ML042120555
| ML042120555 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/20/2004 |
| From: | Lyman P Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| To: | Richard Ennis NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0267 | |
| Download: ML042120555 (11) | |
Text
Rickt-,inis - VY News, Thursday, May20, 2004 Pe1 From:
"Lyman, Pato <PLYMA90©entergy.com>
To:
'Dower, Mary" <mdower@ prod.entergy.com>, "Sandstrum, Sally"
<ssandst © prod.entergy.com>
Date:
5/20/04 9:12AM
Subject:
VY News, Thursday, May 20, 2004
- 1. Jeffords to question NRC on safety issues - Brattleboro Reformer(Front page, below fold)
- 2. A View From the Middle - The Original Observer(Page 32)
- 3. More cracks are found; nuclear fuel still missing - The Keene Sentinel(Front page, below fold)
- 4. Entergy has no record of missing rods - Burlington Free Press(Page 5B, below fold)
- 5. Nuclear fuel rods still missing; more cracks found - Boston.com(Online)
- 7. Pay attention to Yankee - Rutland Herald(Commentary, page A9, above fold)
- 8. 16 More Cracks In Steam Dryer...Waste Not... - ibrattleboro.com(Online)
- 9. Group pulls out of wind planning - Rutland Herald(Front page, on fold)
VY Daily News Thursday, May 20, 2004 If you have news items to contribute contact Pat Lyman - plyma90@entergy.com Brattleboro Reformer, Thursday, May 20, 2004(Front page, below fold)
Jeffords to question NRC on safety issues By IAN BISHOP Reformer Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- With still no trace of the spent fuel rods missing for more than three weeks from Vermont Yankee, Vermont Sen. James Jeffords intends to grill members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over safety practices during a congressional hearing today.
"Recent events have only raised new questions about accountability and safety at the Vermont Yankee plant. Public confidence has been shaken," said Jeffords.
Jeffords is the second-ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, which has purview over the NRC.
NRC chairman Nils J. Diaz and commissioners Edward Mc-Gaffigan Jr. and Jeffrey S. Merrifield are scheduled to testify before the subcommittee on nuclear safety as part of an oversight review.
In addition to the missing fuel rods, plant workers have found 20 hairline cracks in the facility's aging steam dryer. Both safety concerns come as Vermont Yankee seeks an increased uprate.
wThe commission needs to tell us what it is doing to locate the parts of missing fuel rods, what it is doing to assure Vermonters that the proposed uprate will not jeopardize safety at the plant, and how it plans to restore its credibility with the public," Jeffords added.
A detailed engineering inspection of the facility agreed to by the NRC may be a significant step in restoring that credibility.
Rick E~nnis - VY News, Thursday, May 20, 2004 Page ?i-Page 2'1 The commission recently agreed to the inspection following a flurry of correspondence from the state's congressional delegation.
Today's scheduled congressional hearing comes less than a week after Entergy Nuclear vice president Jay Thayer told the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel that the fuel rod pieces from Vermont Yankee are probably in a low-level nuclear waste site in South Carolina or Washington state or in a now-closed federal facility in Beatty, Nev.
The panel and members of the public questioned Thayer for most of an hour Tuesday about the rods, which were discovered missing April 20.
An extensive search of the plant's spent fuel pool with robotic cameras failed to turn up a trace of the highly radioactive items.
The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. It will be broadcast live over the Internet at www.senate.gov The Original Vermont Observer(page 32)
A View From the Middle TIM JOHNSON Commentary I'd like to tell you about a fasci-nating, educational, and eye-opening trip I was fortunate to take. As I write this, I'm on a plane returning to Vermont from Los Vegas Nevada, some 90 miles away from the US Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Project. An industry group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, funded the trip. As a journalist, and as someone who went to school across the street from the Entergy Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant as it was be-ing built, 1 felt it was important to get a first hand look at what the Feds have in mind for long term waste storage.
About 20 of us, including lo-cal officials and business people, plus two other reporters, made the trip, flying out of Bradley International Airport near Hart-ford Connecticut, early Monday, and arriving in Vegas that after-noon, west coast time. That eve-fling, we met our host, Chandler Van Orman, and members of a consulting firm who worked with the Nevada Governor's office. The Governor, and the states' congressional delegation, is op-posed to Yucca being a national repository, but it also sounded like state officials were trying to get the best financial deal possible if a facility is licensed.
