archive.boston.com Open in urlscan Pro
198.115.82.57  Public Scan

Form analysis
3 forms found in the DOM

http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do

<form action="http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do">
  <input type="text" name="s.sm.query" id="textField"><input type="submit" value="GO" class="form-button">
  <input type="hidden" id="tab" name="s.tab" value="">
</form>

POST

<form action="" method="post" id="theEMTOFForm" autocomplete="off">
  <input type="hidden" name="sender_name" id="sender_name" value="">
  <input type="hidden" name="story_url" id="story_url" value="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/03/06/delays_in_nuclear_power_licensing_draw_criticisms/">
  <label for="recipient_email">To:</label>
  <div id="emailt_to_error" class="errorMessage hide">Invalid E-mail address</div>
  <input type="text" id="recipient_email" name="recipient_email" class="noerr" value="Separate multiple addresses with a comma" onfocus="this.style.color='#000';">
  <label for="personalMessage">Add a personal message:<em>(80 character limit)</em></label>
  <textarea type="text" id="message" name="message" onchange="this.value=this.value.substring(0,80)" onkeyup="this.value=this.value.substring(0,80)"></textarea>
  <label for="sender_email">Your E-mail:</label>
  <div id="emailt_from_error" class="errorMessage hide">Invalid E-mail address</div>
  <input type="text" id="sender_email" name="sender_email" class="noerr">
  <input class="form-button" type="submit" value="Send">
  <div class="cf"></div>
</form>

<form id="lgForm" onsubmit="return false">
  <table cellspacing="0" style="margin: 5px; width: 98%;height:200px" id="logtable">
    <tbody>
      <tr>
        <td colspan="2"></td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td colspan="2">
          <h3 id="unameTrMsg">LOG IN TO COMMENT</h3>
          <div id="snameRetry" style="font-size:11px;color:darkred;display:none;text-align:center;">Sorry, we could not find your e-mail or password.<br>Please try again, or click
            <a href="http://members.boston.com/reg/forgetPwd.do?dispatch=view">here</a> to retrieve your password.</div>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr valign="top">
        <td style="padding: 4px; width: 250px;">
          <div>
            <b>Existing users</b><br>
            <table>
              <tbody>
                <tr>
                  <td><span id="unameS1" style="display:none;color:darkred">*</span>E-mail:</td>
                  <td><input type="text" style="" maxlength="50" name="userName" id="userName"></td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td><span id="unameS2" style="display:none;color:darkred">*</span>Password:</td>
                  <td><input type="password" style="" maxlength="50" name="pass" id="pass"></td>
                </tr>
                <tr valign="top" id="unameTr" style="display:none;">
                  <td><span style="color:darkred">*</span>Screen name:</td>
                  <td><input type="text" style="" maxlength="50" name="sname" id="sname"><br>
                    <div id="snameMsg" style="font-size:11px;color:darkred;">(* fields are required)</div>
                  </td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td></td>
                  <td>
                    <div class="bluBtn" style="float: right; width: 100px; margin-left: 4px;
margin-top: 12px;">
                      <a style="color: White;" href="javascript:bcSubmitLogin();" name="btnlogin" id="btnlogin">Login</a>
                    </div>
                  </td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td colspan="2">
                    <div style="font-size: 8pt; line-height: 1.5em;">
                      <a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 254);" href="http://members.boston.com/reg/forgetPwd.do?dispatch=view">Forgot your
password?</a>
                    </div>
                  </td>
                </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
          </div>
        </td>
        <td style="padding: 4px;">
          <b>New users</b><br> Please take a minute to register. After you register and pick a screen name, you can publish your comments everywhere on the site.
          <a href="http://www.boston.com/community/forums/rules" target="policy" onclick="return!open(this.href,this.target,'width=400,height=500');">Posting Policy</a>.<br>
          <br>
          <div class="bluBtn" style="float: right; width: 100px; margin-left: 4px;">
            <a href="http://members.boston.com/reg/login.do?dispatch=loginpage" style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Register</a>
          </div><br><br>
          <div align="center">
            <a href="http://www.truste.org/ivalidate.php?url=www.boston.com&amp;sealid=101"><img height="47" width="171" src="http://graphics.boston.com/images/registration/truste2007/TRUSTe_Certified_Privacy.gif" alt="TRUSTe Certified Privacy"></a>
          </div>
        </td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>
</form>

Text Content

Local Search Site Search

Sign In | Register now
  Home Delivery

 * Home
 * Today's Globe
 * News
 * Your Town
 * Business
 * Sports
 * Lifestyle
 * A&E
 * Things to do
 * Travel
 * Cars
 * Jobs
 * Real Estate

 * Local
 * National
 * World
 * Politics
 * Business
 * Education
 * Health
 * Science
 * Green
 * Obituaries
 * Special reports
 * Traffic
 * Weather
 * Lottery



THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

 * Home /
 * News /
 * Local /
 * Mass.


PLYMOUTH


DELAYS ON NEW LICENSE FOR PILGRIM DRAW CRITICISMS

Two senators say the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is taking too long
relicensing Plymouth’s Pilgrim nuclear power plant. (David L. Ryan/Globe
Staff/File 2006)
By Robert Knox

Globe Correspondent / March 6, 2011



E-MAIL THIS ARTICLE


To:
Invalid E-mail address
Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail:
Invalid E-mail address


SENDING YOUR ARTICLE

YOUR ARTICLE HAS BEEN SENT.


 * E-mail|
 * Print|
 * Reprints|

Text size – +

The record-long federal hearing on a license extension for Plymouth’s Pilgrim
nuclear power plant is drawing criticism from some members of Congress, who say
lengthy licensing reviews are weakening the nuclear industry and threatening
jobs at a bad time for the economy.

In letters to Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman Gregory Jaczko and
statements in Congress, Republican senators and representatives have complained
the agency has doubled the standard 30-month length of the review process for
Pilgrim without explanation and is operating a “two-tiered’’ process.

Plants in southern states without active critics sail through the review, they
say. Plants in northern states with active nuclear watchdog groups such as
Pilgrim Watch are receiving longer and more detailed reviews. Besides Pilgrim, a
license review for Entergy’s Vermont Yankee plant has also been going on for
more than five years.

Entergy, which also owns Pilgrim, applied for a 20-year license renewal to
extend the Plymouth plant’s operations to 2032 at the start of 2006. Hearings on
issues raised by the local watchdog group were held that year and in 2007, and
at one point regulators were expecting a decision by mid-2008.

But Pilgrim’s review has departed from that timetable, and NRC officials now say
that with more hearings scheduled this week they cannot predict when a decision
will be made.

That uncertainty is bad for the nuclear industry and for the nation’s power
supply, said Senators James Inhofe of Oklahoma and David Vitter of Louisiana,
members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In a letter to
Jaczko recently, the senators said the NRC is allowing “excessive, unmanaged
delays’’ for renewal applications such as Pilgrim’s, which are seen by the NRC
as more controversial. They said permitting these delays shows “indifference to
the economic realities challenging applicants.’’

The senators’ complaint echoes a January statement by Representative Fred Upton
of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, calling for
more “transparency and certainty’’ in the license renewal process. Reviews that
drag on are “needlessly putting plants and thousands of jobs at risk,’’ Upton
said. “The time line for the reactor renewal process has now doubled without
explanation.’’

Pilgrim officials have said the delay in the renewal of the plant’s operating
license has not hurt business yet, but may make it harder to negotiate long-term
contracts and sales of power. “It becomes more problematic as times goes on,’’
spokesman David Tarantino said.

While NRC officials acknowledge the unusual length of the Pilgrim hearing, they
reject the implication that their agency is bending over backwards to give
critics their say at the expense of the nation’s energy future and economic well
being. Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency’s professional staff
continues to do its job in a timely fashion.

Page 2 of 2 --

“The Pilgrim license renewal application was submitted in January 2006,’’
Sheehan said. “The NRC staff completed its safety review for the application on
June 28, 2007, and its environmental review on July 27, 2007. In other words,
the staff reviews were completed in a timely manner.’’ The NRC has also
announced that current licenses will remain in effect while a review continues.

 * Tweet
 * 
 * Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis
   

The length of the Pilgrim review stems from the thoroughness of the regulatory
process used to hear the case, Sheehan said. “It is the hearing process that has
taken longer than initially envisioned.’’

He pointed to the question of whether to put in place a new formula for
determining potential damages from a nuclear accident, which was rejected by the
licensing panel hearing Pilgrim’s case, appealed by Pilgrim Watch to the
presidentially appointed commission that oversees the NRC, and then sent back to
the panel for a full hearing.

Pilgrim Watch president Mary Lampert also rejected the notion that the NRC was
bending over backwards to give attention to her watchdog group’s concerns
because nuclear power is controversial on the South Shore.

“The license renewal process would have terminated in very short order had our
safety concerns not been valid and our commitment not been strong,’’ Lampert
said recently.

With the length of the process in mind, Entergy and Pilgrim Watch agreed to
“expediting’’ this week’s hearing in Plymouth. What had been planned as a full
oral hearing before the three-judge panel on whether Pilgrim’s analysis of wind
patterns was adequate for estimating damages from a serious radiation release
will now be streamlined to a brief summation. Both sides have agreed to allow
the panel to base its ruling on written testimony.

The panel will also hear testimony on two new, recently filed issues that
Pilgrim Watch says pose valid safety concerns.

Based on reports of failures of electric cables and splices in other plants that
provide power for plant safety systems, Pilgrim Watch contends Pilgrim needs a
stronger inspection system for its thousands of submerged electrical cables.
Entergy says a full hearing on the issue isn’t needed.

The second issue focuses on potential cleanup costs from a severe accident.
Pilgrim Watch points to a federal study showing that a nuclear reactor accident
would release far more radiation than previously thought, making cleanup costs
astronomical. Entergy contends Pilgrim Watch has not shown that a new hearing is
justified.

Wednesday’s hearing begins at 9 a.m. at the John Carver Inn, 25 Summer St.

Robert Knox can be reached at rc.knox2@gmail.com.

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.
 * Single Page
 * 1
 * 2
 *  Previous
 *  







 * Tweet
 * 
 * Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis
   




LOG IN TO COMMENT

Sorry, we could not find your e-mail or password.
Please try again, or click here to retrieve your password.
Existing users


*E-mail: *Password: *Screen name:

(* fields are required)
Login
Forgot your password?

New users
Please take a minute to register. After you register and pick a screen name, you
can publish your comments everywhere on the site. Posting Policy.


Register




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your comment is subject to the rules of our Posting Policy 
This comment may appear on your public profile. Public Profile FAQ 


Follow Boston.com on Facebook


Advertisement


Boston.com Most EmailedSubscribe to SliceBookmark Boston.com Most Emailed120


MOST E-MAILED »


 1. Report: Warrant Issued for Roggie’s Bar Owner
 2. Map of Greater Boston Farmers Markets
 3. Boston Pops Concert Move Keeps the Beach Boys, Ditches Joey McIntyre
 4. We Tried Out Those New Solar Benches
 5. New England’s top outdoor water parks
 6. Drink of the Week: Mojito Italiano
 7. Lawmakers pass compounding pharmacy oversight bill

Follow this list on Twitter: @BostonPopular



 * Home
 * |
 * Today's Globe
 * |
 * News
 * |
 * Business
 * |
 * Sports
 * |
 * Lifestyle
 * |
 * A&E
 * |
 * Things to Do
 * |
 * Travel
 * |
 * Cars
 * |
 * Jobs
 * |
 * Real Estate
 * |
 * Local Search

 * Contact Boston.com
 * |
 * Help
 * |
 * Advertise
 * |
 * Work here
 * |
 * Privacy Policy
 * |
 * Your Ad Choices
 * |
 * Terms of Service
 * |
 * Newsletters
 * |
 * Mobile
 * |
 * RSS feeds
 * |
 * Sitemap

 * Contact The Boston Globe
 * |
 * Subscribe
 * |
 * Manage your subscription
 * |
 * Advertise
 * |
 * Boston Globe Insiders
 * |
 * The Boston Globe Gallery
 * |
 * © 2022 Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC