|
To recap: this plant opened in 1972 with a 40-year operating license, which would expire this year. But when Entergy bought the plant ten years ago, they made a presumption that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would approve an extension of the operating license. And since the NRC has never turned down a single extension, it proved to be an astute purchase ... as the NRC approved a 20-year extension.
Except that the Vermont legislature had passed a law granting it veto power over operation of the reactor when the original license expired.
And in February 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 against re-certifying the plant, citing radioactive tritium leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems.
But prior court rulings had held that only the NRC could regulate nuclear safety issues - and when Entergy sued on that basis, federal judge Garvin Murtha agreed with them, saying that the legislators only cared about nuclear safety. He felt that legislative testimony clearly indicated a bias against nuclear power and that claims of pollution and other areas were just a fig-leaf for regulating nuclear safety.
He did not completely shut-the-door on any state regulation, and that is where the matter rests: will the state appeal, or try to rein-in the plant on some other basis? (And actually, Entergy would have the right to appeal the judge's limited denial of some minor claims the company made).
Interestingly, the state of Vermont's utilities had already made other power contract arrangements, based upon the original 2012 end date. So any future power generated wouldn't go directly to Vermont ratepayers: it would simply go into the regional grid (although it could then be bought on the spot market and used in the state).
The upshot? The company probably feels bullet-proof, now. Since nothing they did prevented a license renewal: if the license renewal goes on without any notable state restrictions, they could confidently run their operations without any concern (other than on a public relations basis).
And similar to those old Midwestern coal plants exempt from the Clean Air Act because it was assumed they'd be mothballed - but for which utilities wound up extending their life on a continuous basis, to preserve their $ advantage - well, who's to say that Entergy won't decide twenty years from now to seek another extension (although perhaps a shorter period) if the NRC maintains its perfect score?
I tend to be not as anti-nuclear as others ... but this development has me quite angry. The best statement came at that February, 2010 vote not from a "No Nukes" type, but a Vermont state senate Republican who was a nuclear advocate:
State Sen. BROCK: If its board of directors and its management were thoroughly infiltrated by anti-nuclear activists, I do not believe they could have done a better job destroying their own case.
(Soundbite of laughter)
The dissembling, the prevarication, the lack of candor have been striking.
|
