Tag Archives: Entergy

Troubling situation at Entergy-run Nuclear Plan in Michigan

Palisades Nuclear Plant

Palisades Nuclear Plant, Lake Michegan

In A Return To ‘Safety First’ For Michigan Nuclear Plant, NPR correspondent Lindsey Smith reports,

The Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan had five unplanned shutdowns last year. It’s one of the area’s biggest employers, and its safety record is one of the worst in the country. Now it’s trying to prove to federal regulators that it can meet their standards.

On the shores of Lake Michigan, the Palisades Power Plant is tucked in between tall sand dunes in Covert Township, Mich., at the southern edge of Van Buren State Park. Kathy Wagaman, who heads the chamber of commerce in South Haven, 7 miles north of Palisades … said  “They’ve been a very good neighbor” … “and I just feel confident that they’re taking good care of this.”

The title, however, says it all. “A RETURN to ‘Safety-First.’ Clearly, based on their record, safety has not been Entergy’s number one priority at Palisades.  Marcy, at Empty Wheel, presents a first hand report on the tritium leak of Sept, 2011, here.

Continue reading →

Vermont Senate Voted to Shut Down Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee, on the Connecticut River

Vermont Yankee, on the Connecticut River

The Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 to close Vermont Yankee.  While proponents of nuclear power claim that the plants can be run safely and economically, Entergy, the Louisiana company that operates the plant, is now known to be running Vermont Yankee AT A LOSS!

Economics is not the issue. The Vermont Senate isn’t interested in the profitability of an enterprise. What is at issue is whether Vermont Yankee can be operated safely and whether Entergy can be trusted to operate Vermont Yankee safely. By a vote of 26 to 4, the Vermont Senate answered those questions with a resounding “NO!”

An Entergy Executive responsible for Vermont Yankee testified under oath to two state panels that there were no buried pipes at Vermont Yankee that could leak tritium.  This testimony is now known to be false. The Entergy executive has been relieved of his responsibilities. (Click  here.)  According to NPR (here) “Entergy Nuclear chief executive J. Wayne Leonard did not identify the official by name. But he described the executive relieved of his duties in a way that could only apply to Vice President Jay Thayer.

State Senator Peter Shumlin, Democrat, Wyndham, asked “What’s worse, a company that won’t tell you the truth or a company’s that’s operating your aging nuclear power plant on the banks of the Connecticut River and doesn’t know that they have pipes with radioactive water running through them that are leaking? And they don’t know because they didn’t know the pipes existed. Neither is very comforting.”

Vermont State Senator Randolph Brock, Republican, St. Albans, who in the past has supported Vermont Yankee, said “If the board of directors and management of Entergy were thoroughly infiltrated by antinuclear activists, I do not think they could have done a better job of destroying their own case.”

Entergy claims that no tritium has turned up in drinking water, but that claim must be verified. The Connecticut River, which flows past Vermont Yankee, probably should be checked for Tritium.

Officials at Entergy, the Louisiana company that owns Vermont Yankee, are trying to sell Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, and three other nuclear power stations in the north-east.

It is a similar design to the Oyster Creek nuclear power station, in New Jersey, operated by Exelon, which is also known to be leaking tritium.

Michael Wald covered the story for The New York Times.  Guy Raz covered the story at NPR.

Entergy official "relieved of duties" for false statement about Vermont Yankee nuclear plant

Vermont Yankee, on the banks of the Connecticut River

Vermont Yankee, Courtesy of US NRC

There’s no question that nuclear power will be part of our energy supply mix for the foreseeable future.  The United States has 104 nuclear power plants in operation at present, according to Matthew Wald on the Green Inc. blog of The New York Times, relying on NRC data. Incidents like this – in which a corporate official makes a false statement with serious health and safety implications – give us pause.

Which is worse – that the official was mistaken, and not aware that Vermont Yankee had water pipes which could leak – or that he knew and lied?

Incompetence or dishonesty, it would seem.  Nuclear power can’t be a safe part of our energy future on those terms. Entergy is responsible for knowing everything there is to know about the plants it operates. A material and incorrect statement – under oath, no less – seems explainable only by three hypotheses: (1) the official lied; (2) the official failed to make himself aware of the plant, in which case the question shouldn’t have been answered; (3) the official was misinformed by subordinates.

If the first explanation is correct, perjury charges are, of course, in order. If the second or the third – Entergy hasn’t met its obligations to mind the store.

From the Associated Press via NPR: Top Vermont Yankee Official ‘Relieved Of Duties’:

A top official at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant was permanently relieved of his duties and placed on leave, the plant owner’s CEO said Tuesday, less than a week after Gov. Jim Douglas demanded management changes over misstatements made to state officials.

Entergy Nuclear chief executive J. Wayne Leonard did not identify the official by name. But he described the executive relieved of his duties in a way that could only apply to Vice President Jay Thayer.

Douglas’ urging for management shake-up followed revelations that plant officials misled state regulators and lawmakers by saying last year the plant did not have the sort of underground pipes that could carry radioactive tritium.

“In May 2009, an Entergy executive testified in a hearing on the state’s report that he didn’t think we had any such pipes, but he would get back to them,” Leonard said. “He did not get back to them. He has issued a public apology and made clear that he failed to provide full and complete information, either on the witness stand or by failing to get back to them.

Continue reading →