Vt. Yankee argues state has no business guarding people’s safety

In an argument that defies common sense, attorneys for Entergy Corp., owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, argued in federal court in Burlington last week that the state of Vermont has no role in deciding whether or not the plant should continue operating based on safety considerations.  Further, they argued that legislators who have voted against re-licensing were responding to their constituents.

How out of touch can they get?

The arguments are summarized in a Brattleboro Reformer article last week.

Much of the argument revolves around semantics. Under Vermont law, the state has final say over the relicensing of any nuclear plant in the state. Entergy agreed to abide by this law when it purchased the plant several years ago. But now that the Vermont legislature has voted not to approve relicensing of the troubled plant, Entergy disputes the state’s right to deny licensing.

Their claim is that the state can only base its decision on the “reliability” of the 40-year-old plant, not safety concerns. Entergy argues that only the Nuclear Regulatory Commssion can address safety concerns.

At this same time, the Associated Press has been running a series of investigative articles showing that the NRC has repeatedly eased up safety regulations in order to bring aging nuclear plants into a semblance of compliance.

NRC helping Entergy Corp. in Vermont Yankee lawsuit

If anyone doubts that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn’t the least bit interested in the interests of the people, an exchange at a Senate hearing this week should remove any doubt. The NRC is squarely in the corner of the nuclear industry and considers the wishes of the people utterly irrelevant.

NRC staffers are working with the owners of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant in their lawsuit against the state of Vermont, and have been meeting with the Justice Department as well to enlist their assistance.  

And the NRC has refused a request by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders for information regarding a secret meeting of NRC commissioners to discuss the Vermont Yankee situation with the Justice Department.

Sanders later learned that the NRC has voted 3-2 to support Entergy Corp. in their lawsuit claiming that Vermont has overstepped its powers in refusing to grant the plant a license approval to continue operating.

In Senate hearings this week, NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko conceded that staffers from his agency had met with Entergy Corp officials to discuss the lawsuit. No similar meeting have been held with Vermont state officials or with representatives of any groups opposed to the relicensing. When asked about the secret meeting, Jaczko refused to discuss it.

“We generally like to keep those closed matters, “ he told the senators.

Mass. Joins the fight against Entergy & Vt. Yankee

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a brief defending Vermont’s right to determine the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

The plant is located within walking distance of the Massachusetts border and has a history of mishaps, most recently a steady stream of leaking radiated water which the plant’s owners seem unable to locate and stop. An investigation into the source of the leaks determined the problems date back to shoddy workmanship when the plant was first built 40 years ago.

Nevertheless, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 20-year extension to the plant’s operating license. The current license expires next March, and the plant’ owner’s Entergy Corp., headquartered in Louisiana, has put it up for sale, has tried to negotiate a merger with an Ohio power company, so ar to no avail.

NRC approval notwithstanding, Vermont has the last say in whether or not the plant can continue to operate. The legislature has already voted to not approve an extension. The matter can still come up in the legislature’s next session.

Entergy agreed to abide by the state’s decision when it bought the plant several years ago. Now, faced with the prospect of a shutdown and an expensive de-commissioning process, the company has changed its tune. It has filed a challenge in federal district court, claiming the state has no such jurisdiction. Entergy is claiming federal law gives the NRC the sole power of approval.

Atty. General Coakley disagrees, saying there is nothing in the Atomic Energy Act that takes away a state’s right to regulate nuclear power within its borders.

Entergy also owns the Pilgrim Nuclear power plant in Plymouth, Mass.,and it too is in the process of seeking a license renewal. It, too, has had its share of troubles, including a recent emergency shutdown that was only explained away as “employee error.”

The license enewal process has been put on hold until these and other issues have been addressed.

Conn. DEP strangely silent on Haddam conservation land swap

The state agency charged with protecting and preserving that state’s environment has yet to issue an opinion on a land swap proposal that would turn over 17 acres of state-owned conservation land to private developers.

For conservationists, the outcome has far-reaching implications. It casts into doubt the whole concept of preserving ecologically-important land if there is no assurance that protections will last into perpetuity.

The state purchased the parcel, which sits on a bluff above the Connecticut River, for more than $2 million in 2003 for the purpose of preserving the ecologically sensitive tract. Now a group of developers would like to build a hotel-retail complex on the property.  They propose to give the state 87 acres of land they own a few miles away. They only paid $450,000 for it two years ago, as part of a failed housing development.

The developers have an ally in the legislature who has included the swap in a routine state property conveyance bill.

Now legislators are asking for guidance from the state Dept. of Environmental Protection, but so far none has been forthcoming. The legislature adjourns tomorrow, and many are saying if they don’t hear from the agency, the proposal will be tabled for another year.

An article in today’s Hartford Courant outlines some of the political infighting surrounding this proposal.

NRC stands by bogus Vermont Yankee license renewal

While the operators of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant were struggling to contain the seemingly endless leaks of radiated water at the 40-year-old plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission obediently approved a 20-year extension to its operating license. After all, they have a reputation to uphold. They have yet to turn down a single license renewal application.

“We believe that Entergy, through the exhaustive review we have done, meets all of the requirements and standards to be able to operate for another 20 years,” said NRC commissioner Gregory Jaczko at the time. Of course it was merely coincidence that the approval came just a few days after Jaczko received a letter from two influential Republican senators – neither one from Vermont, but one was from Louisiana, where Entergy Corp., is headquartered.

But despite Jaczko’s claim of an “exhaustive” review, they seemed to have “overlooked” two key points: Vermont Yankee has neither a water discharge permit nor a clean water certificate, both of which are required under the Clean Water Act. And given the contaminated groundwater surrounding the plant, and the threat to the Connecticut River, this is unlikely.

Does this bother them? Of course not!

A spokesman for the NRC told the Brattleboro Reformer today that it’s “doubtful” that the NRC would put a hold on its approval of the plant’s license.