Not so fast...

With uncommon finesse. (4.00 / 3)

Not so fast indeed.

The NRC has some amazing timing.
In the middle of the Fukishima meltdown they recommended Vermont Yankee get its license renewed and today with striking images of two flooded plants almost underwater and a wild-fire encroaching on Los Alamos lab storage area what do they do? Over local objections they grant another confirmed tritium leakier Prairie Island another 20years to chug along.

Among other problems Prairie Island is one of three plants nationwide that are leaking tritium from an unknown source(not quite at levels violating drinking water standards) into private wells of surrounding homes.

MINNEAPOLIS -- Federal regulators have renewed the operating licenses for the Prairie Island nuclear power plant, which will allow it to run for 20 more years, Xcel Energy Inc. announced Tuesday.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap...

---

by: BP @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 00:09:09 AM UTC

They've never met a plant they couldn't re-license. (4.00 / 2)

The NRC is like a failing school that grades on a steadily declining curve.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 00:14:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Every one (4.00 / 2)

safe and above average.

---

by: BP @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 00:37:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the nuclear industry has never met a regulator (4.00 / 1)

... they couldn't own.

---

by: simplify @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 03:15:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bernies stand (4.00 / 2)

is making a statement that needs to be made for the record.

His unapologetic dedication to the principles involved in this as well as all of the other issues affecting VT is admirable to say the least.

---

by: stardust @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 11:07:56 AM UTC

Nuke industry big guns focused on VT (4.00 / 1)

I came across this hurl-worthy commentary in our small local VT paper from NEI no doubt:

Comment on the NRC, its funding

Editor of the Reformer:

"[..]I would like to point out what is misleading about the following statement in the piece: "By the same token, the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission's) must realize its worn 'Don't worry, we know what we are doing' panacea doesn't hold much water[..]kowtowing to the industry, which, by the way, provides 90 percent of the funding for the NRC via fees."

http://www.reformer.com/letter...

Entire letter is worth reading (unsure if posting it would violate fair use statutes) if only as another stunning example of the way the industry including NRC & sponsors distort & spin these issues to misinform the gullible public as they & only they would be likely to accept this load of crap.

---

by: stardust @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:11:06 PM UTC

Vermont Sovereignty ? (0.00 / 0)

I agree with almost everything that you say here.  What is happening at the NRC is a national scandal and should be getting at least as much attention as Weinergate did.  

However, I am baffled by the claim of "Vermont's sovereignty on VY".  I don't believe that I've ever heard anyone make this claim before -- and I don't believe that there is any basis for it.  Surely, there is a role for federal regulation over nuclear power, eliminating the ability for any single state to have "sovereignty" on the issue.  

The feds have an important role to play ... but they aren't fulfilling that role competently.  

---

by: Hugo @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:59:48 PM UTC

The Entergy lawsuit is attempting to establish federal pre-emption of state (4.00 / 2)

law for all nuclear power-related laws.

Rather than honor the agreement they signed of their own free will when they purchased the plant, they are hoping to invalidate all such agreements by having the NRC made into the sole entity allowed to make any decisions of any kind related to nuclear power nationally.

This is huge.

If they get away with it, then not only would VT not be able to enforce the contract signed by Entergy when they bought the plant, no other state would be able to enforce such agreements made in their states.

In addition, this is a stepping stone toward denying states any kind of permit authority related to nuclear power plants. Depending on how it all works out, it's possible that it could be the case that eliminates the state's right to regulate nuclear power at all. Thus, if the NRC said a new plant could be built in a given location, it could be built without any control on the part of the state.

If Entergy wins this case, it's possible that no state would have any control whatsoever over any aspect of a nuclear power plant's location or operation.

Currently, states have some control over what happens with nuclear plants in their states - they can control, for example, the amount of water a plant can take from a particular river, the acceptable locations for plants (such as not in the middle of the capitol city), and more. VT has the right to control which utilities operate in our state via the "certificate of public good" process. That is the level of sovereignty referred to in the diary.

Entergy wants to eliminate those controls entirely, giving all control over all matters related to nuclear power to the corrupt NRC.

No one is saying there should be no federal regulation (as a matter of fact, Bernie is arguing that there should be actual regulation, instead of corrupt goal-post-shifting by well-paid captive "regulators"). We are arguing that the feds - especially the corrupt NRC - should not be the sole authority, and that states should continue to be allowed to add their own layer of control, so they can do what is best for their own citizens.

There is federal precedent for the latter. Let's hope that this case follows precedent, instead of inventing new pretzel-logic excuses for the erosion of our right to control the choice of power sources for our state.

If a new precedent is set, disallowing states to make decisions about power plants in their state, it won't be long before other energy companies try their hand at pushing that envelope. This is a serious Pandora's box...

---

by: simplify @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 14:53:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, I understand all of this (0.00 / 0)

I understand what you are saying and I agree with your general perspective.  

We understand the word "sovereignty" differently.  I don't think that I've ever seen it used in the way that it is being used here.  

Currently, states have some control over what happens with nuclear plants in their states

This is true.  But it is only SOME control.  Having some control is different than having "sovereign" control.  

It weakens our argument to overstate the case.  The feds have an important role to play in oversight of the facility.  They aren't fulfilling their role responsibly.  The state has a role in assessing the public good.  There is a struggle over how the state will make this assessment.  Neither entity has sovereign control.  We need them to work together to fulfill their obligations to the public.  

---

by: Hugo @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 15:56:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would have to argue that on the narrow matter of relicensing VY (4.00 / 2)

Vermont has contractually established "sovereign" control, and will be maintaining that position in the courts.  It is not a question of whether or not that narrow area of sovereignty is specifically provided for in the constitution. As I understand it, Entergy signed a contract agreeing to that provision.

From my reading of the definition of the word, that is an appropriate use.  I am no attorney and am not equipped to defend my choice of the word on that basis.  I don't particularly see it as an overstatement, however.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 16:15:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I did not use the term "sovereignty" with any greater meaning than (4.00 / 2)

that Entergy had already essentially accepted the State's assertion of final say on extension of VY's license.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 15:51:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

VT's decisions (4.00 / 1)

based on applicable state law & statutes is soveriegn
& seems to be a 10th amendment issue.

This is why VT sought to protect its 'state soveriegnty' over that which is w/in state purview to regulate re Entergy Louisiana ownership of VY. Supremes have ruled states regulate jointly.

The reason for the additional scrutiny & amendments to original mou were changes sought by & which solely benefit Entergy, not VT.

The changes re additional oversight were due to conditions which did not exist when plant was purchased storage of high-level nuclear waste onsite, as well as un uprate which greatly increased that amount of waste. This could have far reaching repercussions affecting states w/NPPs. This alone is reason enough to reject VY continued operation as there is considerable uncertainty & risk re this issue.

I certainly hope other states sit up & take notice by refusing new nuclear & rejecting all else concerning this inherently corrupt industry & benefactors of rogue agency NRC.

Although it is w/in NRC purview to regulate this, allowing ourselves to come under additional NRC oversight was a risk which VT may not have chosen if it was clear state soveriegnty would be compromised by granting Entergy's request. This was the point regarding enactment of Act 160.

The mou & Act 160 agreement & contract alone enforces this all other issues aside.

Prosecution chanting safety! safety! safety! does not negate any of this.

---

by: stardust @ Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 18:58:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At least one other state has taken notice (0.00 / 0)

Massachusetts has a similar agreement, so if VT loses, so does Mass.

---

by: simplify @ Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 01:42:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]