The next day, our group was bused out to the Yucca Mountain Project, which is located on a for-mer government atomic testing site. A five mile long underground tunnel was built, and subjected to water and heat testing, to see if there was a chance that any out-side contamination would get In. The answer-practically nil. The region itself gets only four to six inches of rain per year, and the water table is several thousand feet below ground. The tunnel is 25 feet in diameter, and about a thousand feet under the top of the mountain.
This trip made a big impres-sion, in that the waste can be stored away from nearly every-one, for the county in question has a density of only a half person per square mile, In addition, experts from the Los Alamos Laboratories and consultants for the US Depart-ment of Energy have been try-Ing to find problems with the site since 1978, and they haven't found any fatal flaws.
Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May 20, 2004 Page 3 I Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May20 2004 Page 3I Here's the situation: Vermont Yankee's spent fuel pooi is run-fling out of space and alternate solutions need to be found. Can Yucca be developed soon enough? No, but dry cask storage in a fed-erally-approved container is an option being employed elsewhere in the nation. Even if we close down Vermont Yankee tomorrow, we'd still need to find replace-ment power sources that may or may not be available.
I'm not weighing in on any extended li-censing past 2012, at least not yet. It does appear, however, that in-terim dry cask storage and even-tual shipment to Yucca Mountain makes sense for Vermont's energy future.
The Keene Sentinel, Wednesday, May 19, 2004(Front page, below fold)
Vermont Yankee More cracks are found; nuclear fuel still missing By ASSOCIATED PRESS BRATTLEBORO - Sixteen more hairline cracks have been discovered in a steam dryer at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
Also, despite three weeks of searching, no one can say where two pieces of highly ra-dioactive nuclear fuel wound up.
Last month, Entergy said it had found four cracks in the steam dryer.
The cracks result from the aging of the stainless-steel plate, engineer Brian Hobbs said. They were discovered when the plate was cleaned.
A search through nuclear fuel records from the past 25 years found no documentation of where the two pieces of highly radioac-tive nuclear fuel are, said Jay Thayer, vice president of Entergy Nuclear, the Louisiana based company that owns the plant.
He told the Vermont State Nuclear Advi-sory Panel the fuel rod pieces are probably in a low-level nuclear-waste dump in South Carolina or Washington state - or in a now-closed federal dump in Beatty, Nev.
The panel and the public questioned Thayer for most of an hour Tuesday about the rods, whose disappearance was discovered April 20. An extensive search of the plant's spent fuel pool, using robotic cameras, turned up no trace of the highly radioac-tive items.
Entergy Nuclear's "practice and attitude* are problematic, said panel member Larry Crist of the Vermont Department of Health,
- The attitude is that the plant is so well-run, nothing can hap-pen," Crist said. "The attitude overwhelms the ability to look beyond."
It appears Entergy Nuclear vi-olated federal regulations on fuel inventory, though the company hasn't been charged with a viola-tions yet, said William Sherman,Vermont's nuclear engineer.
"it looks like a violation,' Sherman said.
"How in heavens could this happen? How could this happen? There's something unbelievable about this.
Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May 20, 2004 Page4l Spent fuel is much more dangerous" than low-level radioactive waste, said panel member Russell Kulas, a physicist.
Thayer said he doesn't know if Entergy workers would have dis-covered the rods were missing if they hadn't been pushed by a fed-eral Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion inspector to look for them.
David O'Brien, commissioner of the state Department of Public Service, criticized the NRC, saying it has ignored Vermont's con-cerns about a key aspect of the plant's request to boost its elec-tricity production by 20 percent.
Crist said several recent prob-lems at Vermont Yankee could be traced to human error. But Thayer denied that.
'I take this very seriously," Thayer said.
Burlington Free Press, Thursday, May 20, 2004(Page 5B, below fold)
Entergy has no record of missing rods The Associated Press BRATTLEBORO - Despite three weeks of searching through its nuclear fuel re-cords from the past 25 years, Entergy Nuclear hasn't found any documentation that shows where two pieces of missing highly radioactive nu-clear fuel are, Entergy Nu-clear Vice President Jay Thayer told a state nuclear ad-visory panel Tuesday.
Meanwhile, plant person-nel said 16 more hairline cracks had been discovered in a steam dryer in addition to four cracks disclosed last month.
The cracks are a result of the aging of the stainless steel plate, engineer Brian Hobbs said. They were discovered when the plate was cleaned.
