New leaks?  New contamination?  Who knows?

The latest report from the Vermont Health Department is troubling.  Results from the monitoring test wells at Vermont Yankee show that the level of contamination is increasing in nearly half of the wells.  And at least one of these wells is OUTSIDE the area identified as the contaminated plume.

This news comes on top of news that soil at the site is contaminated and fish in the river are contaminated.

Pipes at the facility remain inaccessible.  There is no way to know if they are leaking.  It took over two months to find one leak.  And another leak was found just last week.

As of Saturday, Vermont Yankee is running again after a planned outage and a few mishaps.

I would feel better if they cleaned up the mess before they turned the plant back on.

Want to talk about Vermont Yankee?

Join me and other CLF staff at the River Garden in Brattleboro, VT on Thursday, June 10 from 6-8 PM for a community gathering and Q&A on Vermont Yankee.   See event details.   

Over the weekend a fish found in the Connecticut river near Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant was confirmed to be contaminated with strontium-90.  Only a few days before, it was revealed that strontium-90 is contaminating the soil at the Vermont Yankee site.  Strontium-90 is a dangerous radioactive substance. 

Don’t you think these events are connected?  I do.  Yet Yankee officials claim there is no connection.  The fish was four miles upstream.  Last I checked, fish swim upstream and can swim four miles.  Then they said the radiation levels are consistent with what would be present from long ago nuclear testing or Chernobyl.

Unbelievable.  There’s a saying that when you hear hoof beats, don’t think of a zebra.  It is probably a horse.  I think Vermont Yankee is seeing zebras everywhere — avoiding the obvious in hopes of avoiding responsibility.  

This is shameful.

I loved the newspaper headline that greeted me this morning.   Did we win in our request to shut the plant down until the leaks are repaired and the site is cleaned up?  Not yet.  It seems Vermont Yankee simply hasn’t figured out how to put the plug back in after refueling.  Yankee’s unexpected emergency shut down yesterday is just one of many failings that demonstrates Yankee’s incapacity to operate responsibly.

The  public hearing scheduled for tonight has been CANCELLED  – ironically due to a power outage.  

Recent news includes finding strontium-90 at the Vermont Yankee site and the NRC saying  don’t worry about the mess, it will be cleaned up when the plant closes.  As I told one reporter:

“This is a good example of lax oversight by the NRC. I expect to hear I will clean it up later from my teenager. When it comes to radioactive contamination, people in charge should be more diligent.” 

As the oil disaster continues in the gulf, watch the live feed below (windows media player required).

Angry? Frustrated? Had enough? Click here to tell President Obama to take action today – and help us prevent an oil disaster in New England.

From the first time I heard a BP official (May 3, 2010 on NPR)  promise to pay “all legitimate claims” arising from the massive “Deepwater Horizon” discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, my mind turned immediately to the epic legal drama that unfolded in the poisonous wake of the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster.

In the press and during Congressional hearings, BP officials have been extremely disciplined in their undeviating use of this phrase to describe BP’s alleged readiness to pay its fair share (let’s remember that Halliburton and other oil industry contractors are also responsible for this mess) of the financial damages caused by the oil plume emanating from its drilling operation.  Putting aside the issue of whether the full extent of the damage this disaster is causing can ever truly be measured in dollars and cents, it doesn’t take a lawyer to figure out that the phrase “all legitimate claims”–a reasonable enough sounding frame–could give defense attorneys a lot of wiggle room in deciding which claims to pay and which claims to fight.   If BP takes a page out of the Exxon playbook and decides to fight, there’s a good chance that BP will pay pennies on the dollar for those claims that it ultimately determines to be legitimate.

NOAA scientists cleanup and study oil as the Exxon Valdez tanker's breached hulk spews oil into Prudhoe Bay

In case you’re wondering, BP’s profits from the first quarter of 2010 alone were nearly 5.598 BILLION–an increase of 135% over first quarter of 2009 according to BP’s own figures.  That kind of money can buy you the most aggressive defense attorneys in the country–the likes of which lost the first Exxon Valdez trial, but then won the 20-year long legal war of attrition that followed.  Exxon’s endless appeals dragged out payment of and–with the help of a corporation-friendly Supreme Court majority–ultimately dwindled down the amount of damages awarded to fishermen, natives, and others whose livelihoods suffered or were destroyed by the Valdez disaster. 

If you want a preview of where things could be headed if BP does decide to dig in its heels, there are at least two great books on the Exxon disaster that are worth reading.  David Lebedoff’s Cleaning Up: The Story of the Biggest Legal Bonanza of Our Time focuses on the known facts surrounding the Exxon disaster as they were argued at trial and tells the heart-wrenching story of the victims, the perpetrators, and the lawyers that represented them on both sides of the issue.  Dr. Riki Ott’s book Not One Drop– Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill covers some of the same ground, but brings a broader scientific and socio-political context to the events that led to and followed the Valdez disaster.  Hers is a compelling indictment of the whole legal and political system surrounding oil extraction that has been designed for and in large part by the oil companies themselves.

