January 29, 2010, VPR, by Bob Kinzel

Two weeks ago, the public learned of radioactive water leaks underground at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon. Since then, the future of the plant's operations have come under intensified scrutiny, with lawmakers, the governor and regulators registering concern about the how the Entergy Corporation has handled the situation, and the accuracy of public testimony given by Entergy executives. All this comes as Entergy is requesting an extension on Vermont Yankee's operating license for another 20 years. Host Bob Kinzel talks with two lawmakers from the southeastern corner of Vermont about how the Legislature should proceed on questions around the Vermont Yankee: Rep. Patti O'Donnell (R-Vernon) who supports the plant, and Rep. Sarah Edwards (P-Brattleboro) who believes it should be shut down.

[Listen]

January 25, 2010, the Burlington Free Press

Candidates for local office have until 5 p.m. today to throw their hats into the ring, but at least one Burlington city councilor is passing on the opportunity.

Clarence Davis, P-Ward 3, will not seek re-election in March, according to a news release from the Vermont Progressive Party.

Davis said in the news release: “I am glad to support Emma’s return to the Council. I am confident that she will continue to be a strong voice for the Old North End.”

The Burlington Progressive Party endorsed five City Council candidates on Sunday at its party caucus, marking it as "the largest slate of Council candidates fielded by Progressives in their 30-year history in Burlington politics," the news release said.

Along with Mulvaney-Stanak, Miles Dougherty (Ward 1), Jonathan Leavitt and Max Tracy (Ward 2) and Abigail Russell (Ward 5) were endorsed by the party.

[View Source]

January 21, 2010, the Times Argus, by Daniel Barlow

MONTPELIER — The owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant told federal regulators this week that they discovered 150 gallons of radioactive water in a storage room at the Vernon facility.

This standing water filled a room in a radioactive waste building at Vermont Yankee, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The water was highly contaminated, with nearly 2 million picocuries per liter of the isotope tritium, officials said.

Neil Sheehan, a spokesperson for the NRC, said the discovery was made several days ago as Entergy officials continued to look for the cause of a radioactive leak that has contaminated groundwater near the Connecticut River.

"This water seems to be contained in this one room," said Sheehan, who stressed that the NRC does not believe it has leaked into the nearby groundwater. He said when Entergy officials flushed the water from the room – about 100 gallons of it – more came rushing back in.

This news – which comes following reports of tritium contamination at a well at Vermont Yankee – was not announced by Entergy, the owner of Vermont Yankee, or the NRC. Instead, lawmakers at the Statehouse broke the news mid-Wednesday afternoon.

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, a Windham Democrat, told reporters that surface water discovered in a trench at the site of the Vernon nuclear reactor has tested positive for tritium, with levels ranging from 1 million to 2 million picocuries per liter.

That's about 100 times the amount of the radioactive isotope discovered late last year in groundwater surrounding Vermont Yankee.

"I share the frustration of Vermonters that we have not yet found the source of the problem," said Shumlin, who lives in the county where Vermont Yankee is located. "We will get to the bottom of this as quickly as we can."

Shumlin and House Speaker Shap Smith, a Morristown Democrat, said that in light of recent revelations that Entergy officials misled state regulators and lawmakers about the existence of underground pipes at the plant — pipes that are now suspected of leaking this radioactive isotope – they are calling for independent tests to be performed by the Vermont Department of Health.

"As I've talked with Vermonters, it's clear that their trust in Entergy has been shaken," Smith said. "We're doing all we can to ensure the safety of Vermonters, to find this leak and to determine if the information we are getting from Entergy is accurate."

Wednesday's revelation of the high levels of tritium in the surface water was another dramatic blow for Entergy, which had hoped to spend the 2010 legislative session convincing lawmakers to let them run the plant for another 20 years after 2012.

Instead, they are now trying to convince lawmakers that they did not purposely mislead them by inaccurately stating on several occasions over the past two years that Vermont Yankee did not have underground pipes carrying radiation.

Jay Thayer, vice president of operations at Vermont Yankee, did not return several calls for comment Wednesday. But Rob Williams, a spokesperson for the plant, called the latest tritium discovery "an important finding in the investigation of the source of the tritium found in the monitoring well."

"Engineers and technicians have not identified signs of pipe leakage at this point but will be performing further investigation of the piping there which is used intermittently," Williams wrote in an e-mail.

David O'Brien, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, said the discovery of this large amount of contaminated water was expected as Entergy tries to find the source of the leak. He said it could mean that they are getting closer to its origin.

"I'm not surprised by this finding," he said Wednesday evening. "This is what you would expect when you get close to the source of the leak."

Few details about the new tritium discovery were clear Wednesday. Shumlin said the contaminated surface water was found in a concrete area on the Vermont Yankee site that is accessible through a manhole. He said he did not know the location of the contaminated surface water or how close it was to the well that tested positive for radiation late last year.

