A recent decision from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) offers hope that the nuclear industry’s free ride is coming to an end. The problem of what to do with the ever-growing amount of nuclear waste that is stockpiled at nuclear sites around the country has been vexing industry and regulators for years. It is a shameful reminder of poor management. Our nuclear reactors continue to operate and generate more waste when we have no real solution for its long-term storage.

Absent a permanent answer, the waste sits where it ends up when it is no longer useful. In the case of Vermont, it sits on the banks of the Connecticut River or in a spent fuel pool of the same style and vintage as was used at the Fukushima reactor.

On August 7, the NRC decided no new or extended licenses will be finalized until the Commission completes the environmental review of waste issues that a Federal Appeals Court required in a June decision. Specifically the NRC decided it will:

(1) suspend final licensing decisions in reactor licensing cases, pending the completion of our action on the remanded Waste Confidence proceeding; (2) provide an opportunity for public comment on any generic determinations that we may make in either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS); and (3) provide at least sixty days to seek consideration in individual licensing cases of any site-specific concerns relating to the remanded proceedings.  (pg.3)

This is a very significant decision. The Federal Court gave the Commission a strong rebuke when it rejected NRC and industry claims that keeping waste where it is indefinitely is safe based only on a limited analysis of keeping it there for twenty years.

The waste storage issue is huge. It is crazy to think we can continue to license and operate nuclear facilities when we acknowledge we don’t have a place to put the waste. This decision is a step in the right direction, as we now have some assurance the impacts will be evaluated and the public will be allowed to participate in that process.

It is unclear what effect this will have on existing licenses. The specific decision only addressed licenses that are pending, including renewals.  As for Vermont Yankee, it is likely that these decisions will affect the state-level Public Service Board review. Vermont regulators must determine if continued operation “promotes the general good of the state.” While issues of radiological health and safety can legally only be managed at the federal level, the indefinite storage of waste and the lack of solutions produce economic burdens that are important for state regulators to address. Vermont and other states cannot be stiffed into holding the bag and bearing the economic burdens of unsound nuclear waste management. this harms Vermont’s “general good.”

Additional information is available in this Vermont Digger article - Nuclear Regulatory Commission halts nuclear power licensing decisions

Environmental issues span the globe. When it comes to nuclear power, global action is needed. That’s why it was a privilege for CLF advocates to meet with a number of environmental lawyers from Japan, many of whom are members of the Japan Environmental Lawyers Federation.

The tragedy of Fukushima shows the need for the US to stop giving nuclear power a free pass. Just yesterday another mishap at the accident-prone Vermont Yankee facility resulted in the draining of some of the radioactive cooling water. Enough already.

Our conversation addressed how environmental groups operate. We also touched on some of the litigation tools available to protect our environment from the risks of nuclear power – from problems with the storage of waste, the possibilities of accidents, and the economic problems that nuclear power creates.

Our colleagues in Japan have a far keener sense of how important this work is. As different as our legal systems are, it was interesting to find the similarities as well, including how challenging it is to navigate the interplay of state or local government oversight with federal regulations.

The attorneys shared with CLF MA advocate Jenny Rushlow that most Japanese attorneys interested in practicing environmental law are only able to dedicate a small percentage of their time to environmental cases, as it is difficult to find compensation for that work. As a result, the attorneys we met with mostly take on environmental cases on a volunteer basis. The group reported on a number of high impact cases, including a current lawsuit aimed at classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, much like the Massachusetts v. EPA case.

Conservation Law Foundation filed an Amicus (Friend of the Court) brief on behalf of Conservation Law Foundation, New England Coalition, Vermont Natural Resources Council and Vermont Public Interest Research Group in support of the State’s appeal to overturn the decision of Judge Murtha that Vermont has no say regarding Vermont Yankee.

Not so fast. As the Brief notes, the Vermont Legislature has clear authority to determine whether to allow the continued operation of Vermont Yankee. Vermont’s laws do not conflict with federal law and they are part of a decade of energy legislation focused on moving Vermont’s power supply away from older and more polluting power sources, like Vermont Yankee. 

There is a much longer history here. Vermont Yankee is a tired old nuclear plant and its owners are untrustworthy. Our brief shows that Vermont’s actions are authorized and reasonable.