As we continue to watch helplessly as the Deepwater Horizon debacle unfolds, it’s important to revisit the Exxon Valdez spill and its tortured legacy.  Regardless of what happens in the legal battles to come, both disasters–and the growing menace of climate change that is literally fueled by our seemingly insatiable appetite for oil–make the most compelling case in the Court of Public Opinion for truly getting “Beyond Petroleum.”  We are all members of the jury in that case.  How will you vote?

As recently as this morning the Coast Guard was asserting that oil from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had not entered the “loop current” that travels around the tip of Florida over to the East Coast.

And now it appears the oil is hitting Florida as tar balls appear in Key West . . . they are being tested to determine to determine their origin.

Some commentators have, appropriately, noted that in addition to banning drilling in sensitive areas off our own coasts we need to appropriately regulate drilling that is underway and, to truly solve the problem, we must gain control and dramatically reduce our use of oil – a process that will involve building livable, walkable communities centered around transit.

Sadly, efforts are afoot in Washington to push in exactly the opposite direction – tell your Senator not to back Senator Lisa Murkowski’s Big Oil Bail-Out which would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to crack down on global warming pollution from oil and coal.

Comprehensive energy and climate legislation, combined with strong federal and state action using current law, can point us towards a cleaner and safer world where we don’t have to worry about tar balls on our beaches . . .

Now is our chance.

On Thursday, May 27, the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) will hold a public hearing on whether to shut down Vermont Yankee right now, instead of waiting until 2012. You will have the opportunity to tell the PSB what you think—whether the PSB should shut down the plant now, or take other action to address the ongoing leaks, false information and company misconduct that violates state laws.

It is important for our regulators, the Vermont Public Service Board, to hear from you.

What can you do to help? Join a growing community of concerned people like you by attending the public hearing on May 27. Tell the PSB what YOU think should happen to Vermont Yankee.

Public Hearing on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Thursday, May 27
7:00 p.m.
Gymnasium at Vernon Elementary School
381 Governor Hunt Road, Vernon, VT

One more voice might be all we need to stop Vermont Yankee in its tracks for good—make it yours.

In response to objections regarding the cost of Cape Wind, CLF and 12 other organizations issued the following statement:

The news this week that National Grid has officially filed its contract proposal with Cape Wind is great news for everyone in our state who breathes the air and believes we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general. Any estimate of the real costs of Cape Wind must factor in the economic, environmental and public health benefits to consumers and the Commonwealth over the long-term. In addition to knowing how much the power from Cape Wind will cost, the public should also know how much it will save them. To accurately estimate the value of our investment in Cape Wind, we can’t just focus on short-term increases to electric bills – pennies per day, on average – but must consider the savings over time.

By making a 15-year commitment to supply customers with clean wind power, National Grid and Cape Wind together are taking an essential step toward bringing the nation’s first offshore wind project to life while delivering substantial economic and environmental rewards. As the contract goes through rigorous public scrutiny, we call upon the public and state decision-makers alike to ensure that it is compared to other electric power agreements on an apples-to-apples basis that fully credits the expected benefits.  These include:

▪  Because Cape Wind’s fuel is free, the long-term power purchase agreement can – and will – ensure price predictability over the long term, moving consumers off the volatile fossil fuel price roller coaster.

▪  The project’s zero fuel cost means that when the wind blows, Cape Wind will be first in line to deliver power to consumers – forcing the most expensive polluting fossil fuel-fired power plants to run less, reducing the market price for electricity and saving customers millions of dollars.

▪  The contract price, initially set at 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour, is an “all-in” price that includes not just the price of the electricity but also the transmission, renewable energy incentives that are required by law, the project’s capacity to contribute to the regional electric supply, and other environmental benefits.  It is inaccurate to compare this price to the stand-alone price of traditional electricity.

▪  Any comparison of Cape Wind’s contract price to the price we currently pay for traditional power must take into account the extraordinary environmental and public health costs of ongoing reliance on fossil fuels – including the costs of addressing the growing oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf, increasing climate change impacts, and air pollution from coal plants that worsens lung and heart conditions.

▪  By making long-term price commitments, Cape Wind and National Grid are placing the risk of any increased development cost squarely on the shoulders of Cape Wind, not ratepayers.

▪  Cape Wind will bring significant economic development opportunities to the Commonwealth, from quality construction jobs to ongoing maintenance and operation, and will propel Massachusetts to the national forefront of offshore renewable energy development.

Yesterday, New England Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) introduced in the Senate the long-awaited climate bill, now known officially as the American Power Act. Here’s what Seth Kaplan, CLF’s Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy, had to say on the subject:

“We applaud Senator Kerry’s hard work and persistence in addressing this most fundamental of global crises and working towards the kind of climate bill we need. Immediate action must be taken to end our dependence on oil, build a new clean energy economy and, most critically for our children and grandchildren, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a reminder of the damage that occurs when our natural resources are mishandled. To protect New England’s communities, forests, coastlines and waters, we must come forward immediately to build a cleaner, safer and more prosperous future for our region.”