Officials said reports of a second well being contaminated this week turned out to be incorrect. Shumlin said he was told by Entergy officials that the test was a "false positive." Sheehan, the NRC official, confirmed that report.

Sheehan said the NRC will send teams to Vermont Yankee over the next couple of days to observe the progress in searching for the leak. The room where the contaminated water was discovered is about 10 feet by 10 feet, Sheehan said, with pipes running from the radioactive waste storage facility to other storage tanks.

Later testing of that water found tritium levels of about 720,000 picocuries per liter, he added.

That vote continues to remain in doubt. Lawmakers had first said they wanted to see a power purchase contract between Vermont Yankee and the state's utilities before voting. That's still a concern, Shumlin and Smith said, but they now are waiting for the results of an investigation into last year's audit of the plant, which has been called into question.

"I think if we haven't found the leak by mid-February, we'll be having a much different conversation," Shumlin said.

Arnie Gunderson, a member of the Legislature's Public Oversight Panel that conducted a review of Vermont Yankee last year and is now reassessing that review in light of the new information, said he was disappointed that state officials, specifically the Vermont Department of Public Service, did not inform him of this latest tritium discovery.

O'Brien said state officials are working on a "real-time, day-to-day basis" and said Gunderson would have full access to all the information they do.

The original well where tritium was found tested at about 22,000 picocuries per liter, according to the NRC, which is above the Environmental Protection Agency's recommendation of a maximum 20,000 picocuries per liter for drinking water.

[View Source]

January 20, 2010, Seven Days, by Shay Totten

Don’t fret, nuclear power lovers. Vermont Yankee and its corporate owner, Entergy, won’t let a good lie keep them down.

Sure, they might use up a half-life for misleading regulators and lawmakers about the existence of underground pipes carrying the radionuclides. But there are more near misses where that one came from.

Since buying VY in 2002 for $180 million — Entergy now claims it’s worth $800 million — the New Orleans-based company has employed a simple, four-step method to navigate Vermont’s political and regulatory waters.

Step 1: Ask for something that will earn the company millions. Dismiss concerns with simple slogans and by pointing out that “experts” have extensively reviewed your plans. Praise regulators for their due diligence and knowledge.

Step 2: If/when critics discover a leak or a collapsed cooling tower, express as much shock and dismay as do the regulators you hang out with at holiday parties. Agree to a “thorough” investigation, but first protest loudly. (Think Br’er Rabbit and the briar patch.)

Step 3: Genuflect during the investigation, claim it’ll never happen again. If necessary, agree to sponsor a governor’s ball for $5000 or launch an ad campaign, using employees as human shields.

Step 4: After the investigation, claim you’ve already identified and fixed more than half the problems and agree to fix the rest post-haste. Before you implement the fixes, however, repeat step 1.

Think I’m joking? Hardly.

In 2003, the Vermont Public Service Board fined Entergy $50,000 for showing a “willingness to mislead” regulators — essentially, for being a bully. Prescient.

In early 2006, Entergy handed a report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. It claimed VY’s cooling towers were structurally sound. In 2007, one of the towers collapsed. Spectacularly.

After the 2007 collapse, Entergy claimed it had beefed up its inspection program to prevent such a collapse from happening again. Federal regulators concurred, and state regulators were assuaged. Then, in 2008, more support beams collapsed around a cooling tower. Whoops.

In early 2008, Entergy promised the legislature that new hires would beef up VY’s quality assurance program. In 2009, Entergy issued a hiring freeze.

In 2009, Attorney General Bill Sorrell ruled that a 2008 statewide media blitz claiming VY had “zero fossil fuel emissions” was inaccurate, in violation of state consumer fraud laws. VY officials called the wording “unfortunate” and vowed not to use such adjectives again.

And the list goes on.

“What we have seen for the past eight years is a pattern of giving false, distorted or misleading information. When caught, they apologize, say that they will look into it; say they will develop a plan to fix it and never do it again. Then, it happens again,” said Bob Stannard, a lobbyist for the anti-nuke group Vermont Citizen Action Network.

Through every mishap and misstep, Gov. Jim Douglas and his team have stood by Entergy. Why?

“They have no plan for in-state energy should VY shut down,” Stannard said. “It’s not like it should have been a big surprise; we’ve had a 38-year notice.”

Coincidentally, Gov. Douglas was first elected to office in 1972, the same year Vermont Yankee opened.

Maybe Entergy should follow the governor’s lead for once and announce its retirement.

Revolving Regulators

Public Service Commissioner David O’Brien is one of the most powerful nonelected officials in Vermont. He’s the guy who regulates — and, ultimately, can pull the plug on — the state’s utilities. The fate of Burlington Telecom is in his hands.

Like judges, O’Brien has to steer clear of conflicts of interest. And he has already been criticized for being too cozy with, or lenient toward, the industries he regulates.

“Fair Game” reported on the holiday party he hosted in 2008 that was attended by Jay Thayer, Entergy’s top dog in Montpelier. Also on the guest list were officials from several of the state’s largest utilities.