Thayer told the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel that the fuel rod pieces from Vermont Yankee are probably in a low-level nuclear waste site in South Carolina or Washington state - or in a now-closed federal facility in Beatty, Nev.
The panel and members of the public questioned Thayer for most of an hour Tuesday about the rods, which were discovered missing April 20. An extensive search of the plant's spent fuel pool with robotic cameras failed to turn up a trace of the highly radio-active items.
"How could this happen? There's something unbeliev-able about this. Spent fuel is much more dangerous," said panel member Russell Kulas, a physicist and public member of the panel.
Thayer said he didn't know whether Entergy personnel would have discovered the rods were missing if they hadn't been pushed by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector to look for them.
David O'Brien, commis-sioner of the state Department of Public Service, criticized the NRC, saying it has ignored Vermont's concern about the plant's proposed 20 percent increase in power.
William Sherman, the Ver-mont nuclear engineer, said reports indicate Entergy Nu-clear violated federal regula-tions regarding the inventory of the fuel.
Rick Ennis - VY News, Thuyrsday, May 20, 2004 Page 5 Boston.com, Wednesday, May 19, 2004(Online)
Nuclear fuel rods still missing; more cracks found May 19,2004 BRATTLEBORO, Vt. --Despite three weeks of searching through its nuclear fuel records from the past 25 years, Entergy Nuclear still hasn't found any documentation that shows where the two pieces of highly radioactive nuclear fuel are, Entergy Nuclear vice president Jay Thayer told a state nuclear advisory panel Tuesday.
Meanwhile, plant personnel said 16 more hairline cracks had been discovered in a steam dryer in addition to the four cracks previously disclosed last month.
The cracks are a result of the aging of the stainless steel plate, engineer Brian Hobbs said. They were discovered when the plate was cleaned.
Thayer told the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel that the fuel rod pieces from Vermont Yankee are probably in a low-level nuclear waste site in South Carolina or Washington state -- or in a now-closed federal facility in Beatty, Nev.
The panel and members of the public questioned Thayer for most of an hour Tuesday about the rods, which were discovered missing April 20. An extensive search of the plant's spent fuel pool with robotic cameras failed to turn up a trace of the highly radioactive items.
"How in heavens could this happen? How could this happen? There's something unbelievable about this.
Spent fuel is much more dangerous," said panel member Russell Kulas, a physicist and public member of the panel.
Thayer said he didn't know if Entergy personnel would have discovered the rods were missing if they hadn't been pushed by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector to look for them.
David O'Brien, commissioner of the state Department of Public Service, criticized the NRC, saying it has ignored Vermont's concern about a key aspect of the plant's proposed 20 percent increase in power.
Another panel member, Larry Crist of the Vermont Department of Health, sharply faulted Entergy Nuclear for its 'practice and attitude.
'The attitude is that the plant is so well run nothing can happen," Crist said. "The attitude overwhelms the ability to look beyond."
Crist said several recent problems at Yankee could be traced to human error. But Thayer denied that.
"I take this very seriously," Thayer said.
William Sherman, the Vermont nuclear engineer, said reports indicate Entergy Nuclear violated federal regulations regarding the inventory of the fuel, even though the company hasn't been charged with such violations so far.
'it looks like a violation," Sherman said.
Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May 20, 2004
..Pqge6 I Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday1 May 2Q, 2004 Page6j EEI Daily Energy, Wednesday, May 19, 2004(Online)
Spent Fuel Rods Still Missing at Vermont Yankee Entergy Nuclear was unable to discover the whereabouts of two spent fuel rods at its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, but said it is possible the pieces are at either a closed federal facility or at waste sites in South Carolina or Washington. According to an AP wire report, the rods have been missing since April 20.
Larry Crist of the Vermont Department of Health criticized Entergy Nuclear, saying their "attitude is that the plant is so well run nothing can happen. The attitude overwhelms the ability to look beyond."
Entergy Nuclear vice president Jay Thayer said, "I take this very seriously."
During the search for the rods, plant personnel also discovered 16 more hairline cracks in a steam dryer, a result of an aging steel plate, according to engineer Brian Hobbs.
Associated Press, May 19.
Rutland Herald, Thursday, May 20, 2004(Commentary, page A9, above fold)
Pay attention to Yankee
<https:J/www.vermonttoday.com/subscribe/>
During the past few months the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee have been exposed for an embarrassing and dangerous series of mistakes and oversights that caused Vermont's political leadership to lose confidence in both the company and its regulators in Washington.
