PDF of Entergy vs Vermont lawsuit

As I stated before (link to article) and can be seen in Entergy’s filing of this case against Vermont, their Case Description is “Federal Preemption” Thats all they got and it isn’t enough… unless Vermont rolls over on its back.

PDF of case –http://www.vpr.net/vpr_files/pdfs/4_18_11_complaint.pdf

“The NRC in turn has created a comprehensive and rigorous licensing procedure for nuclear facilities. The NRC’s licensing process includes, inter alia, assessment of the processes to be performed at the facility, the operating procedures, the facility equipment, the use of the facility, and other technical specifications to ensure that any applicant will comply with all NRC regulations and that such operations will be conducted in a manner that protects public health and safety.”

This is the bottom of page 7 (pg. 8 of the PDF) This is where they are mistaken, “rigorous licensing procedures”. They haven’t followed US Code Title 33 – CHAPTER 26 -SUBCHAPTER IV – § 1341 : Which strictly construes a facility that discharges into navigable water ways needs a permit from the STATE where discharge originates.

This case should be thrown out and  the NRC and EPA should be reviewed for their licensing procedures by an independent committee. Not only have NRC and the EPA neglected to ensure VY had this STATE issued Thermal Discharge Permit for the last 5 Years, they did it on renewing the operators license of a 39 year old plant that despite their claims of a clean operational record which includes but is not limited to:

Mar ’06 – vibrations in the main steam line exceeded acceptabel levels.

Aug ’06 – Vermont Yankee sent a radioactively contaminated control rod crusher/shearer to the Susquehanna nuclear power plant radiation levels were over 4 times the allowable limit.

Sep ’06 – inadvertent initiation of the fire suppression system. The cause was previously identified and went uncorrected.

Nov ’06 – VY released radiation in excess of state limits. They said their instruments recorded a reading of 24.9 millirems; the state limit is 20.

Apr ’07 – The High Pressure Coolant Injection, a safety system need in an accident, repeatedly failed to meet regulations. This same sytem had failed 3 or 4 previous tests before.

Jun ’07 – With the reactor at 81% power, the High Pressure Coolant Injection Isolation Valve failed to operate upon a manual signal from the control room.The cause was inadeqaute preventative maintenance.

Aug ’07 – The reactor scrams at 62% power because 3 of 4 turbine valves failed to function properly due to “ a lack of preventative maintenance”.

Aug ’07 – A pipe six feet in diameter carrying water through the cooling tower broke and the tower collapsed, dramatic photos showed thousands of gallons of water spewing onto the ground.

May ’08 – VY asks NRC to use $100 million of Decommissioning Fund for nuclear waste storage.

Apr ’08 – Entergy Nuclear gives up trying to find the leak in the condenser at the Vermont Yankee and returns the reactor to full power.

May ’08 – Vermont Yankee recieves no penalty from NRC for the cooling- tower collapse.

May ’08 – NRC cites VY for security violation; but wont tell the public why.

May ’08 – Vermont Yankee drops a fuel assembly during a move.

Jul ’08 – Vermont Yankee is releasing 30 percent more radiation into the environment since it boosted power by 20 percent two years ago.

Jul ’08 – VY Cooling Towers Leaking Again as State begins hearings on Reactor; NRC sends Special Inspection to review leak.

Aug ’08 – Twelve VY workers evacuated the reactor building due to a doubling in the radiation levels caused by human error when a worker replaced a radiation filter.

Sep ’08 – Vermont Yankee reports more problems in cooling tower.

Oct ’08 – 25 Vermont Yankee workers were evacuated due to increased radiation levels.

Nov ’08 – Vermont Yankee again aants to dip into the decommissioning fund to pay for nuclear waste storage.

Nov ’08 – Associated Press reports Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund suffers large loss.

Dec ’08 – Vermont Yankee owners won’t offer state’s utilities new power deal.

Jan ’09 – Vermont Yankee drops power to 47% to fix a leak in the feed water system.

Mar ’09 – State Attorney General William Sorrell says Vermont Yankee’s zero-carbon emissions claim is inaccurate.

Apr ’09 – Despite another year of mishaps NRC sees nothing but GREEN (highest level of operational safety rating by NRC)

Jun ’09 – For the second time in a year VY has leaks in the condenser. Entergy postpones replacement of the $100 million dollar part.

Aug ’09 – Vermont Yankee says it was more than a year behind in conducting additional radiation monitoring of spent fuel casks as required by the state.

Sep ’09 – Vermont Yankee Superviser tests postiive for alcohol and is releived of duties.

Nov. ’10 – Vermont Yankee unscheduled shutdown after engineers found a new leak in a key system pipe.

Tritium contamination 2010- 2011 – leaking and leaking and leaking from pipes (according to under oath-testimony) that don’t exist.One well registered tritium levels at 2.2 million picocuries per liter of water, close to levels that occur within the reactor itself, and 100 times the national drinking water standard.

According to Entergy’s introduction in this case they are “GREEN” rated and Operationally Sound! This rating means nothing if they don’t follow state and federal laws.


One thought on “PDF of Entergy vs Vermont lawsuit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s