7/11: Rally to Support the “Pilgrim 14″ at Plymouth Pre-Trial

󰀿July 11, 2012 | 9:00 am (courtroom) | 11:00 am (rally)

󰀽Plymouth District Court, 52 Obery St, Plymouth MA

On May 20, coalition member Cape Downwinders held a rally and demonstration outside Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station to protest Entergy-Louisiana’s relicensing application. Some of the participants were arrested and charged with trespassing when they attempted to deliver a letter to Entergy-Louisiana. The “Pilgrim 14″ are scheduled to return to Plymouth District Court on July 11 for a pre-trial conference. The group asks supporters to join them in the courtroom that morning at 9 a.m. There will be an 11 a.m. demonstration outside.

The Goal of the “Pilgrim 14” is to get to trial and shine as much light as possible on Entergy, Pilgrim, NRC, etc. To accomplish this the attorneys and the P14 members are requesting that the following guidelines of conduct be followed:

󰁒Supporters who wish see & hear the Court proceedings must be dressed appropriately and respectfully of the court. Behavior and conduct should be a model of decorum. No T shirts (with political slogans), no signs, no disruptions or distractions of any kind.

󰁒Just a heads up; before entering the court building everyone is screened by security, much like getting on an airplane. Among other things, no drinks (and possibly no food) is allowed beyond the checkpoint. Past experience has shown that these security officers perform their duties very seriously. The slightest confrontation may prevent you from entering building.

󰁒Demonstrators are encouraged to be colorful with signs, (big) banners, T-shirts, chants, nuke suits, etc, etc. Supporters also must be peaceful, nonviolent and not aggressive or confrontational. This will take place on Obery St., across the street from the court complex.

󰁒No one should do anything that may get them arrested, or to make it an experience requiring Police presence beyond a passive keeping-an-eye-on-things posture. The Plymouth Police Department treated us exceptionally well on May 20th; please continue to treat them in a like manner.

󰀓Event flyer

󰀓5/20: Citizens’ Demand for the Immediate Retirement of PNPS

For details, contact:
󰀍Cape Downwinders:
󰀟David Agnew, dagnew@gmail.com

󰀬follow 󰀪like 󰀻pin

May 09

Worst Week Since Fukushima: 4 Major Setbacks In 3 Days Are Latest Stumbles For U.S. Nuclear Power Industry

Reverse Renaissance? Experts Point to 6 Reactors on the Chopping Block and Passage of Anti-Industry Florida Law; Beleaguered Industry’s Woes Start With Bad Economics … and Go Downhill From There. WASHINGTON, May 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – Call it the “renaissance in reverse.” Not only is…

May 08

The Naked Truth About Nuclear Accident Insurance

󰀃Miles Benson, linktv.org 󰀍Link TV →

Going without insurance is described as “going naked” in insurance industry lingo. Going without insurance for the worst hazards in the nuclear power industry is business as usual.

One need not look back very far to see the problem. In March 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster, triggered by an earthquake followed by a tsunami that overwhelmed all of Japan’s safeguards, melted down three reactors, displaced 160,000 people and caused an estimated $250 billion in damages and other still-unfolding economic consequences.

Today, in the United States, we have 104 operating nuclear plants producing electricity. The owners, operators, and government regulators who oversee them say an event like Fukushima will not happen here. And even if it did, they insist, there is enough liability insurance in place to cover the damages. The actual amount of that insurance coverage: just $12.6 billion.

You don’t need an advanced degree in calculus or risk analysis to see that something doesn’t add up, and to start feeling a bit…naked. But when it comes to nuclear insurance, naked is the fashion designed for the American public. Read more of this →

Apr 30

Local Residents Challenge Entergy’s Zoning Permit for Nuclear Waste Storage at Pilgrim in Plymouth

PLYMOUTH – A group of local residents has appealed a Plymouth zoning permit granted to Entergy Nuclear Generating Corporation (Entergy). The zoning permit, granted without any public hearing, gives Entergy the right to have a long-term high-level nuclear waste storage facility at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Pilgrim’s operating license will expire in 2032. The proposed nuclear waste dump will store all of the radioactive fuel rods that Pilgrim has generated since 1972, for many, many years after Pilgrim itself shuts down.

The appeal, filed with the Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals on April 25, 2013, asks the ZBA to revoke the permit because the long-term, outdoor, dry cask storage of nuclear waste is not a “permitted use” under the Plymouth zoning laws, and because such storage also is not what the zoning permit calls an “accessory use.” The appeal also asks the ZBA to require Entergy to obtain a special permit. Under the special permit process, the ZBA can set conditions that will insure that the nuclear waste dump is built and operated as safely as possible; the special permit process also allows for public input.

Meg Sheehan, spokesperson for EcoLaw, a group of volunteer lawyers representing the residents, said, “We support dry cask storage, but think the residents of the area are entitled to the safest, most secure storage facility that can be built. Entergy apparently did not give critical facts to the Plymouth Director of Inspectional Services. The real fact of the matter is that, without a special permit, Plymouth zoning does not allow long-term nuclear waste storage.”

Ms. Sheehan went on to point out that the 1967 special permit for Pilgrim did not allow either the construction or the long term operation of a nuclear waste storage facility. That special permit was limited to “a nuclear-powered generating plant and associated buildings, roads, and transmission facilities”; and in requesting the special permit Pilgrim’s original owner, Boston Edison, said “The project will not include a repair station or outside storage of supplies.”

“Coincidentally,” Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch commented, “in mid-April the NRC said that spent fuel storage cask structures and components were prematurely degrading from moisture and weathering, especially in marine environments, and pointed to the need for enhanced monitoring and adequate drainage. A Special Permit would allow the Town to have a ‘say’ to assure that these measures, and more, are done to better protect both the public’s and worker’s health and safety.”

“In the past,” said Ms. Sheehan, “Pilgrim’s owners have asked the ZBA for special permits when they wanted to make changes at Pilgrim. Why is Entergy now trying to avoid the special permit process and get away with doing the minimum possible? That’s not OK.”

The next step in the appeal process is for the Zoning Board to schedule a public hearing, which will be held in the next 2 to 3 months.

For more information and copy of appeal: http://www.ecolaw.biz/nuclear-power

Newsletter
Latest Issue

Apr 12

Newsletter: April 2013

󰀓PC News Update: April 12, 2013 → Cape Downwinders Ballot Initiative / Case for Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel to Dy Casks / Save Our Bay Flotilla / Ira Wood on Pilgrim / Marshfield Town Meeting To Vote on Nuclear Advisory Committee