Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

9 Comments

  1. Rod,
    I’m a mere adjunct law professor, not a nuclear engineeer, and have never claimed otherwise. I do not have “a long history of employment by organized antinuclear groups”. I did not “dismiss the report without reading it”.
    The language that you suggest was a trap did not refer at all to the underground piping issue, of which none of us were aware when the report was prepared. It – like the rest of our report – was concurred in by all the members of the panel.
    Peter Bradford

    1. Mr. Bradford. Thank you for making contact. I have corrected the post to more accurately reflect your education and professional experience. I apologize for the misinterpretation of your testimony; I apparently did not read it closely enough to realize that you were talking about your colleagues and not yourself when you said “Each of my colleagues is an accomplished nuclear engineer with extensive experience in nuclear plant technology and operation.”
      With regard to whether or not at least one member of the panel knew about the underground piping, I will stand by my earlier interpretation.

    2. Peter, sitting at a board of such said company is not considered employment, seriously?

  2. Just to clarify and support my contention, here is a quote from a December 2007 article that indicates that Arnie Gundersen indicated some belief that there was underground piping and potential for contamination to be discovered later – even if at very low levels:
    “The fact is, Gundersen noted, decommissioning nuclear plants never goes according to plan. History has shown that actual costs always exceed the early estimates, for the simple reason that many problems don

  3. I appreciate the changes. One problem remains, though it is traceable to the story on which you relied, more than your own work. The sentence “Peter Bradford dismissed the report by pointing to Morgan Lewis’s large business serving the nuclear industry and stating that it could not have produced an unbiased report” is not riight. I believe that I said something more along the lines of “Entergy would have been wiser to hire an independent firm with a strong northern New England reputation than a firm with such extensive ties both to Entergy and to the nuclear industry.” I haven’t dismissed the report itself, which I haven’t finished reading.

  4. I appreciate the changes. One problem remains, though it is traceable to the story on which you relied, more than your own work. The sentence “Peter Bradford dismissed the report by pointing to Morgan Lewis’s large business serving the nuclear industry and stating that it could not have produced an unbiased report” is not riight. I believe that I said something more along the lines of “Entergy would have been wiser to hire an independent firm with a strong northern New England reputation than a firm with such extensive ties both to Entergy and to the nuclear industry.” I haven’t dismissed the report itself, which I haven’t finished reading.

  5. It’s clear that there is quite a bit of leverage that Vermont Yankee retains over the state of Vermont. If Vermont Yankee does not receive a license to operate from the state, “Entergy Vermont Yankee, LLC” can just write the plant off as a loss, file Chapter 7, say “See ya later”, and leave the state with the plant to deal with on their own. The state will probably have a 9 figure bill if they want to decommission the plant, prior to, oh, say, 2100.
    Therefore, no monies should be placed into the decommissioning fund until a license renewal is granted by the state for the full 20 year period. The deal should be that if the license renewal is granted, the fund will be made solvent. I would actually have a secondary fund set up so that if the state tries to interfere with the operation of the plant prior to the 20 year period being up, the secondary fund won’t transfer into the first fund, and the state will be left with the bill.
    I would also encourage Entergy to continue their pursuit of an NRC license for the plant, so that if the NRC renewal is granted (and it will be), Entergy, as the owner of the stock of the former Vermont Yankee, will have the right to sue the State of Vermont for the “regulatory taking” of Vermont Yankee through the failure of the State of Vermont to grant a license renewal, without a bona-fide cause. So not only does Vermont get to foot the decommissioning bill, but they have to pay Entergy Corporate the fair market value – or even, the actual replacement value of the plant.
    It’s time there’s a Reverse Shoreham in this country of ours. If Vermont wants to shut down Vermont Yankee, let it not be Entergy who has to file for bankruptcy. Let it be the State of Vermont, when it has to pay Entergy the actual replacement value or the fair market value of the former Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Teach the anti-nuclear movement a lesson they will remember in their bones for a hundred years.

Comments are closed.