Entergy Decommissioning Funds JUST NOT THERE.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

BREAKING NEWS...Entergy's Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Funds Inadequate

Just in from the fine folks at the the Rutland Herald, Entergy's Decommissioning Fund for the Vermont Yankee plant is WOEFULLY inadequate...how inadequate you ask?

If Entergy's License Renewal Application is denied, it will take a minimum of FIFTEEN years, with the reactor in mothballs for the funds to become available to begin the Decommissioning Process.

More alarming, is that FUSE USA has raised Decommissioning Fund inadequacy as a very serious contention in their filings to stop the wrongful license renewal of the trouble plagued and failing Indian Point reactors in Buchanan New York.

What we are beginning to see here, is that Entergy's financial planning is fatally flawed, that the owner of over 10 percent of America's aging fleet of crumbling reactors does not have enough funds to decommission ANY OF THEM! This disturbing and troubling news takes on far more serious implications in light of Entergy's bid to spin their deregulated reactors off into a new company, thus creating yet another layer of protection between Entergy the parent company, and the various Limited Liability Dummy Corporations created to be responsible for the NRC licenses.

Article published Nov 15, 2007

Study: Yankee can't afford shutdown

VERNON — If Vermont Yankee nuclear plant shut down today, or even in 2012 when its federal license expires, there would not be enough money in its decommissioning fund to pay for it to be dismantled and disposed of safely. The plant would have to be essentially mothballed for 12 to 15 years for its stock market-invested trust fund to build so there was enough money to dismantle it, Entergy Nuclear engineer David McElwee told the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel Tuesday evening.

Read Full Article

US EPA Calls For Evaluation of Environmental Costs of Terrorist Attack

Just in over the AP, the US EPA agrees with FUSE USA that the environmental costs of a successful terrorist attack on Indian Point must be included in the SEIS. The EPA's position runs contrary to the NRC's wrongful attempts to eliminate same from any consideration in the EIS process.

NRC egregiously takes the position that Security for the plant needs to be dealt with on a ongoing, ever changing basis...we agree with that premise, but point out that Security in and of itself has nothing to do with evaluating the environmental costs should a successful terrorist attack occur. NRC chooses to ignore this very simple fact, and in ignoring this basic tenant of an Environmental Impact Study for Indian Point, they are failing to abide by the NEPA rules to evaluate all environmental impacts, no matter how GREAT, or how small.

Further, the AP story brings out another IMPORTANT ISSUE that FUSE USA has brought to the attention of the NRC. Entergy's application for a License Renewal, is not and amendment to extend their CURRENT OPERATING LICENSE, but in fact a application for a NEW LICENSE for the two facilities. Based on this simple fact, all EIS siting criteria issues should be included within the scope of the SEIS. The NRC is of the belief that the Current License Basis is sufficient to justify a GEIS (Generic Environmental Impact Statement) for almost all site specific issues. That belief will be challenged in the License Renewal Process for Indian Point.

In order for NRC to proceed toward that goal they required the resolution of legal issues regarding extensions. In January of 1989, NRC’s General Counsel issued his opinions regarding these issues, namely that the extension be accomplished via a new license rather than an amendment of the current license and that an environmental assessment would be required with either a finding of no significant impact’ or an environmental impact statement. Office of General Counsel (OGC) stated that based upon their review of case law and regulations, an antitrust review would not be required. NRC staff reached certain conclusions based upon OGC’s input and the opinions offered by other interested groups, among these, that the current licensing basis would “provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection” of the public. They determined that NRC should draft a generic environmental impact statement to be used in all renewal cases.

FUSE USA points out a glaring error in the AP story. Several news sources are reporting that the city of New York has filed a Petition to Intervene in the License Renewal hearings.

Various groups have filed lawsuits demanding hearings on the scope of the relicensing. New York City, just 30 miles south of the reactors in Buchanan, has formally requested _ without taking a position _ that it be allowed a voice in the decision.

This is what the New York Economic Development Corporation would LIKE EVERYONE TO BELIEVE. However, when said corporation was pushed on this matter in a phone conversation last week, they RELUCTANTLY admitted they are not a part of New York government, but wanted to defend their inclusion in the License Renewal process. Fact is, said corporation works closely with Mayor Bloomberg's office, but IS NOT IN ANY WAY LEGALLY A PART OF New York City government, and thus HAS NO STANDING. Much like NY AREA who is also trying to intervene, NY Economic Development Corporation is a Pro-Business, pro nuclear energy group wrongfully trying to elbow their way into the process. The NRC cannot allow Entergy, NEI and the nuclear industry to send wolves into the hen house dressed as sheep. NY AREA was originally started and funded with Entergy DOLLARS, and should have ZERO standing in the License Renewal process.