There is good reason for the breakdown in trust. At a public meeting in Vernon on March 31, an NRC inspector gave solid reassurance that all of Vermont Yankee's spent fuel was accounted for. Three weeks later the same inspector broke the news that two fuel rod segments were missing. This came on the heels of the announcement that cracks had been discovered in Vermont Yankee's steam dryer - the very part of the reactor shown most likely to fail under the extreme conditions of an extended increase in power output.
Reassurances by Entergy's lobbyists, PR men, and top managers did not help. In the face of mounting calls for an independent safety assessment the NRC finally caved in. On May 5 the agency announced it would conduct an "engineering assessment" prior to granting approval for Entergy's request to boost nuclear power at Vermont Yankee to 120 percent of original design and licensed capacity.
Raymond Shadis, staff technical adviser to New England Coalition, characterized the NRC's belated decision as "one giant step for NRC; one small step for Vermont-kind." It is too early to know if the assessment that the NRC has in mind will be a meaningful and useful one. But there are many indications for concern. The inspection will comprise some 700 hours0.0081 days <br />0.194 hours <br />0.00116 weeks <br />2.6635e-4 months <br /> of engineering time spent examining the plant and its records. By contrast the independent safety assessment conducted at Maine Yankee in 1996 comprised at least 4,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on site, plus several thousand additional hours spent examining documents.
The timing of the NRC's announcement was also unfortunate: one day after refueling at Vermont Yankee was completed and the reactor was up and running again. Unless the NRC is now willing to order a temporary shutdown at Vermont Yankee, critical internal systems in the reactor primary containment cannot be physically inspected until the next refueling outage. That won't be until the fall of 2005, well past time for an expected NRC decision on the extended power increase.
Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May 20, 2004 Page 71 page 7 ]
Further, instead of being "independent" as requested by citizens and government officials from Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, the NRC's proposed assessment offers no assurance of independence. There is no indication, for example, that the process will be open and transparent, or that it will be subject to state and citizen oversight and review. Without these safeguards any assessment by the NRC will be highly suspect, especially with the agency's credibility now at such a low ebb.
Entergy's credibility is even lower. The company's recent stealth attempt to avoid legislative oversight of their upcoming application for dry cask storage was a revealing look at how the Louisiana-based, multi-billion dollar energy giant does its business. Even the company's official statements are often riddled with deceptions. For example, a recent Entergy op-ed piece published in numerous New England papers claimed that Vermont Yankee operates without generating any greenhouse gases. This is simply not true, for it ignores the massive amount of toxic pollution and greenhouse gases created in the nuclear fuel cycle: the mining, transporting, refining, processing, storing, and guarding of uranium and its deadly by-products.
Such deceptions are routine for this company, but occasionally they backfire. In October 2003 the Vermont Public Service Board sanctioned Entergy for its deceptive behavior and chastised the company for "the kind of corrosive and bullying attitude that threatens an otherwise fair and open process."
The public is well advised to maintain vigilance and to regard with a healthy dose of suspicion any claims by either Entergy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For example, the company's current "extended power uprate" application should not be regarded as independent of other important issues, as Entergy would have us believe. In the pipeline, and coming in rapid succession, are Entergy's applications for dry cask storage and license extension. The nuclear onslaught in Vermont has just begun.
Unfortunately, Vermonters are not likely to get much help from the agencies that are supposed to be their advocates against Entergy's profit-taking plans for the antique reactor in Vernon. The public should be asking why the Department of Public Service and the state nuclear engineer vehemently opposed any suggestion for an independent safety assessment, and only changed their tune after the Public Service Board ordered the much smaller engineering" assessment. Members of Vermont's congressional delegation, on the other hand, have proven themselves strong and reliable advocates for the safety of their constituents. Vermont's congressman and two senators should be thanked and recognized for the significant pressure they brought to bear on the NRC in recent months.
Vermonters should celebrate the small victory of an "engineering assessment," but we should not relax our vigilance. Instead, we must renew our efforts and prepare for the costly legal, regulatory, and legislative battles looming on the near horizon. New England Coalition remains committed, as it has for 33 years, to doing the job that government agencies have so often failed to do: researching and bringing to the attention of the public and government decision-makers the true issues and risks around nuclear power; and exposing when we can the deceptions, oversights, and unsafe practices of the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
No matter what, the sad truth remains: Even if the aging nuclear reactor in Vernon avoids a major accident, Entergy's and the NRC's legacy to the people of Vermont will be hundreds of tons of deadly radioactive waste sitting on a geologically unstable piece of land above the Connecticut River for as much as several hundred years.
