(Wow. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Letter to Vermonters from Wayne Leonard, Entergy Louisiana CEO, saying that since the NRC has relicensed Vermont Yankee, this federal commission trumps Vermont’s state right to choose whether or not to allow their jalopy in Vernon to operate. Furthermore, Vermont legislature cannot refuse to allow the plant to operate. This should be good. All emphasis mine.

Dear Vermonters:

By now I am sure you have read or heard about our recent lawsuit against Vermont for trying to prevent the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station from operating beyond March 21, 2012, the date that marks the end of the original 40-year operating license provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://www.entergy.com/global/…

Leonard claims VT abruptly changed horses in the middle of the stream, saying nothing of the reason for Act 160 & agreement made with the state at that time, as well as their support for the statute & process.

Shumlin:

“Act 160 may not have been part of the memorandum of understanding signed in 2002, said Shumlin, but Entergy’s lobbyists, executives and lawyers all participated in the process of reviewing Act 160. Indeed, Entergy expressed its support of that law at the time,” he said.”

http://www.reformer.com/latest…

Leonard:

“But four years later in 2006, Vermont passed a law that prohibited the Public Service Board from issuing a Certificate of Public Good to Vermont Yankee unless the General Assembly first approved the plant’s continued operation.

Each of the bills introduced over the past year to grant such approval has either been voted down or allowed to languish. Whether it’s a “no” vote, or no vote at all, the effect is the same. The legislature has denied Entergy the opportunity to secure a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board.

This is obviously entirely different from what we agreed to back in 2002. We agreed to a process in which an independent expert

Agency would decide Vermont Yankee’s future based on evidence and facts developed through an impartial process with the possibility, if necessary, of court review. We did not agree to a process involving the Legislature, which is inherently political.”

Denies State of VT has any right whatsoever to make a decision over whether we even want or need Entergy Louisiana’s Vermont Yankee continued operation, even claiming constitutional precedence:

The state appears to believe that inserting the General Assembly into the approval process was within its rights.

What? Isn’t that what state’s & their legislatures do when making decisions, especially about energy future including what kind of power they wish to purchase & where? Oh please. Too funny.

We believe it substantially changed our agreement with the State and deprived us of certain critical rights that we relied upon in purchasing the plant.

Hello! It was no secret that VY was scheduled to close 3/21/2012 when they purchased the plant, unless the they could make the case for continued operation. Burden of proof always rested upon Entergy Louisiana, not VT. They failed. Miserably.

“This change is also inconsistent with United States Supreme Court precedent that held that a state cannot involve itself in areas of licensing, operation and radiological safety of nuclear power plants.”

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko has acknowledged his recognition that states do indeed have their own say in that which is not specifically in NRC purview, radiological releases & safety. However, we know this to be true whether he has done so or not.

VTDigger:

Will the NRC pre-empt the Legislature’s decision to deny approval for relicensure of the plant?

“A I said earlier, the agency has been communicating with the state, and right now it’s nothing that would intrude on the agency’s purview (public health and safety).”

http://vtdigger.org/2010/07/14…

“Under existing law (then and now), the courts have consistently held that only the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has exclusive

Authority over nuclear plant operations and radiological safety issues[..]It is the responsibility of the NRC to make these technical judgments on an apolitical basis, based on sound evidence and study. As presented by some of the foremost nuclear experts in the world. The state appears to believe it has such authority also.”

News of general disrepair due to inadequate or nononexistant maintenance & resultant mishaps in the timeframe referenced dwarf those from the previous 2004-2009 timeframe, which began with transformer fire & lost fuel rods, so I’d say some details are missing here:

“What do you do when you have this kind of disagreement with a state? The first choice for a company like ours is always to try

To work it out, to find some kind of meeting of the minds. That is what we have tried to do-and we have worked at it for over two years.”

“I understand the frustration of those who feel the State should be able to decide for itself whether it even wants a nuclear power

Plant in its state (regardless of whether it’s found to be safe to operate by the federal experts and authorities).”

Wow. Seriously?

Once again Entergy Louisiana attempts to defy logic, with this jaw-dropper:

“But what if the General Assembly were to decide that it didn’t want to let its citizens serve in the nation’s armed forces, or to comply with the Voting Rights Act? What if it were to exempt the state from federal decisions about the right of privacy, or the right against self-incrimination? Granted these are issues far, far more important than “nuclear power”, but the principle that we are a nation of laws is the same.”

Facepalm.

Placing decision of states to reject relicensing of nuclear plant(s) on par with Federal Law and its other jurisdictions & solely within its jurisdiction as well as removing it from states jurisdiction is a vast overreach & stunning display of arrogance.

I was nonplussed to say the very least by the incredibly flawed logic.

The bigger they come, the harder they fall.