How a federal court battle in Vermont could recast nuclear power

[cali]

John Nordell / The Christian Science Monitor

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / April 19, 2011


The owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant – a subsidiary of New Orleans-based Entergy Corporation – sued Vermont yesterday in federal court, to prevent the state from forcing the 39-year-old power plant to cease operation next March.

Whoever prevails, the precedent could affect the relicensing process for aging reactors nationwide, legal experts agree. There are 104 nuclear reactors, now operating in 31 states across the country, that collectively provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. As costs for new construction of a nuclear power plant skyrocket, Entergy is only one of a long line of utilities seeking federal permits to extend – by 20 years – the 40-year licenses held by more than three-quarters of existing reactors.


"This will likely be a landmark case, establishing a dividing line between federal government and states over nuclear issues," says Boris Mamlyuk, an assistant professor at Ohio Northern University College of Law, who has written about the case. "It also holds potential – if the ruling goes for Vermont – to help revive the nuclear safety debate in the US on a major scale."

The case, he and others note, is heightened by public concern over the Fukushima accident and the safety of 28 existing plants in the US with the same design as the Japanese plant – including the Vermont Yankee plant. Some question whether federal oversight is adequate, since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted a new federal license to the plant – over Vermont's protests – even as the Fukushima crisis was unfolding.

<snip>

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0419/How-a-federal-court-battle-in-Vermont-could-recast-nuclear-power

[Thegonagle]

1. What sucks for Minnesota, and the largest population center within,

is that a nearby 40 year old Fukushima-style reactor was just granted its 20 year rubber stamp extension last year. They have 40 years worth of nuclear waste on site, and nowhere else they can put it, because they can't get permission to move it anywhere else. But they have been given permission to add half again to that stockpile of nuclear waste.

They're storing the oldest of the spent fuel in dry storage casks in an out-building, but most of it sits in the spent fuel pools shielded by a couple dozen feet of water, and a roof not much stronger than the average Lowe's store. And we get hit by devastating tornados every summer.

This flawed reactor is located on the Mississippi river, about 40 miles from the center of Minneapolis.

It's yet another disaster waiting for that perfect storm.

I sure do hope it can be revoked sooner.

And please, please, please, no more extensions. It's time for decisive steps to stop creating more waste, and it's time to shut down problematic designs immediately. (This also goes for former Soviet states with any Chernobyl-style reactors remaining.)

[cali]

2. that's exactly the same situation as in VT

the difference is that Vermont has oversight and purportedly the authority to shut down VT Yankee. And VT Yankee, like your plant is near a river- the CT- but it's no 40 miles, it's right on the river edge. They also store the spent fuel rods in the same manner.

[druidity33]

3. I'm in the evac zone for VYankee...

It's been a long fight with marches and meetings for YEARS to get to this stage. What with the recent shutdown vote success, meetings have been infrequent lately, but the court case was expected and hopefully we're prepared to defend the right of the people of Vermont to have a say about Nuclear in their state. Right now i am in the midst of helping plan a campaign to keep a Biomass plant out of the area, and a Walmart... we'll see how those battles go.

:(

K&R

[janet118]

4. Ditto - Pilgrim Station in Plymouth MA

According to article, states only have the right to object to siting, economics, aesthetics and a few other issues (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court just ruled that state has power over water quality). Safety and relicensing are strictly federal issues. Brilliant!

Those of us stuck with an aging plant are at the mercy of the NRC - which has a provably symbiotic relationship with the nuclear industry. The only way to fight them is to make it too expensive for them to operate. With the NRC watching their (not our) backs by dismissing all local concerns about safety (spent fuel storage, evacuation plans, infrastructure, terrorism), legally, that leaves us only the option of concentrating our effects on water and, perhaps, air quality and taxing them heavily. I think mass, Wisconsin-style demonstrations at plants or in centers of local towns might work. But what are the chances? A lot of the trade unions support nuclear power because of the jobs.

The LA Times had a recent article on a practice called "uprating." That means they can up the power output of aging plants. They recently uprated VT Yankee by 20% (2006). Last year, they discovered radioactive leakage in the ground water due to old plumbing. Yet the NRC relicensed VY with hardly a pause.

Any ideas about how to stop relicensing process (Pilgrim is scheduled to be relicensed for 20 years in 2012) would be greatly appreciated.

[crickets]

5. The "use by" date on far too many reactors has come and gone. Good luck, Vermont. K&R