That could explain why Sen. Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) has introduced a bill prohibiting Vermont’s commissioner of public service from working for any company he or she regulates for up to five years after leaving office.

Currently, there are such no laws in Vermont — only an executive order that imposes a one-year moratorium on state workers leaving government for private industry.

“There are two main reasons for the bill,” Ashe explained. “First, to help assure Vermonters of the high integrity of the decision-making process for Vermont Yankee. Second, the same goes for the commissioner’s role as chief enforcement officer of Vermont’s regulated utilities.”

Ashe’s colleagues like the bill so much they want to expand it beyond O’Brien’s post.

“We are very interested in discussing the bill this session,” said Sen. Jeannette White (D-Windham), who chairs the Senate Government Operations Committee. White said her committee would like to increase the number of positions affected by the ban, and make it include legislators. The committee may decide to decrease the length of the ban, though, from five to one or two years, so it’s more in line with similar regs in other states.

Note to Douglas officials: Get out while the getting’s good.

[Full Story]

January 20, 2010, the Burlington Free Press, by Tim Ashe

The Free Press may be correct that the Legislature will be hard pressed to pursue significant health care reform this year ("Premature to take up health care in Vermont," Dec. 20) at the same time Congress debates a national plan.

But there is no excuse for the Legislature to stand by in the meantime while Vermont throws away millions each year on existing mismanaged programs.

Take, for example, Catamount Health, which the Free Press editorial declares "has proven to be unsustainable with the economic downturn." Is the economic downturn really the only issue? Might poor regulation of the private insurers that provide Catamount plans be part of the sustainability problem? Let's consider Vermont's experience since Catamount's adoption.

In 2006, the Legislature's health care consultant, Dr. Ken Thorpe, projected the unsubsidized premium for Catamount coverage would be $305 per month. Because reimbursements would be tied to Medicare rates, he projected an annual growth rate in premiums in the 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent range.

Unfortunately for Vermont taxpayers, since Catamount began in 2007, we've had a very different experience. The initial premium awarded to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and MVP in October 2007 was $393/month, a whopping 29 percent more than worst-case projections at Catamount's inception. That rate is in place today. And just three months ago, MVP announced it was requesting a shocking 31 percent increase for 2009-10.

After having the gall to request a 31 percent increase in our current deflationary economy, MVP lowered their requested increase to 12.4 percent. Blue Cross/Blue Shield has also asked the state for a -- you guessed it -- 12.4 percent rate increase. That's some coincidence.

Bill Little, president of MVP in Vermont, has said of their rate request: "It's definitely a sustainable rate, it is an appropriate rate." I hope the Free Press joins me in affirming that this is not an appropriate rate -- not from MVP, and most definitely not from BC/BS in the same year it sent its CEO off with a $6.3 million golden parachute. (It's worth noting that a year's worth of proposed premium increases for all 9,300 Catamount enrollees could be more than covered for much less than $6.3 million).

Vermont's regulatory record with Catamount looks still more troubling when viewed in the context of trends in health care spending:

BISHCA's January 2009 health expenditure survey pegged Vermont's 2007 growth in health care spending at only 4.5 percent.

A June 2008 article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported the per-person cost of Massachusetts' Commonwealth Care was $352.43 a month, compared to the $393.11 allowed for Catamount, despite the fact that Massachusetts' per capita health costs are above the national average, while Vermont's are 90 percent of national.

A study of President Obama's original health care proposal conducted just months ago by the Lewin Group put the 2009 cost of an unsubsidized single premium for a policy comparable to Catamount at $298/month -- a level comparable to Dr. Thorpe's estimate.

There are 1,339 Vermonters who pay full cost for their Catamount enrollment. Taxpayers pay a share of the burden, however, for the remaining 7,988 enrollees. Every inflated dollar of premium for those subsidized Vermonters is another dollar burned by taxpayers. Unfortunately, we're burning millions.

Catamount is not unsustainable, but it will quickly become so if BC/BS and MVP continue to have their way with Vermont regulators.

Rather than merely opine about Catamount's sustainability, or to blame its challenges solely on the economy, the Free Press would serve its readers well to dedicate investigative staff time to exploring in detail why BC/BS and MVP are being allowed to charge Vermont taxpayers so much more than had been anticipated.

Then the Free Press can move on to challenge the hospitals for their combined requested $112 million budget increase (excepting the frugal folks at Springfield Hospital, who came in with a $1.7 million decrease).

[View Source]

January 19, 2010, VPR, by Jane Lindholm

Vermont's Progressive Party holds five seats in the House of Representatives, and major party status in the Fall 2010 elections.  VPR's Jane Lindholm talks with Rep. Sandy Hass and Rep. David Zuckerman about how their caucus wants to approach the $150 million gap in next year's state budget, and the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. They also discuss how Progressives work to influence the politics of the Democratic majority and Republican minority at the Statehouse.

[Listen Here]