FUSE USA Senior Policy Analyst Speaks Mind in Letter To Editor

Tax Money for Big Energy

To the Editor:

Re “ ’70s Echo in New ‘No Nukes’ Campaign” (news article, Oct. 23):

The statements made with respect to corporate welfare to the nuclear power industry being on a par with taxpayer financing of other kinds of energy are absolutely accurate.

Hundreds of billions have flowed from the American taxpayer (in a variety of ingenious ways) to the nuclear industry and Big Oil. When you add in the attendant security costs for each, the sums expand beyond calculation.

Unfortunately, only minimal and sporadic financing has gone to the clean sustainable forms of power generation (wind, solar, geothermal and so on) and efficiency technologies.

Study after study has shown the need and potential for sustainable power, but the money continues to flow to the polluting industries. Why? Because big energy can pay the lobbyists and give the big campaign contributions — simple as that.

Michel Lee
Scarsdale, N.Y., Oct. 24, 2007

The writer is a senior policy analyst with Friends United for Sustainable Energy, a nonprofit energy policy think tank based in New York.

New York Post Editorial Discusses FUSE NRC Filing

Everyone knows that the NY Post is very pro nuclear, pro Entergy, and rarely allows anti-nuclear sentiments to grace the pages of their rage sheet. So, when and anti-environmental group captures their attention enough to warrant and Editorial, they must be doing something right. So, it is with great pleasure that FUSE USA announces the mention of our organization in today's New York Post. It will be interesting to find out from the New York Post if they are going to allow FUSE a chance to have our views on this important subject published on their Editorial Page...it seems only fair, since they mention us in the below Editorial.

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MENACE article here

October 2, 2007 -- In facing its energy challenges, is New York heading in the complete opposite direction as the rest of the country - and, indeed, parts of the world?

Last month, an anti-nuclear group, Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) filed papers opposing the relicensing of one of the Indian Point nuclear reactors. A three-judge panel must now consider FUSE's claims that the federal government hasn't exercised enough regulatory oversight on the Westchester plant.

The same month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission received applications to build and operate new reactors in Texas. The applications from NRG Energy Inc. were the first submitted in 31 years.

Nuclear-plant construction came to a screeching halt in the wake of the Three Mile Island incident in 1978 - even though America has never experienced a fatality, or even serious injury, attributable to nuclear power.

NRG submitted what are the first of what is expected to be a flood of applications in coming months for as many as 29 new reactors in 20 sites across the country, mainly in the South.

Such ventures don't happen in a vacuum: A company won't go forward with an application if investors aren't on board. As The Wall Street Journal recently reported, U.S. power companies are now prepared to invest as much as $90 billion in nuclear power.

Even some environmentalists are having second thoughts about their longtime adamant opposition to nuke plants.

They understand that nuclear power is "clean": Unlike coal or oil, it doesn't create the greenhouse gases that many see as contributing to global warming.

Meanwhile, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy calls nuclear power "the energy of the future" and has urged Germany to rescind its plan to phase out nuclear plants. France relies on nuclear power for 78 percent of its energy.

But, as the FUSE filing shows, New York - notwithstanding its own soaring energy needs - seems poised to retreat from the working, safe, nuclear reactors it has running, just as other states consider building new ones.

If New York is to be so foolish, it shouldn't be surprised if businesses move to places better able to fill their energy needs down the road.

Have Entergy Plumes Reached the Hudson River?

Entergy did their best to keep NEW maps of the underground plumes out of the public arena until after the original deadline for filing contentions in their License Renewal Application for Indian Point. Is this map submitted to the NRC with their well testing report proof that the radioactive waste streams at the site have almost reached the Hudson River...the suggested outlines of the plumb areas would indicate such. The citizens of Westchester County need to call for the release of the latest maps IMMEDIATELY so that we can have the truth about this important contaminant issue at the Indian Point plant.

FUSE USA Makes Headlines

FUSE USA filed its first set of contentions in opposition to the wrongful relicensing of Entergy's Indian Point IP2 nuclear reactor located in the town of Buchanan, New York this past Friday, September 21, 2007. The filing was picked up by Matt Wald of the New York Times.

September 24, 2007
Indian Point Faces New Challenge From Opponents

By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — An antinuclear group filed legal papers with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday evening opposing the relicensing of the Indian Point 2 nuclear reactor in Westchester County.
As a result, a panel of judges must consider the validity of the assertions — setting the stage for a long and contentious new chapter in the dispute over the plant and its companion, Indian Point 3.

There is already strong opposition to the relicensing of other nuclear power plants, including Oyster Creek in southern New Jersey and Vermont Yankee, which is on the Connecticut River just north of the Massachusetts border. Panels of three administrative law judges are studying those applications as well. Click here for rest of story.