Tuesday May 24, 2011 BRATTLEBORO -- The Department of Public =
Service and the New England Coalition filed suit Friday against the Nucl=
ear Regulatory Commission citing that the relicensing of Vermont Yankee =
is a violation of the Clean Water Act.
In March, when the NRC approved the new 20-year license of Vermont Ya=
nkee nuclear power plant in Vernon, it did so without the plant obtainin=
g either a water quality certificate or a waiver from the state of Vermo=
nt for the license.
"A precondition of licensing is receipt of a state certification that=
any discharges into navigable waters will comply with sections 301-303 =
and 306-307 of the Clean Water Act," documents filed by NEC state.
Deb Markowitz, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, said tha=
t although the petitions are based on a very narrow issue, it's still an=
extremely important topic.
"The NRC acted arbitrarily, abused its discretion and violated the cl=
ear mandate of the Clean Water Act by failing to have as part of the rec=
ord of its decision, ‘a certification from the state (of Vermont) =
in which the discharge originates or will originate ... that any such di=
scharge will comply with the applicable provisions of (the act)' from th=
e owner and operator of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station."
The Department of Public Service is asking the Federal Court to revie=
w the NRC's issuance of the plant's relicense and reject the proposed li=
cense until Entergy can provide the NRC with a
valid w=
ater quality certificate.
"It's our obligation to enforce the Clean Water Act when applicable,"=
Markowitz said.
She said that hydrology studies to see what the warm water effects ar=
e having on the habitat of the plant life and fish in the Connecticut Ri=
ver.
"The question will be, if there is an effect, what would be required =
of Entergy to mitigate those effects," she said.
Yankee has cooling towers on site used for a closed cycle cooling sys=
tem. Most of the year, water used to cool reactor steam is discharged di=
rectly into the river, though cooling towers must be used in the summer =
if the river temperature reaches a certain degree.
Entergy has opposed closed-cycle cooling at Yankee because running th=
e 22 fan cells that make up the two towers requires a significant portio=
n of the energy produced by the plant.
How much it costs on a daily basis is proprietary information, a spok=
esman for Yankee said, but industry analysts have stated it costs up to =
$1 million per day to run the cooling towers.
Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC, said that NRC's Office of Gene=
ral Counsel will review the petitions and file a response once the court=
establishes a briefing schedule.
Larry Smith, manager of communications for Vermont Yankee, said that =
the plant has an existing water quality certification granted to the fac=
ility by the state of Vermont.
"It was our view during the relicensing process, and it continues to =
be our view, that this certification still applies today," Smith said.
The nuclear plant's discharge is non-radioactive water that is withdr=
awn from the river, run through the plant's condenser to cool reactor co=
olant water and released into the river at temperatures around 100 degre=
es Fahrenheit.
Markowitz said that although this suit has to do with relicensing, it=
not related to other litigation with Entergy.
Last month, Entergy filed a lawsuit against the state claiming its at=
tempt to forbid continued operation of the plant past March 21, 2012, in=
fringes on the federal jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission=
.
In 2002, when Entergy purchased the plant, it signed a memorandum of =
understanding with Vermont that included a number of conditions Entergy =
had to agree to prior to the sale. Entergy is arguing that two of those =
conditions -- that the PSB has jurisdiction under current law to grant o=
r deny approval of the plant's continued operation and that Entergy waiv=
e any claim it might have to federal preemption of any actions taken by =
the board -- are no longer valid due to two actions that occurred since =
the memorandum of understanding was signed.
The first, that the Legislature passed Act 160 in 2006, giving itself=
the authority to forbid the PSB from issuing a certificate of public go=
od; and the second, that the Legislature's discussion whether to give pe=
rmission to the PSB to issue the CPG was based on an area of review that=
is under the sole jurisdiction of the NRC -- safety of the plant.
Josh Stilts can be reached at jstilts@reformer.com, or 802-254-2311 ext. 273.
![3D"Media](3D"http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/mng_logos/mng_fo=)
![](3D"http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site511/2010/12=)
=
![3D"Quantcast"/](3D"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-4ctCQwtnNBNs2.gif?labels=)