Another radioactive fish was found near the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in southern Vermont.

This is the at least the third time a fish contaminated with Strontium-90 was found in the Connecticut River.

Vermont Yankee officials defy common sense.  They continue to claim there is no connection between the contaminated fish and the nuclear reactor on the banks of the river, choosing to blame nuclear bomb testing that took place decades ago and the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

An news articles point out, Vermont Yankee reported Strontium-90 releases to the NRC in annual reports from 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. So, what is more likely? That these releases caused radioactive isotopes to show up in fish a few miles downstream, or that events taking place over 25 years ago are to blame? During Public Service Board hearings last year, CLF’s expert showed that radioactive isotopes likely migrated through the site along with the release of tritium.  Hydrogeologist Stratton French testified:

“A more likely explanation for their occurence at these distant locations is that these radioisotopes migrated beyond the release point along groundwater flow pathways.  This conclusion is supported by Entergy VY’s own sampling data.”

This continues to show that Entergy is an untrustworthy partner to supply Vermont with energy.

The nuclear industry – and Entergy in particular – sure seems to have problems keeping promises.  Back in the 70s, nuclear power was “too cheap to meter.”  With Vermont Yankee, Entergy officials swore under oath there were no underground pipes.  Then those pipes were found to be leaking.  Last month, Entery told a federal court judge it needed an immediate court order to stay open to make the $65 million investment in new fuel.  The Court didn’t buy Entergy’s bullying and last week declined to order a preliminary injunction.  Today, Entergy announced it will purchase the fuel anyway.

Entergy’s fuel purchase decision is not surprising.  The court’s order noted that refueling will cost between $60 and  $65 million, and Vermont Yankee will generate $90 million in revenues by operating until March 2012.  Vermont Yankee’s revenues will cover its fuel costs.

Still, this is a dubious and risky business decision for Entergy.  Their Nuclear Regulatory Commission license is on appeal.  CLF is representing the New England Coalition in this appeal.  Also, Vermont Yankee does not have the needed permission to operate from Vermont past 2012.  This is an old reactor with a long and troubled history.  Retiring the facility as planned on March 2012 is the responsible thing to do.

Entergy’s credibility is buried along with its leaky pipes.  Any economic risk is Entergy’s own making.  Vermont continues to have a strong legal case.  States have the right to decide their energy future and land use and shouldn’t be forced to accept polluting, unreliable and untrustworthy nuclear plants and operators.  Let’s leave a clean energy legacy to our children and grandchildren.

Vermont moves a step closer to shuttering the aging Vermont Yankee nuclear power facility as planned in 2012.

In a strong rebuke to Entergy, the facility’s owner, the United States District Court denied a request to keep the plant open while Entergy’s legal challenge proceeds.  Entergy sued Vermont in April.  Entergy seeks to prevent Vermont law – which requires state approval - from taking effect.

The Court denied Entergy’s request for a preliminary injunction, stating:  ”This Court declines to order short-term drastic and extraordinary injunctive relief that will not offer certainty either in the short or long term, and will have no operative effect on state actions before trial.”

The Court rejected each of Entergy’s claims of harm.  The Court noted that a decision about refueling is “a business decision made very difficult by the uncertainties of litigation.”  The Court stated:  “In the unique circumstances presented here, the decision to refuel is either not harmful if Entergy prevails on the merits, or is not a cognizable injury if Vermont’s statutes are upheld.”    Refueling would cost between $60 and $65 million.  Revenues of $90 million would be earned from operating the plant until its planned closure in March 2012.

A full trial will take place this fall.  The Court’s decision on the injunction is a solid victory for Vermont at this stage.

As the battle over Vermont Yankee’s future is waged, Conservation Law Foundation and VPIRG seek to join as a friend of the court, or amicus for this first stage.  CLF will use the expertise gained in opposing Yankee’s continued operation before the PSB to bolster the argument that Yankee’s a long track record of failures preclude the Court from allowing continued operation.  Entergy would love to characterize their re-licensing as a guarantee to operate past 2012. However, CLF points out that their federal court challenge to the license over Entergy’s failure to obtain a necessary Clean Water Act certification makes the license itself uncertain.

CLF urges the Court not to allow Entergy to usurp Vermont law and walk away from their legal obligations.  The false testimony, leaks and bad economics of continued operation are ample justification for Vermont to refuse to grant a new certificate to operate for another twenty years.  In 2009 Entergy officials gave false testimony about the existence of underground pipes that were later found to be leaking radioactive tritium.  As CLF’s brief states:  “If land surveyors, architects, plumbers and physicians assistants can lose or be denied a license for making a material misrepresentation, less cannot be expected or required of nuclear facility operators.  The false testimony that Entergy officials provided under oath calls into question the ability of the plant operator to meet its legal obligations.”

The state of Vermont swung back in its reply brief last week with a laundry list of reasons the court should dismiss Entergy’s request to continue operating during the trial, or a “preliminary injunction”.  Because Entergy agreed to seek Public Service Board (PSB) approval, and not challenge PSB authority in court, the state argues Entergy is bound by their agreement. Also, the state suggests it is inappropriate for Entergy to object to PSB oversight at such a late hour, long after they received the benefit of doing business in Vermont under this agreement since 2002.

The state railed against Entergy’s argument that federal law supersedes state regulation over the aging plant. Vermont argues that, with the exception of radiation safety, states have authority over nuclear in many areas such as, “economics, land use, policy questions regarding a state’s energy future, and whether a corporation running a nuclear power plant has established itself as a trustworthy business partner.” Thus, the state argues that regulation over nuclear was never meant to preempt state law altogether.

Both Entergy and the state of Vermont will have a chance to argue on the preliminary injunction motion before United States District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha on June 22-24.

CLF and Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) today jointly filed a motion in the U.S. District Court to intervene on the side of Vermont in the lawsuit brought last month against the state by Entergy, owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The two groups maintain that Entergy should follow Vermont law and shut down Vermont Yankee as planned in March 2012.

“This is an important case that will decide the direction of our energy future,” said Chris Kilian, VP and director of CLF Vermont. “CLF and VPIRG will support the state of Vermont in its efforts to uphold Vermont law and ensure that the people’s voice and vision for their energy future will prevail over the interests of out-of-state polluters.” More >

As the pipes of the aging Vermont Yankee badly corrode, the arguments for its soundness are disintegrating just as fast. A recent New York Times article highlights the poor oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of America’s outdated nuclear facilities. Without the NRC doing its job, this leaves Entergy, Vermont Yankee’s owner, on its own. Despite every claim Entergy makes to the public, the records show a deteriorating plant and sloppy maintenance and inspection.

In January, an Entergy letter shows elevated levels of tritium in the groundwater at a new and unexpected location.  Entergy was ordered to submit bi-weekly reports until the source was found and corrected.  Four months later, we are still waiting.  The reports describe ways to find the location of the leak, yet action has been limited.

Bottom line – Yankee’s pipes are corroded beyond the point where they can be regulated.  Elevated levels of tritium were found near groundwater wells GZ-24 and GZ-6 around January 15.

Entergy released a sworn affidavit in February vaguely describing how they had “established an investigation team to systematically and methodically identify the source of the elevated levels of tritium in groundwater monitoring well GZ-24.” Although this report clearly downplayed the issue, Entergy insisted it was taking the leak seriously. However, in the subsequent biweekly reports, it becomes clear Entergy did not follow up on its word. The next report released claimed they had “implemented the action plan,” but all that was described was that sampling had indicated “fluctuating levels of tritium” at elevated levels.

Throughout the rest of the reports no action has been taken. Shockingly, even in Entergy’s most recent update, on May 6, there is no mention of a source being found, only that they have “identified six lines as potential sources” and that pressure testing will be conducted, something that was mentioned in the first affidavit.

It is clear that Entergy is not serious about cleaning up Vermont Yankee. Governor Shumlin and Vermonters have demanded that the plant be shut down. Time after time, Entergy shows it is not taking the action needed to responsibly run a nuclear power facility.

See Entergy reports here:  2-11-2011;  2-25-2011;  3-11-2011;  3-25-2011; 4-8-11;  4-21-11; 5-6-2011

The road to clean energy future is a bumpy one — especially when it involves a disgruntled, behemoth corporation like Entergy.  Last year, Vermont decided it didn’t want Entergy’s leaky, old nuclear power plant on the banks of the Connecticut River to operate for another twenty years.  In the wake of the lies, leaks and the nuclear tragedy in Japan, Vermont’s decision was clearly a good one.

But the plant owner, Entergy, is not happy.  It tried to muscle its way to a new license.  This week Entergy sued the state of Vermont.  Entergy is breaking its promise to follow Vermont’s decisions and is asking the Court to allow it to break Vermont law.

Entergy may be a big corporation, but it still must follow the law.  It is not up to the Exxons, BPs and Entergys of the world to decide what our energy future looks like.  The region’s older nuclear fleet must clean up or shut down. It is time to transition away from old and dirty coal and nuclear plants.  We have the will and the ability to make this happen.

Entergy’s challenge is a bump in the road. But New England won’t be steamrolled.

The current situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan has shone a spotlight on the risks associated with nuclear power. (Photo credit: PACOM, flickr)

In conjunction with a Massachusetts legislative hearing held today on nuclear power in New England, and with the Fukushima debacle still unfolding in Japan, CLF President John Kassel prevailed upon state and federal leaders to answer this wake-up call and take appropriate measures to avoid a similar crisis in New England or anywhere in the United States.

“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,” Kassel said. “In the interest of public safety, these aging plants must comply with the latest safety standards within six months, or shut down. In addition, plant owners need to take immediate steps – at their expense – to better secure the radioactive waste now stored at these facilities. The notion that new nuclear power plants should be a cornerstone of our national energy policy is grossly irresponsible as long as there is no solution to the radioactive waste problem.” More >

The disturbing recent decision by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to plow ahead with relicensing Vermont’s troubled nuclear reactor turns a blind-eye to the unfolding tragedy in Japan.   Simply rubber stamping license requests for older nuclear plants is irresponsible.   The NRC should have pressed the “pause” button.  Instead, the NRC rejected requests from Vermont’s Congressional delegation, and issued a decision at odds with Vermont’s wishes.

The events in Japan highlight the problems with the older vintage nuclear plants.   Both Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim, in Plymouth, MA  are of the same vintage and have the same container systems as the reactors in Japan.  While tidal waves and earthquakes of the magnitude just suffered in Japan are unlikely in our region, our plants are vulnerable to the floods and power outages that struck Japan’s nuclear reactors, and caused the cooling systems to fail.

Showing a prescient lack of faith in the federal relicensing of nuclear plants, Vermont law requires the independent approval from the Vermont Legislature and the Vermont Public Service Board before allowing continued operation.

The events in Japan confirm the soundness of the Vermont Legislature’s decision last year to close down Vermont Yankee on schedule, at the end of its current license.   Vermont has been watching Vermont Yankee closely for years.  The Legislature’s vote last year was not a surprise.  The plant is old and has been leaking and plagued with problems.  The public has lost faith in the facility.

Hopefully the events in Japan will prompt a much, much harder look at the safety of our older nuclear fleet.   Meanwhile, Vermont sets a good example for responsible oversight and decision-making about how we meet our energy needs.