New Yorkers rally to shut down Indian Point in Manhattan on August 12, 2011

108 million. That’s how many people live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant in the United States, as our new nuclear locator map shows. It’s an astonishing number. Every day one in three Americans go to work, school and church with the threat of a nuclear catastrophe looming in their own backyard.

These dangerous old nuclear plants are vulnerable to natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as deliberate attack, and Fukushima showed how catastrophic a nuclear meltdown can be for people living nearby when a disaster knocks out power to a nuclear plant. Months after the earthquake and nuclear meltdown at Fukushima, Japan is still dealing with the effects of dangerous radiation – possibly leaving generations of Japanese to face life in a nuclear disaster zone.

The earthquake this week on the East Coast is a reminder that millions of Americans are at risk of a nuclear disaster. Less than 10 miles from the epicenter in Virginia, the North Anna nuclear plant lost power, and a dozen other nuclear plants experienced unusual events. Luckily, there wasn’t any release of radiation, but it was uncomfortably close – North Anna was designed to withstand a 5.9 to 6.2 earthquake and this earthquake was 5.8. These risks exist at every nuclear plant, not just in places like California and Japan. According to a report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nuclear plant most at risk of earthquake damage is New York’s Indian Point – which threatens more than 17 million people living within 50 miles. And now Indian Point and a dozen other nuclear plants are preparing for the possibility of more damage and loss of power as Hurricane Irene bears down on the East Coast.

Add to this the risk that violent extremists have considered nuclear plants “nice targets” and it’s clear that nuclear power is just too risky. The fact that this risk still exists ten years after September 11 is simply indefensible; it’s time to shut them down.

Check out our new nuclear locator map to see if you are one of the 108 million Americans living within 50 miles of a dangerous nuclear plant, and tell Congress to phase out old nuclear reactors, like Indian Point in New York, that threaten 1 in 3 Americans and support safe, clean energy.

This week, Entergy Vermont Yankee or ENVY will have its first hearing after the Louisiana-based corporation sued the State of Vermont in an effort to run its forty-year-old nuclear reactor, the very same design and vintage of those at Fukushima, for an additional 20 years.

Take action now to close Vermont Yankee!

ENVY and, for that matter, the federal bureaucrats at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) who purportedly regulate the splitting of atoms, have not even paused to consider the events in Japan; have not for one moment reconsidered the wisdom of running nuclear reactors longer and harder than ever before. Guess we can chalk that one up to hubris or in the parlance of the Seven Deadly Sins: PRIDE.

ENVY purchased the reactor at bargain basement prices and then their GREED & GLUTTONY got the better of them. ENVY attempted to boost the power of the aged nuclear reactor in order to boost their profits. Despite the approval and safety sign off by the regulators in Washington, the power boost resulted in a turbine fire and the collapse of one of the reactors cooling towers.

ENVY’s cooling tower wasn’t the only thing that collapsed in Vermont: along with the cooling tower went the credibility of both the regulator and the corporation. NRC’s renewal of nuclear reactor licenses is such a meaningless rubber stamp that state governments are looking at ways to rein in the nuclear reactors in their states. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Vermont have all taken steps to circumscribe the operation of nuclear reactors within their borders. If the NRC actually regulated the nuclear industry rather than coddling it, the actions of these state governments would not be necessary.

But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a captured agency, it serves the nuclear industry, not the American people. The deadly sin this agency brings to mind is SLOTH. Not in the sense of indolence or being lazy but more in the older sense of the deadly sin which speaks to the failure to utilize one’s talents and gifts. The NRC could actually regulate; but the first reactor that applied for a renewed license couldn’t prove it was safe enough to operate. So the NRC at the industry’s behest gutted the rules governing the relicensing of reactors and every single reactor that has since applied has been approved.

ANGER in Vermont at both the Carpet-bagging Corporation and federal bureaucrats is understandable and most certainly warranted. The Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 to deny ENVY the state permit necessary tooperate past March 2012. Yet the NRC, in the midst of the Fukushima meltdowns and radioactive wastepool failures, issued ENVY a permit for 20 more years of operation as if neither the agency nor the industry had anything to learn from the crisis in Japan.

The only deadly sin not yet incorporated into this atomic tale is LUST. There is nothing sexy about nuclear power. But LUST does play a role in Entergy’s nuclear operations. It was Entergy’s LUST for more power that brought this New Orleans – based corporation to New England and to incorporate ENVY. These Seven Deadly Sins may very well be its downfall as ENVY’s operations have cut into Entergy’s bottom line.

The Seven Deadly Sins were used by the early church to teach followers about the human propensity to sinin hopes that the masses would avoid these foibles. But still GREED, SLOTH, PRIDE, LUST, ENVY, and GLUTTONY are alive and well in the nuclear industry and this ANGERs those of us forced to bear the riskposed by their deadly radioactive wastes. It seems the nuclear industry and its regulators never made it to Sunday school…. Rather than attempt to again instill some “religion” into this industry, we should phaseout nuclear power before we have a Fukushima on U.S. soil.

This morning, Greenpeace delivered a message to Chairman Gregory Jaczko and the other nuclear bureaucrats of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and their Senate overseers on Capitol Hill.  Despite the testimony from NRC that US plants meet government regulations, Greenpeace impressed upon the Commission and the Senate that nuclear is never safe. 

As we’ve seen in Japan with the Fukushima nuclear disaster, nuclear plants have never been built to withstand the forces that can be inflicted upon a nuclear reactor.  Earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, tornadoes or terrorist attacks can destroy nuclear reactors and their infrastructure and leave the surrounding communities with no other option than to flee the release of radiation.  These events can be so strong that no reactor can be expected to survive.  In nuke speak, these accidents and events are termed “beyond design basis.”

Despite NRC testimony and the propaganda spewed by industry lobbyists, nuclear is never safe.  No nuclear plant in the United States or on the planet can withstand a meltdown of the radioactive fuel rods. All of the containments will fail because they were never designed to withstand the forces unleashed by a core meltdown; they were designed to withstand a pipe break.

Rather than dither over regulations that are insufficient to protect the public health and safety, the United States should follow the lead of Germany, Switzerland and Italy and begin phasing out nuclear reactors and replacing them with clean renewable energy.  Managing the end of the nuclear era is a daunting task but we need to begin the transition now.  We need to shut down nuclear reactors before they meltdown and devastate the U.S. like they have Belarus, the Ukraine and now Japan.

This morning Reuters reported that the damage at Fukushima Unit 1 was greater than expected by reactor owner TEPCO. This should not come as a surprise as TEPCO has, time and again, been slow to acknowledge the extent of the nuclear crisis in Japan.

TEPCO discovered that the water level in the pressure vessel that contains its uranium fuel rods had dropped about 5 meters  (16 ft) below the targeted level to cover the fuel under normal operating conditions.

“There must be a large leak,” Junichi Matsumoto, a general manager at the utility told a news conference.

“The fuel pellets likely melted and fell, and in the process may have damaged…the pressure vessel itself and created a hole,” he added.

When the reactor vessel is breached by the molten fuel this is commonly referred to by nuclear experts as “core on the floor”.

Dr. Ed Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists discussed this scenario over a month ago:

“While the authorities continue playing down the possibility of a breach of the primary containment at these reactors, I remain concerned.  Fukushima Dai-Ichi reactor Units 1, 2, and 3 are boiling water reactors with Mark I containments.  The Mark I is unusually vulnerable to containment failure in the event of a core-melt accident.  A recent study by Sandia National Laboratories shows that the likelihood of containment failure in this case is nearly 42% (see Table 4-7 on page 97). The most likely failure scenario involves the molten fuel burning through the reactor vessel, spilling onto the containment floor, and spreading until it contacts and breeches the steel containment-vessel wall.”

The situation in Japan highlights the inherent danger of nuclear power and that we should be using safe, clean and unlimited sources of energy like wind and solar. Let’s make that happen by telling the President and Congress that US tax payers should not on the risk of building new nuclear plants!

Nuclear reactors are inherently dangerous and a bad idea. Running old nuclear reactors 20 years longer than they were intended is an even worse idea.

But that’s exactly what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is determined to do.

Any day now, the NRC will decide the fate of over a dozen aging nuclear reactors in this country. Some of them are of the very same design and vintage as those that exploded and melted down in Japan. But the bureaucrats at NRC have NEVER denied a nuclear industry application for renewal. That’s not a legitimate licensing process; that’s a radioactive rubber stamp!

Right now there is more public awareness of the dangers of nuclear power than there has been since Chernobyl. The NRC knows that people are paying attention and that it is supposed to regulate reactors and their deadly wastes. That’s why we’re asking the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory B. Jaczko, to put away the rubber stamp and halt the re-licensing of dangerous old nuclear reactors.

Join me and tell NRC Chairman Jaczko to stop re-licensing these dangerous old nuclear reactors.

The NRC did not even pause to learn the lessons of the Fukushima disaster. Within days of the disaster in Japan, the NRC rubber stamped the re-licensing of Vermont Yankee for ANOTHER 20 years.

It should not take a Chernobyl or a Fukushima on U.S. soil for government bureaucrats to regulate this dangerous technology. Please send a message right now to NRC Chairman Jaczko urging him to STOP re-licensing dangerous old nuclear reactors.

The NRC is supposed to protect the public health and safety. Rubber stamping nuclear reactors to run 20 years beyond their licensed life only serves to bolster the corporate bottom line. Together we have the power to change that.

Today, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the relicensing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. In response, Greenpeace Nuclear Policy Analyst Jim Riccio said:

It is outrageous that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rubber stamped this old and leaking nuclear reactor for another 20 years of operation even as reactors of the same design have failed and are emitting dangerous levels of radiation in Japan.

In truth, relicensing Vermont Yankee says more about the NRC’s process and its deference to the nuclear industry than it does about the battle over Vermont’s energy future. NRC’s standards for renewal are so low that even this decrepit reactor has received approval.

The people of Vermont have spoken, and Vermont Yankee is not welcome to operate in the state after March 2012. Greenpeace will stand with Vermonters to oppose Entergy’s plans to continue operating this dangerous and unnecessary nuclear reactor for another twenty years.

Markey: Who’s In Charge If Nuclear Disaster Hits America?

U.S. Govt. Lacks Coordinated Plan, Says Markey; Congressman Expresses Concerns Over Lack of Nuclear “Emergency Pills,” Calls for Moratorium on New Nuclear Reactors in U.S.

WASHINGTON (March 13, 2011) – Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) raised concerns today that the United States does not have a coordinated plan to deal with a similar nuclear disaster as that which is currently happening in Japan. In a letter sent to President Barack Obama, Rep. Markey, who is the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, pointed out that currently no single federal agency appears to have designated command in the event of a nuclear disaster here on U.S. soil.

“I am concerned that it appears that no agency sees itself as clearly in command
of emergency response in a nuclear disaster,” writes Rep. Markey. “In stark contrast to the scenarios contemplated for oil spills and hurricanes, there is no specificity for emergency coordination and command in place for a response to a nuclear disaster.”

The federal government’s nuclear accident response plan — the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Plan — says that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “is responsible for coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.” Yet the plan also indicates that, depending on the type of nuclear or radiological incident, the coordinating agency may instead be the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), or the U.S. Coast Guard.

Documents recently released under a Freedom of Information Act request indicate
 that the EPA, the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is part of DHS, are not in agreement about which federal agency would lead efforts to respond and clean up a large-scale radiation release caused by an accident at or attack on a nuclear reactor.

Rep. Markey’s full letter is pasted below

Rep. Markey also reiterated his concerns that potassium iodide, the “emergency pills” taken after a nuclear disaster which can help prevent the cancer-causing effects of radiation poisoning, have not been distributed to those living within 20 miles of a U.S. nuclear facility, in contradiction with a 2002 law which Rep. Markey authored.

Rep. Markey also called for a moratorium on all new reactors that could be placed in seismically active areas until a top-to-bottom review of design resiliency, emergency response, backup power to prevent a meltdown during long electricity outages, and evacuation plans has been conducted. Rep. Markey has also demanded a safety review of the 31 reactors in the United States that are the same design as those currently experiencing major failure in Japan.

And Rep. Markey wants the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend a pending approval of the design for the AP 1000 nuclear reactor. One of NRC’s most senior staff warned that the containment structure for this reactor design would not be able to withstand a strong earthquake and it was so brittle it could “shatter like a glass cup” under sufficient stress. That revelation led Rep. Markey to send a letter to the NRC urging the resolution of the safety concerns just days before the Japanese earthquake.

# # #

March 13, 2011

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

I write to request information about how the United States federal government would respond to a nuclear disaster such as the unfolding crisis at reactors in Japan following the massive earthquake there. I am concerned that based on recent reports, it appears that no agency sees itself as clearly in command of emergency response in a nuclear disaster.

The unfolding crisis in Japan shows us the magnitude of the response we must be prepared for in the event of a nuclear disaster, be it caused by a natural catastrophe or a man-made accident or terrorist attack. Already, more than 200,000 people have been evacuated in a 12-mile radius around Fukushima Daiichi. It is not clear when, or if, they will be able to return to their homes.  The Daiichi-1 reactor has been permanently disabled when it was flooded with sea water in a desperate attempt to halt a meltdown. At least one other reactor has also suffered a partial meltdown, and two others have seriously disabled cooling
systems. Radioactive cesium and iodine have been released into the atmosphere. Three Fukushima Daiichi workers are suffering from radiation poisoning. Twenty two people are showing symptoms of radiation exposure. One hundred and seventy others have tested positive for radiation exposure. Potassium iodide tablets are being distributed to reduce the risk of thyroid cancer.

At a time when emergency responders should be trying to rescue victims trapped underneath rubble, they are instead being compelled to flood nuclear reactors with
water from the ocean to halt the imminent meltdown, screen toddlers for radiation exposure and evacuate hundreds of thousands of citizens.

As you know, there are 31 reactors in the US of the same designs as the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini units that have already melted down or are under threat of a melt-down. A nuclear disaster could also come from terrorists: Al Qaeda considered crashing a plane into a nuclear reactor during the 9/11 attacks and a man was arrested on February 24, 2011 for planning to target reactors. The seriousness of this threat is beyond question.

Yet a review of internal documents made public through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Inside EPA[1] indicates that it appears that no agency sees itself as clearly in command of emergency response in a nuclear disaster. These materials indicate that:

*EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are not in agreement about which Federal agency would lead efforts to respond to and clean up a large-scale radiation release caused by an accident at or attack on a nuclear reactor.

*The Agencies are reportedly also concerned that sufficient funds needed to conduct a long-term cleanup might not be available under the Price-Anderson Act, a statute that is designed to ensure that the massive costs associated with a large-scale nuclear catastrophe would not be absent due to the bankruptcy of the company that owned the reactor that failed.

*There is also disagreement about whether the medium and long-term clean-up standards for a large-scale nuclear disaster would be as stringent as EPA’s current radiological standards. I have expressed my concerns about this aspect of radiological emergency response planning in the past.[2]

The federal response to other types of disasters are much more clearly specified in U.S. law and regulation. Following public outcry about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, amending the Clean Water Act. The OPA mandated planning for a spill and made it clear who would be in charge of federal response — EPA for spills inland, USCG for spills at sea or on the coasts. A detailed process for leading and coordinating the federal response and clean-up efforts was specified in both law and regulation. Similarly, to address shortcomings in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which amended the Stafford Act and Homeland Security Act. FEMA is directed to lead the nation in comprehensive emergency preparedness, response, and in reducing the risk of a disaster. The Stafford Act clearly says that the President has the authority to declare an emergency or national disaster, in the case of natural catastrophes and at the request of state authorities. If the President declares a disaster, then this automatically grants FEMA the authority to coordinate the contributions of 28 federal agencies and non-governmental organizations such as the American Red Cross.

In stark contrast to the scenarios contemplated for oil spills and hurricanes, there is no specificity for emergency coordination and command in place for a response to a nuclear disaster. The Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Framework says that “The Secretary [of Homeland Security] is responsible for coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.”[3] Yet the Annex also indicates that, depending on the type of incident, the Coordinating Agency may instead be the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, EPA, NRC, or US Coast Guard (USCG). When my staff was briefed by staffs of the EPA and NRC, they were informed by both agencies that there is no clarity regarding which agency would be in charge of the various aspects of a response to a nuclear disaster, and that the identity of the lead Federal agency is dependent on many different factors. One Agency official essentially told my staff that if a nuclear incident occurred, they would all get on the phone really quickly and figure it out.

Federal agencies have not yet developed a coordinated plan for a nuclear disaster. Nuclear power plants are required by FEMA and NRC to have Radiological Emergency Response Plans, but “it is not clear that these plans extend to long-duration accidents that extend over large land areas or involve large populations,” according to a July 27, 2010 Draft Report to the Congress of the Presidential Commission on Catastrophic Nuclear Accidents. The Commission noted no “planning for such a possibility” as an evacuation on the scale of the 135,000 people permanently evacuated following the Chernobyl meltdown.[4] In Japan,
more than 200,000 people have already been evacuated from around the threatened reactors. The Report to Congress does not appear to be publicly available, except for the Draft version obtained by Inside EPA. Email messages uncovered through the FOIA request match this confusion. In response to the Inside EPA reporter’s questions, an EPA staffer wondered “Why doesn’t he ask NRC? They regulate the cleanup of NRC regulated facilities. We don’t get involved at all.”

I am also concerned that plans to more fully specify nuclear disaster responsibilities and steps that members of the public should take in a nuclear disaster, have not been adequately prioritized. Last year, your Administration sent an interagency Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation to local emergency responders.[5] But a large-scale exercise for a nuclear detonation, planned for May 2010, was cancelled in response to local opposition in Nevada. A 2011 FEMA exercise to simulate a 7.7-magnitude earthquake in the Midwest is reportedly being scaled back.[6]

The tragic events in Japan highlight the need for more intensive and specific nuclear disaster response plans. The Oil Pollution Act and its implementing regulations were drafted in the wake of the Exxon-Valdez disaster. It should not require a nuclear disaster in this country to construct the Federal response to a catastrophic nuclear event. Consequently, I ask for your prompt attention in responding to the following questions:

1) Which federal agency is responsible for making a formal declaration that a nuclear emergency or disaster exists? Please also specify the circumstances under which such a declaration would occur.

2) Which federal agency is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s efforts during a nuclear disaster, and what roles and responsibilities are contemplated for each other federal agency involved in response efforts? If different agencies would be responsible for different types of disasters or different types of nuclear facilities (i.e. nuclear power plant vs nuclear weapons facility), please fully specify the conditions under which each agency would assume its role and responsibility, and who would make these determinations during the event.

3) Which federal agency is responsible for determining when a large-scale evacuation of an area surrounding a nuclear power plant (including the evacuation of an area larger than a 10-mile radius surrounding a nuclear power plant) must occur, and on what basis is such a determination to be made?

4) Which federal agency is responsible for conducting and overseeing a large-scale evacuation (including the evacuation of an area larger than a 10-mile radius surrounding a nuclear power plant) following a nuclear disaster? Does that agency currently have the authority to coordinate and direct other federal, state and non-governmental resources, in the same manner as FEMA can following a Stafford Act declaration?

5) Which federal agency is responsible for determining when people that were evacuated from their homes following a nuclear disaster can return, and on what basis is such a determination to be made?

6) Which federal agency is responsible for cleaning up radiation to restore affected areas for people and the environment? Will these long-term standards differ from EPA’s current standards for safe radiation levels, and if so, why?

7)Has there been analysis for how earthquake damage to nuclear power plants, combined with other forms of earthquake damage that also require considerable governmental response efforts, would affect emergency response and evacuation efforts and resource needs? If so, please fully describe these plans, and if not, why not? Have the effects of radiation release been accounted for in planning for evacuations that may also be necessary due to other earthquake impacts on buildings? If so, please fully describe these plans, and if not, why not?

Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please have your staff contact Dr. Michal Freedhoff of the Natural Resources Committee staff or Dr. Ilya Fischhoff of my staff at 202-226-2836.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Markey

Crisis at Fukushima I/Daiichi and Fukushima II/Daini Plants

Reacting to ongoing reports of cooling problems and the continuing release of radioactive materials from the Fukushima I/Daiichi and Fukushima II/Diani Plants, Jan Beranek, Head of Greenpeace International’s Nuclear Campaign said:

“Our thoughts remain with the Japanese people, who in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami are now faced with a dreadful situation, where instead of being able to plough all resources into rescue and relief efforts, the government is dealing with a crisis caused by the inherent and inescapable risks of nuclear power.”

“Despite government statements, the crisis at Fukushima continues to be a race against time, and is clearly not under control. We hope a worst-case scenario will be avoided, and that authorities continue to take urgent steps to protect people against the irradiation, while contamination apparently continues to be released into the atmosphere.“

“Current reports suggest new emerging problems with the cooling of at least two reactors, units one and three, at Fukushima I-Daiichi, both of which apparently suffered some melting of the fuel rods, causing a release of radiation that has been detected outside. Unit three uses so-called MOX fuel that contains plutonium oxide and releases significantly more heat even after the reactor is shut. In a situation where there is melting or damage to fuel in the reactor, several times more radiactive gases would be released, compared to the same amount of normal uranium fuel used in reactor number one. All of this is extremely worrying and tells us that the the crisis is far from over.“

“Greenpeace is concerned about the lack of facts and transparency about the total amount of radiation that has already been released, the exact state of cooling in all the reactors, and about whether the spent fuel ponds are secured — they contain large amounts of radiation and are located outside of the containment – any damage to them would release contamination directly into the atmosphere, we request that Japan’s government share this information with the public immediately.“

“Nuclear reactors are a dirty and dangerous power source, and will always be vulnerable to the potentially deadly combination of human error, design failure and natural disaster. Greenpeace is calling for the phase out of existing reactors around the world, and no construction of new commercial nuclear reactors. Governments should instead invest in renewable energy resources that are not only environmentally sound but also affordable and reliable.”

Our thoughts are with our colleagues, friends and all the people of Japan as they continue to deal with the aftereffects of yesterday’s earthquake and tsunami. We are tracking the developments at Japan’s nuclear plants as they race to try to avoid a meltdown.

Nuclear plants like the one at Fukushima were never designed to withstand a meltdown of the reactor core and wont. This is an excerpt from our Greenpeace Report : American Chernobyl:

The MYTH of CONTAINMENT:

For a reactor accident to have Chernobyl like consequences a meltdown must be accompanied by containment failure. Unfortunately the term “containment” belies the facts.  The public interest community has long been aware that the containments around many of the US reactors are more myth than reality.  

As early as 1971, government regulators knew that the public’s last line of defense against the radiation, the reactor containment, was virtually worthless yet licensed the General Electric (GE) and Westinghouse Ice Condenser reactors anyway.  When an Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) staff member suggested that this type of containment design be banned in the U.S. the AEC’s deputy director for technical review responded that it “could well be the end of nuclear power. It would throw into question the continued operation of licensed plants, could make unlicensable the GE and Westinghouse ice condenser plants now in review and would generally create more turmoil than I can think about.”    (See Appendix B.)

Of course the nuclear bureaucrats did not want to reveal the truth about the fallibility of the nuclear reactors they had already licensed as “safe” and attempted to withhold the information from the public.  
 
Only though the efforts of the Union of Concerned Scientists, their attorneys and those at Public Citizen did the information eventually come to light under the Freedom of Information Act.

In 1986 Harold Denton, former director of NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, again acknowledged this vulnerability while speaking to utilities executives at Brookhaven National Laboratory.  Denton noted that, according to NRC studies the GE Mark I reactors had “something like a 90% probability of that containment failing.”  

Yesterday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decided to end the legal proceeding on the license renewal for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and said that the agency expects to issue the renewed license soon.

While discouraging, this should not come as a surprise.  The NRC has renewed every reactor license since Yankee Rowe withdrew its application in the early ‘90s and threw the nuclear industry’s efforts to run aging reactors another 20 years into chaos. 

So why did Yankee Rowe withdraw and Vermont Yankee receive NRC approval?
Simple, after Yankee Rowe shut down the NRC gutted its renewal rule.  Yankee Rowe had to prove that it met the original terms of its operating license; not so Vermont Yankee.  Entergy merely had to prove that it had a program to manage the aging reactor.

Now you might think that the series of screw ups at the reactor: the turbine fire, the cooling tower collapse and the never ending leaks of radiation into groundwater, would give the Commission reason to question running the reactor another 20 years.  But NRC’s rubberstamp of this old and leaking nuclear reactor says more about the Commission and its deference to the nuclear industry than it does about the battle over Vermont’s energy future.  The NRC ‘s standard for renewal is now so lax that the Commission could relicense the Chicago Pile.

(Chicago Pile was the first nuclear reactor built on a rackets court, under the stands of  Stagg Field stadium, at the University of Chicago)

So while the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 denying Vermont Yankee the right to operate past March 2012. The nuclear bureaucrats in Washington have approved 20 more years of nuclear mishaps for Vermonters. The people of Vermont have spoken, Entergy is no longer welcome to split atoms at Vermont Yankee.  Greenpeace will stand with Vermonters to oppose Entergy’s plans to continue operating this dangerous and unnecessary nuclear reactor for another twenty years.