The Missing Docket is Now Available
Vermont Yankee requires a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board (PSB) in Vermont. The PSB had opened dockets and held hearings for years about the certificate. I attended some of the hearings, and nuclear safety was a major topic, especially after the tritium leak.
When the federal court ruled in January that nuclear safety was regulated at the national level, the Public Service Board realized that the early dockets were tainted with inappropriate material. It opened a new docket.
However, the new docket (docket 7862) did not appear on the PSB website. I blogged about this in August, in the post Docket 7862 Where Are You?
As the date of the public PSB hearing approached, I became more concerned about the lack of available docket materials. I needn't have worried. The docket is now on the PSB website. It includes the schedule and the documents for review. Here's the main website for Docket 7862 at the Public Service Board: Vermont Yankee Relicensing--Amended Petition.
Attend the Hearing
Please try to attend the hearing on Wednesday November 7 at 7 p.m. at Vernon School.
This is the only public, in-person hearing that the PSB will hold for this docket. It will be held in Vernon, Vermont. More information about the hearing is at my post: Save the Date: November 7 for Crucial Meeting about Vermont Yankee.
Meanwhile, the opponents are also mobilizing for this hearing. The Sage Alliance is holding a dinner and setting up phone banks to get people to the meeting. I don't find this particularly discouraging. The opponents have had a quasi-military system in place for quite a while. They have "affinity groups." They require a person to belong to an "affinity group" if the person wants to be arrested. They prepare for "actions." They have training and trainers.
That's just what they do.
What we have to do is simple: Show Up, and be willing to Speak Truth To Power.
Let's do it!
Showing posts with label SAGE Alliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAGE Alliance. Show all posts
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Friday, September 7, 2012
The River and the Rhetoric--Who Speaks for the River
Protests On the Water
The Sage Alliance is planning an anti-Vermont Yankee flotilla tomorrow on the Connecticut River. The title of their rally is Our River Runs Through It: Flotilla and Rally to Stop VT Yankee Pollution The opponents continue to assert, in word and action, that Vermont Yankee thermal pollution is killing the fish in the Connecticut River.
As a matter of fact, Arnie Gundersen has stated that there are only sixteen shad left in the Connecticut River. My blog post about this statement: Hot Climate and Cold Fish: Gundersen's Debate Misstatements received over thirty comments. Most of the comments told me that Gundersen was right and who was I to say that he was wrong?
Let's start with "Who am I to say Gundersen is wrong?" Well, I live a hop and skip from the river, which is more than Gundersen can say. More particularly, let's look at the people who claim to care about the Connecticut River.
The Connecticut River Watershed Council
David Deen, a Vermont Legislator and river guide, is River Steward for the Upper Valley of the Connecticut River Watershed Council. Deen will be one of the key speakers at the anti-Vermont Yankee flotilla. The Connecticut River Watershed Council paid for reports that claim that Vermont Yankee is "baking" the wildlife. A report issued in August received much media attention. This article in the Brattleboro Reformer describes Deen going to Entergy offices with cookies, and trying to hand them the report.
Interestingly, only one media outlet, WCAX, included this quote from Deen about the report: "We are not saying that Entergy is in violation of their permit. But what we are saying is that the formula that the permit is based on, ANR is not collecting a critical piece of data," said David Deen of the Connecticut River Watershed Council.
I thank Adam Sullivan and WCAX for putting the Watershed Council's cookie-baking in context. Entergy is not in violation of their permit. The Watershed people just don't like the permit.
Who is the Connecticut River Watershed Council?
When I first heard of the Watershed Council, I thought it was a consortium of government entities that are affected by Connecticut River watershed issues. After all, watersheds cross county lines, township lines, state lines. A council of government agencies is usually required to manage a watershed properly. The title of this organization would lead a person toward that conclusion.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an advocacy organization, like the Sierra Club or VPIRG. Its name is as clever as VPIRG's name: Vermont Public Interest Research Group. How many headlines have I read saying "Research Group says VY should close" (or words to that effect). The "research group" was VPIRG, of course. Naming an organization well can be a great advantage.
I should have guessed the Watershed Council was an advocacy group. Deen is a River Steward with the group. Most government programs have "chairpersons" or "planning specialists." They don't have River Stewards. That's a title from Merry Olde England, or maybe from Tolkien.
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions
In contrast, there is an official body concerned with Connecticut River watershed issues. The Connecticut River Joint Commissions consists of legislative advisory bodies concerned with the Connecticut River. The Joint Commissions were set up by the New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures. Fifty three Towns (in Vermont and New Hampshire) border on the Connecticut.
River management is divided into Local Committees, each responsible for understanding and advising on a section of the river. The selectmen of each town appoint up to two members of the Local Committee. It is truly a citizen's advisory body, and does a great deal of planning. For example, the Water Resources Management Plan provides significant guidance for many topics along the river.
The Connecticut River Join Commission holds meetings and work weekends. It advises on permitting, boat safety, and non-point-source discharge concerns.
Who Speaks for the River?
The Watershed Council claims to speak for the Connecticut River. To some extent, it may. It has paid staff, but it is also a volunteer group, and volunteer groups are important. However, in this case, the group has become self-important, constantly attacking Vermont Yankee. For example, the group claims that that the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee can be detected fifty miles downstream to Holyoke, Massachusetts. Considering that the river flows through Vernon Dam and is diverted to the Northfield Pumped Storage plant before getting to Holyoke, a thermal plume visible that far downstream is improbable, to say the least.
The Watershed people paid for a study that claimed the plume was visible and the delta-T (temperature change) remained in the river fifty miles downstream. I find this study unconvincing, as it mixes critiques of computer models, dye-tests in the river, and measurements. It seems to claim the only thing that could be heating anything downriver is...the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee. I admit, however, that I am not a hydrologist.
To me, the study looks like a mish-mash with an agenda. The only thing the study considers is the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee. Any temperature change is because of the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee. Pumped storage...not mentioned. Evaporative cooling from the river...not mentioned. Sunny days, rainy days...not mentioned. Mt. Tom coal-fired plant upriver of Holyoke...not mentioned. Vermont Yankee controls all. Or at least, it controls the entire hypothesis. No alternate explanations need apply.
On the basis of this work, the group now acts as if it is a fact that thermal plumes can survive dams, pumping stations, pumped storage reservoirs, and fifty miles of river. This is advocacy gone mad, in my opinion.
The Commission Speaks For Most of Us
In my opinion, the Watershed Council group and its Stewards have their own agenda, which seems to have very little to do with what happens on the Connecticut River. On the other hand, the Connecticut River Joint Commissions are made up of local people who do not hold archaic titles. These people are far more likely to speak for the river, in my opinion.
And they speak for me. After all, it's my river, too.
![]() |
| Connecticut River. View from near my house. My river runs through it. It's not just their river. |
As a matter of fact, Arnie Gundersen has stated that there are only sixteen shad left in the Connecticut River. My blog post about this statement: Hot Climate and Cold Fish: Gundersen's Debate Misstatements received over thirty comments. Most of the comments told me that Gundersen was right and who was I to say that he was wrong?
Let's start with "Who am I to say Gundersen is wrong?" Well, I live a hop and skip from the river, which is more than Gundersen can say. More particularly, let's look at the people who claim to care about the Connecticut River.
| Graphic from Watershed Council website |
David Deen, a Vermont Legislator and river guide, is River Steward for the Upper Valley of the Connecticut River Watershed Council. Deen will be one of the key speakers at the anti-Vermont Yankee flotilla. The Connecticut River Watershed Council paid for reports that claim that Vermont Yankee is "baking" the wildlife. A report issued in August received much media attention. This article in the Brattleboro Reformer describes Deen going to Entergy offices with cookies, and trying to hand them the report.
Interestingly, only one media outlet, WCAX, included this quote from Deen about the report: "We are not saying that Entergy is in violation of their permit. But what we are saying is that the formula that the permit is based on, ANR is not collecting a critical piece of data," said David Deen of the Connecticut River Watershed Council.
I thank Adam Sullivan and WCAX for putting the Watershed Council's cookie-baking in context. Entergy is not in violation of their permit. The Watershed people just don't like the permit.
Who is the Connecticut River Watershed Council?
When I first heard of the Watershed Council, I thought it was a consortium of government entities that are affected by Connecticut River watershed issues. After all, watersheds cross county lines, township lines, state lines. A council of government agencies is usually required to manage a watershed properly. The title of this organization would lead a person toward that conclusion.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an advocacy organization, like the Sierra Club or VPIRG. Its name is as clever as VPIRG's name: Vermont Public Interest Research Group. How many headlines have I read saying "Research Group says VY should close" (or words to that effect). The "research group" was VPIRG, of course. Naming an organization well can be a great advantage.
I should have guessed the Watershed Council was an advocacy group. Deen is a River Steward with the group. Most government programs have "chairpersons" or "planning specialists." They don't have River Stewards. That's a title from Merry Olde England, or maybe from Tolkien.
The Connecticut River Joint Commissions
| Map of the Connecticut From the Connecticut River Joint Commissions |
River management is divided into Local Committees, each responsible for understanding and advising on a section of the river. The selectmen of each town appoint up to two members of the Local Committee. It is truly a citizen's advisory body, and does a great deal of planning. For example, the Water Resources Management Plan provides significant guidance for many topics along the river.
The Connecticut River Join Commission holds meetings and work weekends. It advises on permitting, boat safety, and non-point-source discharge concerns.
Who Speaks for the River?
The Watershed Council claims to speak for the Connecticut River. To some extent, it may. It has paid staff, but it is also a volunteer group, and volunteer groups are important. However, in this case, the group has become self-important, constantly attacking Vermont Yankee. For example, the group claims that that the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee can be detected fifty miles downstream to Holyoke, Massachusetts. Considering that the river flows through Vernon Dam and is diverted to the Northfield Pumped Storage plant before getting to Holyoke, a thermal plume visible that far downstream is improbable, to say the least.
The Watershed people paid for a study that claimed the plume was visible and the delta-T (temperature change) remained in the river fifty miles downstream. I find this study unconvincing, as it mixes critiques of computer models, dye-tests in the river, and measurements. It seems to claim the only thing that could be heating anything downriver is...the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee. I admit, however, that I am not a hydrologist.
To me, the study looks like a mish-mash with an agenda. The only thing the study considers is the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee. Any temperature change is because of the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee. Pumped storage...not mentioned. Evaporative cooling from the river...not mentioned. Sunny days, rainy days...not mentioned. Mt. Tom coal-fired plant upriver of Holyoke...not mentioned. Vermont Yankee controls all. Or at least, it controls the entire hypothesis. No alternate explanations need apply.
On the basis of this work, the group now acts as if it is a fact that thermal plumes can survive dams, pumping stations, pumped storage reservoirs, and fifty miles of river. This is advocacy gone mad, in my opinion.
The Commission Speaks For Most of Us
In my opinion, the Watershed Council group and its Stewards have their own agenda, which seems to have very little to do with what happens on the Connecticut River. On the other hand, the Connecticut River Joint Commissions are made up of local people who do not hold archaic titles. These people are far more likely to speak for the river, in my opinion.
And they speak for me. After all, it's my river, too.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Outreach Opportunity at Book Tour Plus New Carnival
The SAGE Alliance is sponsoring a book tour: Fukushima: Nuclear Power’s Gift to Our Planet.
The author has written a non-scientific screed based on her own fears. This is the kind of thing where people with a positive voice must show up.
The World Health Organization has calculated people’s dose from the accident. The information is available on line. Exposures up to 10 milli Sievert-a CT scan or less!! Not significant.
What can you do?
Links to the information are below,
August 5
5:30 -9 Lyman Hall
Northampton, MA
August 6 – Anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing
1:30-3
142 High Street
Amherst, MA
7-9
Center Congregational Church
193 Main Street
Brattleboro, VT
August 7
5:30-7
Howe Library
South Street
Hanover, NH
August 9
1-3
Harwich Community Center
Harwich, MA
5:30-7
Friends Meeting House
West Falmouth, MA
Sage Alliance http://sagealliance.net/
Program http://sagealliance.net/Events/Pineda_8-5-12
Book Review http://www.wingspress.com/book.cfm/140/Devils-Tango-How-I-Learned-the-Fukushima-Step-by-Step/Cecile-Pineda/
World Health Organization info http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/world-health-organization-weighs-in-on-fukushima.html
---------
Howard Shaffer wrote this a few days ago. I should have put it up on the blog at that time, but I was on vacation.
If you can't attend, you might add to the discussion at the Brattleboro Forum.
----

The 116th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is posted at Idaho Samizdat. Many fascinating posts on non-proliferation issues, as well as the NRC and other topics. About the NRC, Rod Adams looks at Harry Reid's diatribe against Commissioner Magwood ("first-class rat") and asks if Reid knows the difference between loyalty ("anything you say, boss!") and integrity. Margaret Harding looks at the accusations that the NRC is a "captured regulator" and shows why the NRC, despite problems, remains an independent agency. And there's more! Read the Carnival.
And remember that the lady in the Carnival costume (in the righthand column of this blog) will always link to the latest Carnival.
The author has written a non-scientific screed based on her own fears. This is the kind of thing where people with a positive voice must show up.
The World Health Organization has calculated people’s dose from the accident. The information is available on line. Exposures up to 10 milli Sievert-a CT scan or less!! Not significant.
What can you do?
- Read about the program and the author.
- Read the book review.
- Study the World Health Organization results. Make a few copies.
- Show up and politely challenge the author
Links to the information are below,
August 5
5:30 -9 Lyman Hall
Northampton, MA
August 6 – Anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing
1:30-3
142 High Street
Amherst, MA
7-9
Center Congregational Church
193 Main Street
Brattleboro, VT
August 7
5:30-7
Howe Library
South Street
Hanover, NH
August 9
1-3
Harwich Community Center
Harwich, MA
5:30-7
Friends Meeting House
West Falmouth, MA
Sage Alliance http://sagealliance.net/
Program http://sagealliance.net/Events/Pineda_8-5-12
Book Review http://www.wingspress.com/book.cfm/140/Devils-Tango-How-I-Learned-the-Fukushima-Step-by-Step/Cecile-Pineda/
World Health Organization info http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/world-health-organization-weighs-in-on-fukushima.html
---------
Howard Shaffer wrote this a few days ago. I should have put it up on the blog at that time, but I was on vacation.
If you can't attend, you might add to the discussion at the Brattleboro Forum.
----

The 116th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is posted at Idaho Samizdat. Many fascinating posts on non-proliferation issues, as well as the NRC and other topics. About the NRC, Rod Adams looks at Harry Reid's diatribe against Commissioner Magwood ("first-class rat") and asks if Reid knows the difference between loyalty ("anything you say, boss!") and integrity. Margaret Harding looks at the accusations that the NRC is a "captured regulator" and shows why the NRC, despite problems, remains an independent agency. And there's more! Read the Carnival.
And remember that the lady in the Carnival costume (in the righthand column of this blog) will always link to the latest Carnival.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Letters and Inspiration
The Safe and Green Campaign is part of the Sage Alliance, dedicated to shutting down Vermont Yankee. Recently, Safe and Green did us a favor (sort of). They have been annoyed at all the letters in favor of Vermont Yankee that have been published in local papers recently, and they want their supporters to answer these letters. So they put a bunch of pro-Vermont Yankee letters on their website, with links to the letter as it appeared in the local paper.
I looked at the page and thought---wow! How convenient! All these good letters in one place! I wish I had thought of that.
The Letters Themselves
Here's a link to Sage and Green web page with the letters. If you prefer, you can look at the list below, the same letters, instead of visiting an opponent website.
Not really a favor
Of course, Sage and Green had no desire to make things better or easier for us. They placed those letters on their website because they wanted to inspire their followers to write counter-letters. I guess I should be worried. Letters may flood in.
However, I have seen responses to these letters in the website comment streams, and these responses have not worried me. For example, my letter was in the Burlington Free Press, and one comment there said that I claimed "there was as much tritium in a banana as leaked from the plant." Even when they make up a fact (tritium in a banana?) they get it wrong.
The actual facts are on our side. The factual facts, so to speak.
I hope that some of the people reading this blog in Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire will be inspired to write a letter in favor of VY to their local paper. If you plan to write a pro-VY letter and want some fact-checking, please email me at mjangwin at gmail. I will be happy to hear from you and to help. (If you are writing an anti-VY letter, just go ahead with business as usual and make up your own facts.)
Let's keep those pro-Vermont Yankee letters coming!
I looked at the page and thought---wow! How convenient! All these good letters in one place! I wish I had thought of that.
The Letters Themselves
Here's a link to Sage and Green web page with the letters. If you prefer, you can look at the list below, the same letters, instead of visiting an opponent website.
- Nuclear Fuel: The Win-at-any-cost philosophy of anti-nuclear activists. Let's shut down Yucca Mountain and then complain there's no place to store spent fuel! Jim DeVincentis in the Brattleboro Reformer
- Vermont Yankee helps in the fight against climate change. Without nuclear power, there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "Mother Earth will not be shouted down by nuclear opponents" Harriet Green in the Brattleboro Reformer
- Economic Impact of Vermont Yankee. Up to 1500 well-paying jobs in the local area, due to Vermont Yankee. Michelle Joy in the Brattleboro Reformer
- The Vermont Yankee Economic Benefit Zone. Opponent signs always call the "Emergency Planning Zone" the "Evacuation Zone." Wrong name. Whatever you call that zone, though, the Vermont Yankee Economic Benefit Zone is much bigger. Richard January in Vermont Digger
- Trojan Horse about Energy: It's the Fossil Fuels. Opponents brought a "Trojan Cow" to the plant's gates, and pulled fake solar panels from within it. Trojan Horses (or cows) are the symbol of deceit. In this case, the deceit was that VY would be replaced by renewables if it closed. It would be replaced by fossil fuel plants. Meredith Angwin in the Brattleboro Reformer.
Not really a favor
Of course, Sage and Green had no desire to make things better or easier for us. They placed those letters on their website because they wanted to inspire their followers to write counter-letters. I guess I should be worried. Letters may flood in.
However, I have seen responses to these letters in the website comment streams, and these responses have not worried me. For example, my letter was in the Burlington Free Press, and one comment there said that I claimed "there was as much tritium in a banana as leaked from the plant." Even when they make up a fact (tritium in a banana?) they get it wrong.
The actual facts are on our side. The factual facts, so to speak.
I hope that some of the people reading this blog in Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire will be inspired to write a letter in favor of VY to their local paper. If you plan to write a pro-VY letter and want some fact-checking, please email me at mjangwin at gmail. I will be happy to hear from you and to help. (If you are writing an anti-VY letter, just go ahead with business as usual and make up your own facts.)
Let's keep those pro-Vermont Yankee letters coming!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