“The Legislature’s track record shows that the Vermont Legislature has been passing energy legislation for years in response to constituents’ strong support for transitioning to renewable energy. Vermont engaged in the legitimate exercise of its traditional authority over power planning, including the future use of nuclear power plants. Vermont’s purposes, including planning, economics and reliability, are not only plausible, but show how the General Assembly has been preparing for the eventual closure of Vermont Yankee, whether in 2012 or thereafter, by enacting legislation, including Act 74 and Act 160, to assure that Vermont will be able to timely transition to an economical and environmentally sustainable energy supply” (pg 19)

Vermont Yankee’s troubled history also shows the validity of the Legislature’s actions. “Since Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (Entergy) purchased the Vermont Yankee facility in 2002, a steady stream of mishaps, misrepresentations and disappointments shattered Vermont’s faith and trust in Vermont Yankee and its owners. From the failure to make any contributions to the decommissioning fund, followed by the collapse of the cooling towers in 2007, the proposed “spin off” of the plant to a highly leveraged subsidiary, the false statements to regulators and the broken promises of a power contract that never materialized, Entergy’s actions have had what an Entergy executive described as a “corrosive effect” on the relationships needed to maintain a major electric generating facility within the State.” (Pg 5). 

“These events evidence the untrustworthiness and lack of credibility in Entergy management that precluded the Vermont Legislature from affirming a continued business relationship with Entergy.” (Pg 23).

The Brief was a joint effort of our organizations. As organizations that have been involved in matters concerning energy legislation and Vermont Yankee for decades, our brief provides the Court with the perspective of how Vermont’s laws are part of Vermont’s broader efforts to responsibly manage energy supply. 

See Brief Here and Brattleboro Reformer story here.

In a world where messages are sent instantaneously, it is hard to believe the time to consider (again) whether the continued operation of Vermont Yankee is good for Vermont would take more than a year.

Entergy, Vermont Yankee’s owners, proposed a schedule to Vermont regulators that would have the case completed in just over eighteen months.  

CLF argued for a shorter schedule noting that Entergy’s schedule was “roughly equivalent to the gestation period for elephants.”  This is simply too long.

Most cases, including the previous Vermont Yankee proceeding at the Public Service Board and the recent federal trial for Vermont Yankee were completed in far less time. 

In its ruling on May 4, the Vermont Public Service Board accepted the longer time-frame Entergy requested. It also provides for two separate rounds of hearings – one in February and a second in June. The Board also scheduled two public hearings where anyone interested can weigh in and provide input to the Board on whether Vermont Yankee should retire.

Entergy’s foot dragging means Vermonters will wait an extra eighteen months before seeing this tired, old and polluting nuclear plant closed. That’s too bad. Especially since the plant was supposed to close on March 21, 2012.

photo credit: stuck in customs, flickr

The two sets of hearings suggest the there will be a very thorough review and the Board, which likely will take a very active role in the hearings.

The thoroughness is good. It just shouldn’t have to take this long.

Courtesy of garcycles8@flickr

Entergy owns a tired old nuclear plant on the banks of the Connecticut River in Vermont – a plant it wants to keep running despite escalating costs, threats to the environment and public health, and a history of false promises. 

With old approvals in hand, Entergy continues to operate Vermont Yankee past its scheduled retirement date of March 21, 2012. Entergy’s view of Vermont’s authority seems to be Vermont only has authority to give it a green light.  By Entergy’s warped playbook, any condition of operation or approval would be off limits.

Entergy went to Court last year to challenge Vermont’s authority to regulate that plant. The Court partly agreed with Entergy, but clearly recognized and reaffirmed that Entergy still needs approval from the Vermont Public Service Board to continue to operate Vermont Yankee for another 20 years.  The only limitation is that Vermont cannot regulate radiological health and safety.

In early April the latest claims came about from a response from Entergy and a reply from the State of Vermont.  The State claims that Entergy’s old approvals also require payment by Entergy into Vermont’s renewable development fund and reporting requirements.  These are conditions that are part of Entergy’s old permits.  Though less than clear, Entergy’s position seems to be that only some of those conditions continue to apply.  A later reply on April 9, seems to try and blackmail the state.  Entergy will make these payments but only if Vermont does what Entergy wants – either grant approval or not raise its taxes.  That’s an odd way to do business.

Once again, Entergy is proving to be a lousy partner for Vermont.  Entergy needs to comply or shut down.  If Entergy stays open based on its old approvals, it must meet its obligations to make the payments required by those old approvals.  Continuing its lousy track record of broken promises and thumbing its nose at Vermont is getting as old and tired as the plant itself.

Breaking News: In response to today’s decision by the U.S. District Court that Vermont Yankee may continue operation beyond March 2012, Sandra Levine, a senior attorney in CLF’s Vermont office said, “This is a setback for Vermont and a setback for clean energy.  This decision forces Vermont to prop up an old, polluting nuclear reactor, and its untrustworthy owners. This matter will likely go back to the Vermont Public Service Board.  We hope they will confirm that Vermont Yankee has outlived its useful life and is ready to retire.  It is time to end Entergy’s legacy of broken promises and lackluster oversight.  Vermont is ready to join New England’s move away from obsolete, dirty, power plants and lead the region in its transition to clean, renewable energy. We hope the State will appeal the Court’s decision and seek to affirm its right to determine its energy future.”