Peter Alexander is the executive director of New England Coalition, a Brattleboro-based non-profit environmental safety advocate.
lbrattleboro.com, Thursday, May 20, 2004(Online) 16 More Cracks In Steam Dryer...Waste Not...
Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May 20, 2004 Page 8 I Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May_20, 2004 Page P Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:04 PM EDT Contributed by: gfv <http://www.ibrattleboro.com/users.php?mode=profile&uid=37>
<http://www.ibrattleboro.com/index.php?topic=activism>
<http://www.ibrattleboro.com/index.php?topic=activism>
<http://www.ibrattleboro.com/index.php?topic=activism> At the VSNAP meeting, Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel, 5/18/04, Entergy engineer Brian Hobbs announced that 16 additional cracks - hairline cracks-had been found in the steam dryer at Vermont Yankee. These are not the same cracks reported during the recent outage.
He claimed that this cracking had occurred as the result of age related degradation. Not to be too hopeful
,,, but age related degradation directly or indirectly led to the closure of 4 other stations built by Yankee atomic, Maine Yankee, CT Yankee, Millstone 1 and Yankee Rowe.
The lost radioactive waste is not in VT. There is no record of it having been removed or having been shipped. There is no record of it having been received nor stored at any low level radioactive waste dump.
Of course this is regardless of the legality of such shipping and storage. High level waste costs more to ship and store than low level waste... therefore this could have been shipped intentionally as a profit motivated idea.
16 More Cracks In Steam Dryer...Waste Not... 1 3 comments I Create New Account
<http://www.ibrattleboro.com/users.php?mode=new>
Newest First Oldest First Flat Nested No Comments Threaded The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
16 More Cracks In Steam Dryer...Waste Not...
Authored by: darqmatr <http:/Iwww.ibrattleboro.com/users.php?mode=profile&uid=58>
on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 06:10 PM EDT
Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May 20, 2004 Page 9l Thanks for the update, Gary. I wasn't able to make the meeting. Your last point, though, about it being intentionally sent as low-level waste is not valid as all waste containers are surveyed before exiting the plant. I suppose it's "possible" that it was profit-driven, but waste sites have strict standards on what they receive and will ban a plant from sending stuff if violations are found, such as wet drums, wrong stuff, etc..., because it causes the burial site people problems, as well. I personally suspect, knowing how most of these people think, that someone thought they were doing a
'good" job by removing any loose stuff from the pool, keeping it clean, etc.. A licensed operator can lose their license for intentionally violating federal regulations. They have a lot at stake, financially, professionally, to intentially go outside the law. It would also mean that they couldn't work at any other nuke plant because this information is shared with all the other plants. Thanks for posting...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 11:38 PM EDT
- John,
'your last point is not valid as all waste containers are surveyed before exiting the plant."
What you write and I quote above is contrary to the company line that was spewed last night by either the Entergy boys or Bill Sherman, State Nuclear Engineer. They stated that the hi-level rods may have been put in low level canisters and then shipped and that the high level radiation may have been undetectectable next to some of the other materials called by name only... "low level waste'.
John you also wrote "A licensed operator can lose their license for intentionally violating federal regulations."
I sure hope Entergy loses their license to operate for intentionally shipping high level spent fuel as low level waste.
This would be one way out of the situation. Maybe the NRC can magically say that the rods were"accidentally"shipped as low level waste years ago, thus absolving Entergy from responsibility, leaving the Nrc entirely to blame (unwilling to take responsibility for the power plant's lost fuel) with no records anywhere.
Mr. Thayer tried to state last night that the rods were not lost since Entergy took over in July of 2002. 1 interjected at that moment because he does not know conclusively that that is the case. The rods are missing. NO one knows when they disappeared nor where they are.
Neil Sheehan of the NRC clearly stated to me on the phone that the NRC's job is to audit the waste situation... he declined to elaborate on the definitions of audit vs regulate.
gfv Authored by: cbridge <http://www.ibrattleboro.com/users.php?mode=profile&uid=1 66> on Thursday, May 20 2004 @ 02:39 AM EDT
Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May 20, 2004-Page 101 If I've understood & remembered this fuel rod story correctly, the rods were supposed to be put in a special container years ago; the container was still where it was supposed to be, & the rods were discovered to be missing when the container was recently opened. It seems more likely than not that whatever criminal idiocy (deliberate or not) took place, it was some time ago. It is my impression that Entergy has been under a lot of scrutiny at VY for various reasons, including the corp's less than sterling reputation. The chances that they are responsible for this particular fiasco seem truly slim; the vigilance & militancy of local anti-nuke groups (long may they flourish) has prevented Entergy from reveling in the general hubris created by the criminalplutocratic/true believer Bush gang.
Rutland Herald, Thursday, May 20, 2004(Front page on fold)
Group pulls out of wind planning
<https-/Jwww.vermonttoday.com/subscribe/> By SUSAN SMALLHEER Herald Staff LONDONDERRY - The Glebe Mountain Group has withdrawn from the collaborative planning process over Catamount Energy Corp.'s 50-megawatt wind project for Glebe Mountain.
The withdrawal ends the group's almost yearlong involvement that Catamount and its supporters hoped would answer opponents' questions before it entered the state permit process.
James Wilbur of Londonderry, chairman of the Glebe Mountain Group, sent a letter and e-mail to David Van Wie, who was leading the collaborative process for Catamount, a subsidiary of Central Vermont Public Service Corp.
"Catamount has consistently stated its intent to proceed with a massively scaled project even though necessary studies have not yet been carried out, and seemingly without any regard for the views of other participants," Wilbur wrote to Van Wie.
Robert Charlebois of Catamount Energy said he learned of the group's pullout Monday evening, as he was driving to Londonderry for a subcommittee meeting of the collaborative process.
Charlebois said he received a call from his office, which had received Wilbur's letter.
Charlebois said a full collaborative meeting was held Tuesday night in Londonderry, and members of the Glebe Mountain Group, with the exception of Wilbur, didn't show up.
uWe think we have the best site in the state," Charlebois said.
Catamount Energy plants to erect 27 turbines on the Glebe Mountain ridgeline, which stretches from Londonderry to Windham. The turbines would be substantially higher than the current wind energy project operated by Green Mountain Power in Searsburg, _which are just under 200 feet tall.
The Catamount Energy project would be 330 feet tall, and would have to be lighted, according to FCC rules. Catamount estimates that the project would provide electricity for 18,770 households.
Sam Lloyd, co-chairman of the Glebe Mountain Group, said the group felt that nothing was really coming out of the collaborative process.
"There's really not much to negotiate," he said. "They have done their arithmetic to reveal that for it to be profitable, they've got to have that number of towers in that location."
Rick Ennis - VY News, Thursday, May 20,2004 N.20Page 111 Lloyd said he was skeptical of the collaborative process to begin with, but said the group would bring its concerns to the Public Service Board and its Act 248 process.
If Catamount would reduce the size of the towers to the same height as Searsburg, which would mean they wouldn't have to be lighted, that would be a good starting point for negotiation, Lloyd said.
"But I didn't feel they would make any retreat," he said.
Charlebois said many other people besides the Glebe Mountain Group are participating in the planning process, including supporters and opponents.
Nlt's certainly been helpful to us to hear their concerns,' Charlebois said.
The meeting Tuesday included people and town officials from Windham and Londonderry, the Windham Regional Commission, area supporters and opponents.
Oit was a cross-section of people in the community," Charlebois said.
Wilbur, in his letter, cited a "fundamental philosophical difference between the project developer and our group."
"The Glebe Mountain Group remains of the belief that Vermont's natural resources should be preserved and protected for future generations," he wrote.
"We believe that the project developers should have the burden to demonstrate that there is a compelling reason to destroy Glebe's fragile high elevation habitats, water recharge area and visually dramatic ridgeline for an energy source of such limited benefit," his letter said.
Lloyd said the Glebe Mountain Group was encouraged by recent statements by Gov. James Douglas that he would oppose any state approval of any wind project unless wildlife studies were completed.
Douglas has said he would appoint a study commission, if the 2004 Legislature didn't do it, to look into the long-term impacts of wind development on Vermont's ridgelines.
A state study is under way to come up with a policy on the use of state-owned lands for wind development.
Charlebois said he felt Act 248, the state's so-called certificate of public good process, was a tmmore than adequate filtering process t
for evaluating wind projects.
Douglas said he would not support a moratorium on private lands for projects that are pending before the Public Service Board.
There is only one wind energy project pending before the Public Service Board, a 3-megawatt project proposed for East Haven in the Northeast Kingdom.
Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smaliheer@rutlandherald.com.