RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Yankee shutdown fund bill advances
Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW VERMONT PRESS BUREAU - Published: March 21, 2009

MONTPELIER – The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee approved a bill Friday forcing the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to put more money toward its decommissioning.

The 8-2 committee vote Friday came after weeks of testimony about Vermont Yankee's decommissioning fund, which has dropped by nearly $100 million in the last 16 months as the financial markets collapsed.

The decommissioning bill – which was opposed this week by Entergy Nuclear Vermont, the state's top two utilities and the Public Service Department – is expected to appear on the House floor for a vote late next week.

Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, the chairman of the committee, said Vermonters need to be protected from the possibility that Entergy would delay the full cleanup of the Vernon facility for decades as it builds up the money in its decommissioning fund.

The bill passed by the committee would see the land below the Vermont Yankee plant turned into a green field that could then be used to house new energy-generating companies or other commercial and industrial enterprises, Klein explained.

Jay Thayer, the vice president of Entergy Nuclear Vermont, told lawmakers Friday that he did not believe they have the authority to pass this bill because it disagrees with a Vermont Public Service Board decision in 2002 that allows the company to use the so-called "safstor" method of decommissioning the plant.

Thayer said Entergy is considering legal action if the bill passes.

"From a legal perspective, we don't think the Legislature can do what it is attempting to do," Thayer said. "This isn't a threat. This is the reality of us trying to protect how we do business in Vermont."

The bill requires Entergy to put $114.72 million in the fund in the years 2011, 2012, 2018 and 2020 – a provision that would only be required if the company is given the OK by state and federal regulators and lawmakers to operate the plant beyond 2012, when its federal license expires.

Similar messages were delivered to lawmakers this week by members of Gov. James Douglas' administration and officials from Green Mountain Power and Central Vermont Public Service, two electrical utilities negotiating with Entergy on a new long-term power contract.

Steve Kimball, a Montpelier attorney and lobbyist for GMP, told lawmakers Thursday evening that the bill "violates an agreement between Entergy, its business partners and the Department of Public Service" over how the plant would be shutdown and cleaned up.

"The fact of the matter is, safstor was fully discussed and approved by the Vermont Public Service Board," Kimball said. "You can probably get away with this, but it smells."

Richard Smith, the deputy commissioner of the Public Service Department, had a similar message for lawmakers Friday. He said the department's position is that Entergy should prepare for decommissioning by 2032 – the end of its new operating license if that is approved.

"I know you've heard it before, but we are concerned with the Legislature's attempt to null an agreement between the parties," Smith said. "That's bad policy."

Klein strongly defended his committee's work, saying the financial hit the decommissioning fund has taken puts in doubt Entergy's ability to clean up the site. He said the Public Service Department agreed to a bad deal.

"It was a bad idea then," Klein said. "And now it is an even worse idea."

Friday's vote was applauded by anti-nuclear organizations. Bob Stannard, a lobbyist for the Citizen Awareness Network, said the bill was necessary because the "fund is short and the future is uncertain."

"At a time when large companies need to be bailed-out or are falling to the wayside, this vote is arguably one of the most important ones the General Assembly can take to protect Vermonters," Stannard said.

Although a vast majority of the committee approved the bill Friday, it was a difficult vote for some. Rep. Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, one of the two no votes Friday, said it was a "very close call for me."

"I voted no today, but I reserve my right to vote differently on the House floor if I hear some information that changes my mind," Wright said.

Rep. Joseph Krawczyk, R-Bennington, the vice-chairman of the committee, supported the bill Friday, but said he is still hopeful there will be a legislative vote this year on the continued operation of Vermont Yankee.

Democratic leaders of the Legislature have taken that issue off the table until 2010, saying they need more information before making that decision. Krawczyk said he is hopeful the details of new power purchase agreements between Entergy and the utilities – Thayer said the company will offer a deal next week – will move the issue along.