A little background on a long-running case: By the terms of a Vermont law passed in 2006, as well as the 2002 approval of the sale of Vermont Yankee, and a 2002 express agreement with Entergy, approval by Vermont is needed for the plant to continue to operate after 2012. In 2002, the Vermont Public Service Board approved the sale of the Vermont Yankee facility to Entergy.  The sale included an agreement by Entergy not to operate the plant after 2012, when its license expires, without obtaining regulatory approval from the Vermont Public Service Board. Concerned about whether it would be good for Vermont if Vermont Yankee to operated past 2012, the Vermont Legislature passed a law in 2006 requiring approval of the Legislature before the Public Service Board could issue a new license. In 2008 and 2009 proceedings were underway at the Public Service Board to consider a license extension.  In an historic vote in 2010 the Vermont Senate declined approval.  In April 2011, Entergy filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging Vermont’s authority to regulate and license the power generation facilities operating in the state. Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Public Interest Group (VPIRG) later intervened on Vermont’s side in the lawsuit. For a complete timeline of the activities leading up to today’s decision on Vermont Yankee, click here.

A decision in the Vermont Yankee case is expected before the end of the year.  Meanwhile, CLF in its role as “friend of the court” submitted a post trial memo supporting the State of Vermont’s right to have a say about Vermont Yankee.  The brief explains that the Vermont Legislature acted well within its rights and why Entergy’s safety characterizations are faulty.

CLF Attorney Sandy Levine was a guest on the Callie Crossley show on WGBH in Boston Monday  afternoon to discuss Vermont Yankee and the future of nuclear power.

Entergy’s nuclear plants continue to have problems calling into question their ability to  be trustworthy and responsibly manage their nuclear fleet.

A problem at Vermont Yankee Sunday night reduced power to 36% and if the situation is not remedied shortly, the plant will be required to shut down completely.

At the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant in New York State, investigations led to 4 workers being fired, 34 disciplined, and criminal charges brought against the plant’s former radiation protection technician.  The investigations showed that employees falsified tests of safety equipment, failed to document air samples and failed to conduct leak testing, among other things.

In Michigan, the Palisades Nuclear Plant shutdown twice last week, due to a cooling system problem and also an electrical breaker fault.

This weekend Governor Cuomo stated that the Indian Point nuclear plant could easily be replaced with other power sources because “safety[is] first.”

Should Vermont have a say in the future of Vermont Yankee, an aging nuclear plant on the banks of the Connecticut River?  A trial to answer that question begins next week.  Vermont Yankee’s owner sued the State of Vermont in April.  Yankee’s owners want to avoid State oversight, and filed suit as a last ditch effort to keep the plant operating.     

The State has a strong case.  For years, Vermont has responsibly overseen the economic, power supply and land use impacts of Vermont Yankee – matters within traditional state authority.  Vermont Yankee’s owners ignore this long history and want the Court to find all actions by Vermont are an attempt to regulate radioactive safety – something within exclusive federal authority. 

Conservation Law Foundation provided a “friend of the court” brief explaining the history, legal background and context of the State’s actions focusing on the owner’s untrustworthiness, poor economics of continued operation, and Vermont’s interests in advancing renewable power.   

Beginning Monday, experts on power supply and regulation will explain their views.  The trial will last three days.  A decision is expected later this fall.

The earthquake yesterday had us all wondering about our friends who were closer to it.  After the earthquake, a  colleague from Virginia noted:  “We all abandoned our building, which is probably not what you are supposed to do, but it seemed safer to be on the street than the third floor of a violently shaking building.  What’s even more scary is that the epicenter was essentially under Dominion’s North Anna nuclear plant.  When the NRC came out with a report last March ranking North Anna 7th in the country in terms of risk of damage from an earthquake, the Dominion spokesman noted that the plant was designed to withstand a magnitude 5.9-6.1 earthquake.”

Well that’s about what yesterday’s earthquake was.  And similar to the events in Japan, only three of four back-up generators were operating.  As CLF’s president, John Kassel said after the Fukushima tragedy:  “Several of New England’s remaining nuclear power plants are on their last legs and continuing to prop them up at the taxpayers’ expense is not a viable long-term strategy.”    These margins are too tight.  As these events show, Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight for safety is too lax in the face of Fukushima and the inevitability of earthquakes and other disasters.