VY Discharge Permit
The Vermont Yankee Discharge Permit
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources has issued a permit that allows Vermont Yankee to discharge
significantly warmer water into the Connecticut River over longer periods of time.
River group: Pull Vt. Yankee hot-water permit
Feb 19, 2012, AP/Boston.com, (here)
The Connecticut River Watershed Council on Friday released two studies by its consultants and said earlier studies for Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Corp. were not based on sound science.
Watershed group: Yankee needs to restart river process
Feb 18, 2012, By Chris Garofolo, Reformer Staff, (here), (mht archive)

UnMHT allows you to view MHT (MHTML) web archive format files, and save complete web pages, ... UnMHT adds MHT file reading/writing support to Firefox. (Firefox-addon here)
Almost all other recent browsers have this feature built-in.

Water vs. power, Vermont Yankee pollution puts fish in hot water
02/06/12, By David Deen, Hartford Business, (here)
Small fish vs. power plants, (here)
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to save aquatic life, but the solution is likely to require using - and wasting - much more water.
July 17, 2011, By Bruce Henderson, bhenderson@charlotteobserver.com, Posted: Sunday, Jul. 17, 2011, (here)
State sues NRC over water permit
May 24, 2011, by Josh Stilts, Reformer Staff, (here) -- The Department of Public Service and the New England Coalition filed suit Friday against the Nuclear 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 Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, it did so without the plant obtaining either a water quality certificate or a waiver from the state of Vermont 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," ..... (mht archive)

Petition Filed Asking State to Update Vermont Yankee's Water Permit, (here)
February 17, 2011, (here), SOUTH ROYALTON, VT -- The Connecticut River Watershed Council filed a petition today asking the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources to either grant or deny Entergy's application for a renewed Clean Water Act permit for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

Vt. Environmental Court Ruling, May 22, 2008, (here)       " 06-089h Entergy dec.pdf "   (saved), 38 pages, 243,495Kb.

Envir. Groups to appeal Entergy ruling, May 24, 2008, (here)

Judge allows Entergy's warm river discharge, May 24, 2008, (here)

Vt court stays hot VY river discharge

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution
POST OFFICE BOX 545, BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT 05302
June 7, 2007, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Environmental Court Renews Order Protecting Connecticut River From VY Heat, Environmental Advocates Celebrate
Judge Meredith Wright ruled today that Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee will be restrained from increasing Connecticut River water temperature for the duration of a trial now expected to last through August. Entergy had secured a permit from the Agency for Natural Resources that would have permitted the company to by-pass cooling towers and discharge directly to the river- a practice now restricted to cooler months September through April. Environmental advocates New England Coalition, Connecticut River Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited, and Citizen's Awareness Network intervened in late summer of 2006 and won a stay until April of 2007. Judge Wright's order renews that stay.
Attorney Evan Mulholland (603-715-5501) said he was pleased that the court issued a protective and conservative ruling.
New England Coalition technical advisor, Raymond Shadis, said that in a worst case Entergy would have to forego a small percentage of the power output that it gained through the plant's 120 percent uprate. At most they will have to forgo between 3 and 10% of the more than 100 megawatts they gained through uprate. No surprise, he said, They knew this when they decided to power boast the reactor.

DEP chief: Towers a must at reactor
By Zach Patberg, Staff Writer, Asbury Park Press, 04/29/07, (here)
TOMS RIVER - New Jersey's chief environmental officer said Saturday that a recent court ruling has left the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant with few if any alternatives to erecting large cooling towers to replace its current water discharge system.
"There isn't much opportunity to get around it," said Lisa Jackson, the state's Department of Environmental Protection commissioner. "The court doesn't seem to leave that option up for litigation."
Jackson, who spoke at a League of Women Voters luncheon in Toms River, was referring to a January decision by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that requires power plants to adopt the best technology possible to prevent killing marine life while operating their cooling systems.
This differs from a previous interpretation of the Clean Water Act that allowed for alternative mitigation efforts to make up for loss of wildlife, such as building more wetlands or restocking waters.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (of the Dept. of the Interior) submitted to NRC, their response to draft SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Statement) for Vermont Yankee, dated March 6, 2007 , (here) 15 pages in pdf. posted late 3-19-07
Excerpt:
4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources
Page 4-54, lines 16-19: The dSEIS states that VY impacts are localized and have a minimal contribution to the cumulative impact on aquatic resources in the Connecticut River. The Department respectfully disagrees, especially with regard to Atlantic salmon. Roughly 70 percent of all salmon-rearing habitat in the watershed is located upstream of VY, and that habitat produces nearly 60 percent of the system's smolts,(20) which must pass through VY. Research has shown that higher water temperature increases the degree days experienced by smolts, which narrows the smolt window (the opportunity for smolts to successfully migrate to the estuary while they still retain their salinity tolerance). VY's thermal effluent and the location of the discharge within the Vernon impoundment could contribute significantly to the cumulative impact on Atlantic salmon smolts migrating from upstream tributaries. If exposure to elevated temperatures at VY contributes to a reduction in at-sea survival of post-smolts, fewer adults may return to the river.
17 Table 5-14 of the §316(a) Demonstration in Support of a Request for Increased Discharge Temperature Limits at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station during May through October. Normandeau Associates. April 2004.
18 See Footnote #11.
19 Entergy's consultant argues that CPUE of shad and white sucker upstream of VY's thermal influence also declined; therefore the trend cannot be attributed to VY. However, this rationale assumes that fish do not move between the two areas, which is not a reasonable assumption, given these species' mobility.
20 Jay McMenemy, personal communication. Smolt production based on a five-year average (range 55.6-67.4).
The dSEIS notes that "if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline." NRC staff goes on to conclude that the cumulative impact of continued operation of VY would be SMALL and no additional mitigation is warranted.
The Department does not agree that the cumulative impact would be SMALL. However, even if the impact was SMALL, the fact that the resource (e.g., American shad, blueback herring) is declining argues strongly for mitigation measures. In this instance, the obvious mitigation would be to require VY to operate in closed-cycle mode year-round, which would greatly reduce impacts associated with impingement, entrainment and thermal effluent.
8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
The Department recommends that the FSEIS evaluate at least two more alternatives: (1) continued operation of VY under a year-round closed-cycle mode of operation; and (2) continued operation of VY under the present NPDES permit requirements, but with removal of the Vernon Dam.
9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and Alternatives
Page 9-7, line 19: The dSEIS states that closed-cycle cooling systems were assumed for all power-generation alternatives. The FSEIS should explain why closed-cycle operation was assumed for other power generation alternatives, but not for VY.
End of Excerpt -- Color added for emphasis, posted late 3-19-07.

Also, from the EPA, below

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Review and Comments to NRC, on VY draft SEIS, March 2, 2007, (here)

EPA can't rewrite Clean Water Act to benefit industry
Court ruling could change way area power plants use Hudson + other waterways
By Laura Incalcaterra and Greg Clary, THE JOURNAL NEWS, January 27, 2007, (here)
The Environmental Protection Agency must force power plants to use the best technology available to protect aquatic life in the nation's waterways, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Power plants have been allowed to use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the cheapest way to reduce fish kills rather than relying on the best technology available to meet that goal, said Hudson Riverkeeper Alex Matthiessen.
"Once again the judiciary has prevented EPA from rewriting the Clean Water Act at the behest of industry," said Reed Super of Columbia Law School's Environmental Law Clinic and the lead attorney for the suit.
The lawsuit followed regulations published by the EPA in 2004 that described how power plants must protect aquatic life when they take water from bays, rivers, lakes and oceans to cool their machinery.
The state and environmental groups accused the federal government of changing the rules so that power plants could avoid costly upgrades. By some estimates, trillions of fish, plankton, larvae and eggs are killed each year when power plants draw in water.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manattan ruled Thursday that it was improper for the EPA to let power plants circumvent environmental laws. In some cases, plants were allowed to restock fish rather than upgrade to better technology. (more)

COURT FINDS MASSIVE POWER PLANT FISH KILLS ILLEGAL
EPA faulted for placing power plant profits over public trust.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, January 26, 2007, The Riverkeeper, (here)
NEW YORK, NY - A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled yesterday that EPA cannot allow power plants to kill a trillion fish per year through their cooling water intakes. Cooling water intakes gulp in billions of gallons of river, lake and coastal water to cool power plant machinery. Along with the water, these intakes devour countless fish and fish larvae, devastating fish populations across the country.
In a major victory for environmentalists, fishermen and the public, the court found that regulations issued by EPA in 2004 improperly rejected "closed cycle cooling," a technology that cools plant machinery while nearly eliminating the need for large infusions of fresh water. This technology also greatly reduces the massive fish kills associated with power plant operations. The court also found that EPA violated the law by placing the profits of power companies above the protection of America's fisheries, defying the direct mandate of Congress in 1972 to EPA to stop these unnecessary impacts. (more)

Decision available at www.ca2.uscourts.gov/ , at left column click Decisions, then click -Recent Decisions, then find 04-6692 Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, click link to download approx. 80 pages in one PDF file. Also available on our server space: (here). An important decision, definitely worth saving.

Panel to consider Yankee's water release
By Daniel Barlow, Herald Staff, Saturday, January 13, 2007, (here)
VERNON - The five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission will personally hear arguments on the potential effects on the Connecticut River of extending Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant's operating license an additional 20 years.
In an unusual move, a divided NRC announced Thursday it had denied plant owner Entergy Vermont Nuclear's request to dismiss a watchdog group's contention that releasing heated water into the river beyond 2012 could hurt aquatic life.
Environmental Court allows groups' appeal
Watchdogs contest VY permit change
By Bob Audette, Reformer Staff, Friday, January 12, 2007, (here)
BRATTLEBORO -- A Vermont court has denied Entergy's request to disqualify a pair of anti-nuclear groups as parties to an appeal contesting a change to a thermal discharge permit for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
The appeal was filed by the Connecticut River Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited, the Citizen Awareness Network and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.
The groups are appealing a March 2006 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources decision allowing the plant to increase the temperature of the Connecticut River by an additional one degree over the temperature allowed on the underlying permit, which has expired.
The plant is required to renew its thermal discharge permit every five years. The current permit, with the attached amendment, expired last year, but both are active while the agency reviews the renewal application.
Entergy asked the Vermont Environmental Court to remove the Citizen Awareness Network and the New England Coalition because "neither organization's purpose is specifically related to water quality of the protection of fish habitat."
The court reasoned that both groups have submitted affidavits testifying to the negative effects of the increased thermal discharge on their fishing, boating and ecological activities on the river.
Because individual members of the two organizations have lodged these allegations, the organizations themselves could stand in as aggrieved parties.
"Entergy filed to disallow the coalition and CAN because they didn't have an interest in the case," said Rep. David Deen, D-Westminster, and a river steward for the Connecticut River Watershed Council. "The environmental court said 'wrong.'"
Last year, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an independent branch of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, agreed to hear complaints or "contentions" on how Vermont Yankee's aging plant equipment will handle continued operation, and whether releases of water from the plant will damage the ecology of Connecticut River, as part of the plant's license renewal review.
The plant's current license is due to expire in 2012. Entergy would like to extend it to 2032. (more)
Vermont Environmental Court Decision, Jan.09.2007, PDF file approx. 24pp, (here)
NRC takes on dispute over VY water discharge
By Shay Totten, Vermont Guardian, Posted January 11, 2007, (here)
ROCKVILLE, MD - The five-member board that oversees the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will review a dispute over the impact of warmer water discharges by Vermont Yankee - if its license to operate beyond 2012 is extended, according to a ruling issued today.
In a 3-2 decision, commissioners argued that the normal avenue for such a review - the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) - would be bypassed because they believe the question of thermal discharge has broader implications across the industry, and could come up in other license renewal cases.
The contention was one of several raised by the New England Coalition, and scheduled to be heard by the ASLB. Vermont Yankee appealed the decision to review the contention.
The group believes Entergy has not adequately answered questions about the long-term impact on the Connecticut River that a rise in water temperature - by one degree over what is currently allowed in its permit - will have on various aquatic species.
In its appeal, Vermont Yankee claimed there would be no adverse impact due to the change.
"The sharply differing views of the majority and dissenting member of the board on the regulatory requirements for environmental assessment of the impact of thermal discharge from a once-through cooling system raise significant issues of potentially broad impact and may well recur in the likely license renewal proceedings for other plants that use such a cooling system but whose operating licenses have not been renewed," wrote the majority in its decision.
Agreeing with the decision were commissioners Dale E. Klein, chairman Edward McGaffigan, Jr., and Jeffrey S. Merrifield.
In their dissent, board members Peter Lyons and Gregory Jaczko, said the majority's decision overlooks one important fact - the NRC has already reviewed nearly two dozen license renewals.
"The majority decision implies that the issue of the impact of thermal discharge from a once-through cooling system is a new issue before the commission and suggests that since industry expects all plants will seek license renewal, this issue 'may well recur' in the 'likely' license renewal proceeding," the pair writes. "First, according to the NRC license renewal website, the NRC has completed its review on no less than 23 plant applications. Had this matter been indeed of substantial significance, it likely would have surfaced before. It hardly seems a worthwhile exercise of the commission's supervisory authority to resolve a routine contention admissibility dispute." (more)
Yankee relicensing moves forward
By Bob Audette, Reformer Staff, Wednesday, December 20, 2006, (here)
BRATTLEBORO -- Federal regulators announced Tuesday that Entergy Nuclear's request for a license renewal at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant had passed its environmental review, but not quite with flying colors.
......Though the NRC is not involved with the regulating of the temperature of discharge water into the river, it wrote "the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation may impose 37 further restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impacts on 38 aquatic resources from entrainment and impingement."
Vt. Yankee's warm-water releases halted
By Daniel Barlow, Southern Vermont Bureau, August 29, 2006 - (here)
VERNON - The state environmental court on Monday ordered the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to stop releasing warmer water into the Connecticut River pending the outcome of an environmental group's appeal.
In a four-page ruling, Vermont Environmental Court Judge Merideth Wright said groups opposing the releases have shown a "substantial possibility that they will prevail."
In March, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources issued a permit allowing the Vernon-based nuclear power plant to increase the temperature of the water it discharges into the Connecticut River. Wright's ruling Monday means Vermont Yankee must immediately cease the warmer releases.
The judge said the warmer water could harm young fish, particularly the American shad that inhabit the river.
"Appellants have shown sufficient potential for irreparable injury to American shad in the Connecticut River, both at present as the juveniles become accustomed to cooler water temperatures prior to their migration down the river in the fall, and in the summer of 2007 for the growth of the next generation of juveniles," the judge wrote.
Wright's ruling came in response to a motion filed by the Connecticut River Watershed Council, the Saxtons River-based environmental group that is appealing the discharge permit. The stay will remain in effect until the appeal is decided. Two other groups have joined the litigation. A trial is scheduled for January 2007.
Court Decision and order on motion for stay of permit pending appeal.
NEC to file motion to stay VY permit
June 28, 2006 -- Attorney Evan Mulholland is expected to file a motion today with the Vermont Environmental Court, requesting that it stay Vermont Yankee's amended NPDES discharge permit. This permit was issued by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. The New England Coalition joins the Connecticut River Watershed Council who filed their request with the Environmental Court on June 16, 2006.
NEC's motion and memorandum in support of Connecticut River Watershed Council, (here), 8 pages
Defending The River:  CRWC and partners vs. Vermont Yankee
CRWC : 6-20-06   Press release announcing filing of a motion to stay Vermont Yankee's permit to increase its thermal discharge of the Conn. River. (here)
CRWC : 6-16-06   Memorandum of law, and motion to stay Vermont Yankee's permit filed with the Vermont Environmental Court. (here)
Title from the Connecticut River Watershed Council newsletter, Currents & Eddies, Summer 2006, - (www.ctriver.org) , 8 pages, 13.7 MB
Acoustic Fish Deterrent Systems
A partial solution may be at hand, to protect the fish in the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
This does not, however, mitigate the damage caused by the increased thermal load on the Connecticut River, attributable to Vermont Yankee's discharge.
Clupeids, including American shad, alewife and blueback herring, represent fish most commonly entrained or impinged at water facilities used by power plants. They also represent a cross section of target species for many fish restoration/preservation efforts by state and federal environmental authorities.
EcoFISH is an acoustic fish deterrent system. The manufacturer, Ultra Electronics, says these acoustic barriers are cost effective and pose no health risks to fish.
A few pages from their brochure: (about) , (about p2) , (installed systems) , (for more info)   This system has operated w/o fault at Fitzpatrick since 1996.
Also, an interesting paper by Edward Guida and Greg Hunter of Ultra Electronic Ocean Systems that they presented at a conference in Ireland. (here). It's a pdf file, of 30 pages.
Background
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available to protect aquatic organisms from being killed or injured by impingement (being pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake structure) or entrainment (being drawn into cooling water systems and subjected to thermal, physical or chemical stresses).
updated 6/12/06
New England Coalition joins Connecticut River Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited, and Citizens Awareness Network in Appeal of VT Yankee Water Discharge Permit (nec_joins)   (crwc-tu-can)   Posted April 29, 2006
River group appealing Vermont Yankee water discharge permit
By Ross Sneyd, Associated Press Writer, Friday, April 21, 2006 @ 4:19 p.m. - (here)
MONTPELIER, Vt. --An environmental group appealed a state permit Friday that would allow Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to discharge warmer water into the Connecticut River.
Connecticut River Watershed Council Calls on Vermont Environmental Court to Protect the Connecticut River
Click here to read CRWC fact sheet

Elsewhere:
Oyster Creek nuclear plant faces $35,000 fish-kill fine
The Associated Press, April 14, 2006 - (here)
LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. - A nuclear power plant faces a $35,000 state fine for killing fish during an unplanned shutdown in January.
The Oyster Creek plant in Ocean County was assessed the fine by the state Department of Environmental Protection after nearly 80 fish died when the plant discharged cooling water into a canal, several newspapers reported Friday.
Owned by Chicago-based Exelon, the plant isn't allowed to kill fish under a state permit that allows it to discharge water into the canal. ....In September 2002, water pump problems at the plant killed 5,876 fish.

CRWC may challenge VY's water permit
By Darry Madden, Reformer Staff, Monday, April 10, 2006 - (here)
BRATTLEBORO -- An environmental group may challenge a state-issued permit that says how much and how often Vermont Yankee can discharge water into the Connecticut River.
Entergy Nuclear, Vermont Yankee's owners, is trying to get the state to allow an increase in discharge temperatures under certain river conditions. Plant officials say the proposal would save energy, because the plant's cooling towers would be used less.
The Connecticut River Watershed Council has taken issue with Entergy's request, claiming higher water temperatures could harm the river's eco-system. The council is calling on the state to set more stringent limits on Vermont Yankee's discharge permit.

On March 31, 2006, The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Wastewater Management Division, posted the "Final Amended Permit" for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC to discharge more and slightly warmer water into the Connecticut River.

Final Amended Permit   http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/drafts/Entergy316FinalAmendedPermit.pdf
Fact Sheet   http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/drafts/Entergy316FinalAmendedFactSheet.pdf
Response Summary   http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/drafts/EntergyRSFINALDOCUMENT033006.pdf

Rights to Appeal to the Environmental Court   Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220, any appeal of a decision must be filed with the clerk of the Environmental Court within 30 days of the date of the decision. The appellant must attach to the Notice of Appeal the entry fee of $225.00, payable to the state of Vermont . (further details)

What happened to the Vermont Yankee discharge permit ?
March 23, 2006, from the Connecticut River Watershed Council, newsletter, Currents and Eddies :

" In a word it's problematic. After participating in public hearings and filing comments on the draft permit, CRWC had hoped for further input into the final decision that would allow the nuclear power plant to discharge warmer water into the Connecticut at Vernon, Vermont.
Unfortunately, the VT Agency of Natural Resources has decided not to reopen the comment period for concerned citizens. Instead, it is planning to issue a permit that may allow Vermont Yankee to discharge significantly warmer water into the Connecticut River over longer periods of time.
We are working with the Vermont Law School Environmental Law Clinic to respond should permit conditions provide insufficient protection for the river."

About Entergy's Indian Point:
Congressionals Call on EPA to Address IP’s Environmental Assault
3/3/2006 In a letter sent to the Environmental Protection Agency on March 3, U.S. Representatives Eliot Engel, Maurice Hinchey, and Nita Lowey called on the federal agency to conduct a full investigation into the strontium and tritium radioactive leak and other environmentally destructive methods employed at Indian Point: “These discoveries are only the latest in a list of environmental assaults on the region by the Indian Point Power Plant. The plant’s destructive practices pose a significant threat to the area reservoirs and drinking water, and have killed billions of fish and aquatic life through unsafe cooling techniques each year in the Hudson River.”
--posted on website of the Hudson River Riverkeeper (here)

Watershed Council files formal challenge to Entergy's proposed state permit
Rutland Herald Staff, Dec.10, 2005 - (here)
BRATTLEBORO — The Connecticut River Watershed Council announced Friday that it had filed a formal challenge to Entergy Nuclear's proposed state permit that would allow the company to raise the temperature of the Connecticut River as it cools Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
Rep. David Deen, D-Westminster, river steward for the watershed council, said that Entergy's application violated the federal Clean Water Act.
"The act requires that the cumulative impact of pollution from all sources, not just a single source of pollution, is considered," Deen said in a statement. "Entergy seems to have forgotten about that requirement of the law."
Entergy wants to discharge more hot water into the river as an effort to curb its own electricity use and sell more power to the New England grid. Currently, the company uses about 10 megawatts to power the cooling towers at the Vernon nuclear reactor. The cooling towers operate from May to October, when the temperature of the river drops.
Entergy has received a draft permit from the Agency of Natural Resources, which would allow the company to raise the temperature of the river by one degree, measured about a mile and a half downstream from the reactor.
Deen said that Vermont Law School's Environmental Law Clinic would handle the appeal of the permit.
Entergy currently is allowed to discharge up to 100 degree water into the Connecticut River, and it currently discharges about 450 million gallons of hot water a day into the river.

Connecticut River Watershed Council   (press_release in .pdf)

  Comments by Environmental & Natural Resources Law Clinic on behalf of CRWC   (comments_vy_permit.pdf)

The 19 pages of legal and technical "comments" above, appears to confirm suspicions that VY has adversely affected the Connecticut River. That official "documents have been destroyed", not lost or misplaced --- but "destroyed" --- raises the possibility that a crime has also been committed. --the editor

Environmentalists hammer state on VY’s discharge plan
By Kathryn Casa, Vermont Guardian, posted December 9, 2005 - (here)
BRATTLEBORO — Water quality experts are steaming over the state’s preliminary approval of Vermont Yankee’s plan to cut costs by discharging hotter water into the Connecticut River.
A barrage of criticism over the way the plan was reviewed, however, may prompt the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Wastewater Management Division to consider reopening public comment on the permit variance application, said an attorney for the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR).
Entergy, which owns the Vernon reactor, is seeking to increase by one degree Fahrenheit the temperature of approximately 450 million gallons of water it discharges back into the river daily during late spring, summer, and early fall. This would allow the company to cut back on the use of its cooling towers during the hottest months of the year, reducing wear on the plant’s equipment and allowing it to operate more efficiently, according to a state “fact sheet” on the permit.
VT Yankee hot water uptick will face legal battle
By Susan Smallheer, Herald Staff, December 2, 2005 - (here)
BRATTLEBORO — The attorneys for the Connecticut River Watershed Council promised a legal battle Wednesday if the state grants a permit to Entergy Nuclear to discharge more and slightly hotter water into the Connecticut River.
Patrick Parenteau, director of Vermont Law School's Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, which is representing the watershed group, said that a legal challenge was all but guaranteed because he believes the state is not holding Entergy to the standards established by the Clean Water Act that there be no impact on the river's aquatic life by the discharge.
[....] Parenteau was joined by a research fellow at Dartmouth College, as well as staff and members of the nonprofit group at Wednesday's public hearing on the draft permit, which would be issued by the Agency of Natural Resources.
"The proposed thermal variance does not meet the requirements of federal and state law and must be denied," Parenteau said.
Parenteau said that key documents about Vermont Yankee's original discharge permits had been destroyed by the state, further complicating the permit issue. Without the original permits, he said, he said he didn't see how the permit process could proceed.
Parenteau himself is a former commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation in the agency during the Kunin administration.
Watershed group weighs in on plant's water discharge
By Kristi Ceccarossi, Reformer Staff, December 1, 2005 - (here)   (this link died in March 2006 -- when the Reformer replaced their Archive database)
BRATTLEBORO -- When state officials were deciding whether it was a good idea to let Vermont Yankee discharge more and slightly warmer water into the Connecticut River, they didn't invite any environmental advocates or any local representatives to the table.
So when members of the Agency of Natural Resources held a public hearing Wednesday in Brattleboro on their tentative approval of Vermont Yankee's request, they heard an earful from people who felt they should have been part of the decision-making process.
Public Meeting Nov. 30 in Brattleboro
The Connecticut River could get a little hotter for a few months a year if a request by Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant wins approval.

Entergy Nuclear, owners of the plant, want permission to discharge water into the river that would be one degree Fahrenheit warmer than what it currently releases from the plant's cooling system.
On Nov. 30, representatives from VT Agency of Natural Resources will be at Brattleboro Area Middle School, 109 Sunny Acres Road, at 6 p.m. to take public comment. Residents can also send letters to the agency, at the Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Wastewater Management Division, Sewing Building, 103 South Main St., Waterbury, VT 05671. Letters must be received by Dec. 7.

Vermont Yankee Environmental Assessment was filed Nov. 09 in the   (Federal Register) -- thus starting a 30-day public comment period for NRC.
This "draft" document claims a "Finding of No Significant Impact" if VY increases its power.
Vermont Guardian's story on
Regulation in slow motion: Natural Resources Agency delays decision on public representation
"The chief enforcer of Vermont’s environmental rules and regulations, and the state’s advocate for environmental policies, ANR’s reach extends from developers and businesses to kayakers, hikers, hunters, and fishermen. The agency also is the state’s advocate for environmental policies, but is perhaps best known for its legendary permitting backlog."
Nov.18.2005
<<< Back to Front Page!