"I feel the ball is in Vermont Yankee's court," he said.

daniel.barlow@timesargus.com








READER COMMENTS


Another thing: Why does is the law presumed to only protect the nuclear industry and not the public? VT Yankee has exceeded fenceline radiation limits in 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2007. There is an elementary school just 300 yards away from the turbine bldg. Scientists now agree that ANY increase in ionizing radiation exposure increases risk, with the greatest risk to children, women and the unborn. Under its Uprate decision of 2006, the Public Service Board may require Entergy to reduce power to stay within the state limit of 20 mrem at the fenceline. But they have not enforced this Order. Why is PSB ignoring its own order, despite exceedences since the Uprate? Because the VT Dept. of Health has misled the PSB and claimed that the fenceline levels were within legal limits. The Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules found the DOH in violation, because it's interpretation of the rules presumed to change (weaken) the rules without a public rulemaking process. This shifts the burden of proof to the Department of Health, and the PSB should have taken heed and ordered an immediate power reduction to keep VY in compliance until the rulechange is adopted lawfully. If dangerous, polluting industries do not play by the rules, and public agencies do not enforce them, where is the "public good" the PSB is supposed to ensure? In the pocket of the Utility companies and the industry.
-- Posted by Sally Shaw on Sun, Mar 22, 2009, 12:04 pm EST

report this comment


I applaud the Legislators who stood up for the people of Vermont and required Entergy to pony up the money to decommission the nightmare in Vernon. The bad deal, worthy of a civil action lawsuit, was when the Public Service Department and Board allowed the illegal violation of a promise made to the parties to VT Yankee's original license and CPG: that it would shut and be decommissioned in 2012. This was a legally binding agreement that recognized that one generation must not saddle future generations with their toxic mess. The slippery notion of "SafeStor" allows decommissioning to be delayed for 60 years after final shut down (80,90,110 years after 2012, depending on how many license renewals they apply and get an NRC rubber stamp for.) This agreement defrauded the public, and robbed future generations. The sale agreement proved that DPS is working for the utilities and the industry, not for the people of Vermont. Their many ways of running interference for Entergy since then is further proof--the Uprate which increased radioactive emissions, radiation exposure at the site boundary, the rate of production of radioactive waste, and profits for Entergy and the Utilities; the dry-cask MOU, which failed to decrease the vulnerability of the spent fuel pool but added another rad waste facility, and now the effort of DPS and the Dept. of Health to weaken the state's radiation protection laws to keep Entergy pumping along at 120%, a sweet deal for Entergy. The Utilities and Entergy are the ones who will profit handsomely from the next bad deal. Vermonters can save more on electric rates--40% or more-- by replacing old appliances with energy efficient models. $400/yr savings on an average $100/mo electric bill. Vermonters surveyed by DPS over the past couple of years overwhelmingly said they would prefer to pay more for electricity than to continue producing nuclear waste in VT. I believe self-reliance is alive and well in Vermont, but dead as a rat in it's Public Service Department, which hangs on the sleeve of the Utilities and Entergy.
Our radioactive footprint is a far longer-lived legacy than our carbon footprint, which Vermonters can reduce if they want to far more quickly and inexpensively by using efficiency and conservation. The cheapest, cleanest baseload watt is the negawatt. The one you save.
-- Posted by Sally Shaw on Sun, Mar 22, 2009, 11:05 am EST

report this comment


Why in the world does Vermont want to shut down nuclear energy? Are you folks daft? Vermont has the cleanest emissions in the country - by far - all because of nuclear, Vermont only emits 5 pounds of carbon per megawatthour. CAlifornia emits well over 600 pounds and other states often top 1000 pounds. If Vermont has some screwy notion that it can replace their nuclear plant by solar or wind, they need to have their heads examined. Wind power in that windy state of Texas can only deliver 2% of its power during peak demand. Wind is an unreliable, uncontrollable method of producing expensive energy.
As for decomissioning costs, the NRC specifies the amount that must be put aside (per kilowatthour) in order to decommission a plant. Now if that plant is shut down before its normal lifespan, the money won't be enough, but otherwise nuclear plants in the US as a whole are putting aside more than enough to pay for the decomissioning. In fact there is a surplus overall.
The simpleminded argument that Vermont doesn't need nuclear and can obtain power from adjoining states commits the preposterous fallacy that this will absolve Vermont of responsibility for the emissions that will be generated in doing so.
Sorry, Vermont, you can't make phoney arguments like that and escape blame for polluting the atmosphere.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 10:19 pm EST

report this comment


Question: Why does Vermont think it has the right to take control and regulate a federally regulated activity?
-- Posted by Richard Meister on Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 11:50 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout