainly, the company was looking for something better than SpinCo or
NewCo — both monikers Entergy used before settling on Enexus and the tag
line: “Today’s energy — tomorrow’s solution.”
Resistance from Below
The reorganization may be a solution for Entergy, but state regulators
in Vermont and New York are not meeting the convoluted arrangement with
open arms.
Regulators in these two states believe the spinoff has more to do with
Entergy finding a way to wriggle out from under financial agreements
totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and potentially
saddling taxpayers with hundreds of millions in cleanup and closure
costs once the nuclear reactors are shut down.
The Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS), which represents
ratepayers before state regulators, opposes the reorganization.
“The department cannot support the Enexus corporate structure as
proposed. Enexus as proposed would have far too much debt, as well as
limited resources to meet any capital expenses that may be required for
continued operation,” said Stephen Wark, a DPS spokesperson.
In late July, three days of technical hearings were held before the
quasi-judicial Public Service Board. Consultants hired to review
Entergy’s reorganization testified that there would not be enough money
in the decommissioning fund to dismantle the plant if the reactor is
shut down in 2012, when Yankee’s current operating license expires.
While the NRC has OK’d a 20-year extension, it must also be approved by
both the Public Service Board and the Democratic Party-controlled state
legislature.
The DPS has other concerns, including the fact that Enexus, in its
restructuring documents, failed to identify or reference an “Employee
Concerns Program” as required by the federal whistleblower law.
Holding the Bag
Like death and taxes, the decommissioning of nuclear power plants is
inevitable. Today’s price for safely dismantling the radioactive
components, transporting them to nuclear waste dumps, and storing
material on site is estimated at roughly $600-$750 million per reactor.
By 2032 those costs could rise precipitously. And since the federal
government has failed to find a single repository for such waste, there
still may be no place to send the radioactive material. That means that
after the corporations have shut down geriatric plants, states will have
to find a way to store high-level nuclear waste at or near reactor
sites.
Anticipating that inevitable day, and spurred by Entergy’s
reorganization, Vermont lawmakers passed a bill this spring that, as a
condition for restructuring approval, requires the Louisiana-based
company to pony up $400 million and place it in the decommissioning fund
for Vermont Yankee.
Legislators were worried that since Entergy was walking away from the
plant as an owner, taxpayers would be on the hook for decommissioning
costs.
In May, Entergy’s top Vermont lobbyist, Brian Cosgrove, argued against
the bill, telling listeners on a popular local morning talk show that
the $400 million liability would affect the company’s credit rating, and
be a drag on the bottom line.
But according to Standard & Poor’s, a Wall Street ratings agency, the
proposed additional $400 million for the decommissioning fund will not
affect Entergy’s bond rating.
And it sure doesn’t look like the payment would kill profits. Entergy
reported first-quarter earnings of more than $308 million, a 45 percent
jump from a year earlier. It announced earnings of more than $289
million for the second quarter of the year, up $22 million from a year
earlier.
Despite Entergy’s strong financial position, Republican Governor Jim
Douglas opposed the legislature’s move, claiming the extra money Entergy
was being forced to pay would eventually come out of ratepayers’ pockets
in higher power rates as the costs were passed along to utilities.
Lawmakers defied the governor and passed a bill calling on Entergy to
keep its word and put its money where its mouth was. Douglas then
promptly vetoed the legislation.
Stannard call the NRC an industry “lapdog,” for going along with the
restructuring plans and financial shenanigans. “All this clearly
indicates to policymakers in Vermont that we should have no faith in the
NRC to protect our interests; we have to rely on ourselves to protect
our interests,” said the anti-nuke lobbyist. “The NRC has been lockstep
with Entergy in general, and with this plant in particular from the
get-go. Entergy is a big company accustomed with getting its way, and it
is having a meltdown over the fact that the little state of Vermont has
purview over this restructuring, or a license extension.”
In short, Stannard believes Vermont officials should more strongly
oppose the deal and not rely on either the NRC or on officials in
neighboring states.
New
York Powers Up
One of those neighboring states is also concerned about Entergy’s plans.
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo told the New York Times:
“Entergy’s plan is ill-conceived on a number of levels. It could
ultimately cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, does nothing
to guarantee adequate decontamination of the site, and does not
anticipate a future New York without Indian Point.”
The transfer of Entergy to Enexus could cost New York residents money
because Entergy agreed to a special revenue-sharing arrangement with the
New York Power Authority (NYPA). Under the agreement, in the next six
years Entergy is to provide $432 million to NYPA. In turn, the authority
provides low-cost electricity to businesses and municipalities. It also
oversees energy efficiency and energy retrofitting programs.
Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, where the Indian Point
nuclear reactor is located, also opposes the deal. He says the complex
spinoff arrangement makes it difficult to determine who will be
ultimately responsible if something goes wrong. Indian Point is located
less than 25 miles from mid-town Manhattan.
Entergy officials, in letters and court filings, have rejected the
state’s arguments and said it was “in full compliance with all terms and
conditions” of the agreement. It plans to spin off Enexus to its own
shareholders, who could then sell or hold the new shares.
Christine Pritchard, a spokesperson for the Power Authority, said it
would fight Entergy in court if necessary.
“If the spinoff of Entergy’s nuclear plants is approved and, based upon
the structure of the spinoff, Entergy then tries to evade its
obligations under the value sharing agreements, NYPA intends fully to
protect its rights and challenge that unwarranted conduct in a court of
law,” she said.
Same
Old Shell Game
Setting up shell companies and limited-liability corporations to shield
the parent company is nothing new in the nuclear power industry. A 2002
report into this growing practice raised concern about the eventual
impact the trend would have on the marketplace, and potentially on the
public purse.
Just take a look at the recent implosions related to the subprime
industry, and Enron and WorldCom before it. That’s the same kind of
financial hocus pocus going on in the energy industry.
“With years of reckless undermining of economic and financial regulation
now exposed in a series of catastrophic financial collapses,
investigators turning over rocks keep finding the same agents of decay:
demands for short term “performance” in the private sector compounded by
regulatory cutbacks, underqualified commission appointments,
Congressional hearings harassing public protection initiatives, pressure
to deregulate more and faster — a ruinous mixture of money, pressure,
overconfidence, complexity and ideology,” wrote former NRC Commissioner
Peter Bradford in his introduction to the 2002 report by Synapse Energy
Economics. The report was prepared for the STAR Foundation and
Riverkeeper.
Bradford, who served under President Jimmy Carter, also argued that
federal energy regulators weren’t schooled in the ability to analyze
these new, complex financial arrangements.
“During all those years, health and safety regulation got the same
debilitating treatment from Congress and the presidency as its financial
counterparts. How long before those chickens come home to roost, and
where will the roosting be?” he pondered.
No major accidents have occurred at Entergy plants, but the company’s
current efforts mark a heightened level of corporate restructuring that
will insulate it if any do.
“Entergy Corporation was a pioneer in establishing separate corporate
entities to own and operate nuclear power plants,” the report claimed,
citing a seven-year history of setting up shell companies.
At the time, Entergy owned its reactors through a variety of
wholly-owned retail public utility companies, and wholly-owned
subsidiaries. In some cases, separate subsidiaries were set up around
single reactors, with each subsidiary owning a portion of each other’s
reactor. Most of these subsidiaries were under the umbrella of Entergy
Nuclear Holding Company.
Their reasoning was simple: “The use of holding companies below Entergy
Nuclear Holding Company allows Entergy to segregate various types of
financing, investment, and business activities, and by doing so, enables
Entergy to better manage and control risks associated with these
activities,” the report stated.
In other words, shareholders get the benefits with none of the risk. The
federal government has backed this equation by ensuring that nuclear
power plant owners are shielded, to some extent, from having to clean up
accidents.
After the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, the federal nuclear
self-insurance requirement — the Price-Anderson Act — was increased from
$560 million to the current $9.3 billion. In addition, each plant was
required to set up a dedicated decommissioning trust fund to assure that
funds would be available to clean up a closed plant.
But the Star Foundation-Riverkeeper report finds that “with the passage
of two more decades, renewed complacency has eroded these safeguards.”
“The consolidation of nuclear ownership now risks the shifting of
accident and decommissioning costs from the plant owners to the general
public because the relatively secure financial backing of substantial
utility companies has in many cases been replaced by a limited liability
subsidiary whose only asset is an individual nuclear power plant,” the
report found.
The report also warned against the growing consolidation in the market
occurring while companies were creating more complex ownership
structures.
“The limited liability structures being utilized are effective
mechanisms for transferring profits to the parent/owner while avoiding
tax payments. They also provide a financial shield for the parent/owner
if an accident, equipment failure, safety upgrade, or unusual
maintenance need at one particular plant creates a large, unanticipated
cost. The parent/owner can walk away, by declaring bankruptcy for that
separate entity, without jeopardizing its other nuclear and non-nuclear
investments,” the report concluded.
No
Nukes of the North
In Vermont, activists opposed to the ongoing operation of Vermont Yankee
and to the clever shielding of its corporate owners from the risks of
running a nuclear power plant (and pushing that risk back on the
communities) have no intention of letting Entergy simply change the
rules mid-game.
Opponents hope to rekindle some of the spirit of the 1980s when a
statewide coalition formed and backed numerous resolutions at annual
town meetings calling for a nuclear weapons freeze.
The Citizens Awareness Network and several peace and justice groups will
stage a statewide tour in early August to try to generate support for
closing down Vermont Yankee in 2012. The march and tour begins in
Bennington and ends up in Burlington on Hiroshima-Nagasaki day after a
stop in the state’s capital of Montpelier.
And, Montpelier will be the stage in 2008 as Vermonters take up the
thorny issue of extending Vermont Yankee’s license another 20 years,
ending with a potential vote in the Legislature.
Business
Gazette -
Gaithersburg,MD,USA
August 1,
2008
As the
Maryland
Public
Service
Commission
begins
public
hearings
Monday on a
potential
new nuclear
reactor, the
debate about
nuclear
energy's
cost and
effectiveness
continues.
The
Maryland
Public
Interest
Research
Group
released a
report
recently
saying a new
reactor at
the Calvert
Cliffs
Nuclear
Power Plant
would lead
to higher
electric
costs for
Maryland
ratepayers.
The new
plant's cost
continues to
escalate,
and the
project
would likely
receive
substantial
federal
subsidies,
the
Baltimore
organization
says.
The
reactor is
planned by a
subsidiary
of Baltimore
energy giant
Constellation
Energy Group
and a joint
venture
involving
Constellation,
which owns
the
1,735-megawatt,
two-reactor
Lusby plant
on the
Chesapeake
Bay.
‘‘Nuclear
reactors can
only become
financially
viable by
transferring
risk to
taxpayers
and-or
customers,"
the Maryland
PIRG report
says. ‘‘The
long-term
value of
federal
taxpayer
subsidies
for a new
reactor at
Calvert
Cliffs could
exceed $13
billion if
it is one of
the first
new plants
built in the
United
States."
|