Rep. Mike Hebert. Photo courtesy of The Commons.
Editor’s note:This story first appeared in The Commons.
VERNON — Freshman Rep. Mike Hebert, R-Vernon, stands by his position that the more qualified Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Vermont Public Service Board, not the Vermont Legislature, should determine whether the nuclear power station should be allowed to run for another 20 years.
On Feb. 22, Hebert, a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, submitted a bill (H.331) that would strip the Legislature of its authority to decide the fate of Vermont Yankee.
Under current Vermont statute, an affirmative vote from both houses of the Legislature is needed before the Public Service Board can issue a Certificate of Public Good to Vermont Yankee to operate past the end of its current license in March 2012.
While federal law gives the NRC exclusive authority over issues of safety, the state, through the Public Service Board, issues the Certificate of Public Good based on a range of other non-safety-related criteria.
But with the requirement for legislative approval, added in 2006, “right now, VY is a purely political issue, and it shouldn’t be,” said Hebert.
In February 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26-4 against permitting the Public Service Board to issue the 39-year-old power plant its Certificate of Public Good.
A month earlier, plant workers discovered tritiated water had leaked from the plant. Workers finally traced the leak to underground pipes that numerous senior officials from Entergy, Vermont Yankee’s owner, claimed under oath they knew nothing about.
This incident destroyed the faith that some legislators had in the plant, and prompted the vote that, unless the Senate reverses its decision this session, thwarted Entergy’s request for a 20-year operating license extension.
But Hebert said it’s “improper” for the Legislature to have the power to decide Vermont Yankee’s fate. Instead, the authority should go to scientists, at places like the Vermont Public Service Board or the NRC, who know what they’re doing, he said.
The dry cask storage units outside of the Vermont Yankee plant. Photo by Laura Frohn, News21.org
When Hebert looks around the House, he said he doesn’t see a lot of nuclear scientists, but he does see a lot of pro- or anti-nukers.
“Too much is at stake,” said Hebert, who described his election to his House seat as a referendum on the plant.
According to Hebert, Windham County and the rest of the state will lose $100 million from their economies once Vermont Yankee goes, as well as 600 direct jobs.
“This should not be decided by politicians, myself included,” said Hebert. “Closing VY down is not as simple as one would assume.”
Hebert described a few scenarios to illustrate his point.
What happens if the Legislature decides to sit on its hands, not allowing the Public Service Board to do anything? Hebert asked. Does the state post guards outside the nuclear plant’s gates to keep workers out after March 2012?
What if Entergy decides to take the state to court and wins? said Hebert, adding that the company, in antagonistic relationship with the state, would have no reason to give Vermont a good power purchase agreement should the plant remain active.
The Public Service Board exists for a reason “and you should rely on them to do their job,” he said.
In addition, Hebert’s bill, if passed, would no longer require legislative approval to store spent fuel at the site if Vermont Yankee continued to operate past 2012.
What are the chances that Hebert’s bill will succeed?
“I just don’t think there’s an appetite to revisit the issue,” said Rep. Sarah Edwards, P/D-Brattleboro, who also serves on the Natural Resources and Energy Committee.
Most people at the Statehouse feel that the vote has been taken, said Edwards, pointing out that only 36 out of the 150 members of the House signed in support of the bill.
Of the 36, Richard Howrigan, D-Fairfield, is the only Democrat. Seven supporters are Republican/Democrats, elected by both respective parties in their respective primaries.
After spending six years on the issue and investing a lot of energy in learning about it, most people have moved on, Edwards said.
But Edwards said that she understands why Vermont Yankee supporters haven’t given up yet.
“You don’t give up until you have to give up,” she said.
Rep. Tony Klein, D-Montpelier, chairman of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said that he respects Hebert and the work he does on behalf of his constituents.
And in the past, he said, the House took up the issue of whether to let the Public Service Board issue a Certificate of Public Good for Vermont Yankee for valid reasons, though the Senate’s vote last year stopped the House from further activity on the issue.
But now the issue is done, Klein said, because for the House to consider revisiting the issue, the Senate would have to reverse its February 2010 vote.
Permalink |
“But Hebert said it’s “improper” for the Legislature to have the power to decide Vermont Yankee’s fate. … “This should not be decided by politicians, myself included,” said Hebert.”
I could not disagree more strongly. This IS an issue for politicians, NOT for regulators. Those making Hebert’s argument want us to rely on bureaucrats and “experts,” when many aspects of these decisions are questions of judgment, not just a straightforward compilation of facts.
In addition, when an issue is as complex as this one, with as many ramifications for the State as this issue has, values need to be balanced against each other. At what risk to other businesses do we try to keep the jobs of VY employees? How much risk are we willing to accept in exchange for lower electric rates (if, in fact, they were forthcoming, which in this case, they aren’t)? Should we as a society be producing electricity and leaving a legacy of nuclear waste — a product which no one in the world has successfully figured out how to store? Should we be supporting an industry whose fuel is mined in unsafe conditions by the most oppressed peoples throughout the world (Australian aborigines, Native Americans, South African blacks, etc.)? Should Vermont accept an inherently dangerous industry which provides false statements to regulators, state panel members, and legislators? Are there better alternatives for providing Vermont’s power? What does “better” mean? Cheaper? Less polluting? More aesthetically pleasing?
These are just a few of the questions which SHOULD and DID arise when considering VY, and they are NOT questions to be left to bureaucrats or “experts.” Of COURSE, experts should be asked to provide detailed testimony about the facts, and indeed, they were. The legislature took dozens of hours of testimony from all kinds of experts, and had access to hundreds of pages of reports from the Department of Public Service (and others) as well as thousands of pages of testimony from the Public Service Board. While Vermont’s press did little to report it, the legislature investigated this issue diligently and intensively before the Senate took its historic vote.
In the end, the Legislature is precisely the place where these decisions are AND SHOULD BE made; and politicians, accountable to constituents, not regulators, are precisely the people who should make them.
Permalink |
Thanks for the excellent post. You make a lot of sense to me.
Permalink |
Especially not when regulators are in the pocket of those they are supposed to regulate.
Permalink |
I have often wondered if Japan’s nuclear reactors were installed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission at a time when local objections to receiving such foreign “aid” from the US could be easily over ruled. In any case, surely nuclear reactors are not part of anybody’s plans now and one can only suppose Mr. Hebert reads the news; or is this another case of Republican disavowal of facts?
Permalink |
I think the State of Vermont has the right to consider safety as well as the public good. The two cannot be separated, in my opinion.
Entergy is a corporation that seems to NOT care about safety. They have not been diligent in going after the leaks, or keeping us , the public informed about what they are doing to keep the plant safe.
I think the corporate thinking is nothing more than GREED!
Permalink |
“I think the State of Vermont has the right to consider safety as well as the public good.”
It doesn’t. I think you mean to say that in your opinion the state SHOULD have the right to consider safety. In fact, that determination is reserved.
The heart of our current political impasse is near-universal indifference to a distinction between fact and opinion, truth and conviction, reality and wishful thinking. They’re argued interchangeably.
Permalink |
CONTINUED OPERATION OF VERMONT YANKEE IS GOOD FOR NEW ENGLAND
The NRC has issued a 20-year license extension. In the US, 17 of 36 plants with BWRs had their license extended from about 40 years to about 60 years. All of the extensions, except one, were for Mark 1 reactors similar to VY.
Entergy, to protect the arbitrary destruction of a multi-billion dollar asset of its shareholders (the replacement cost of VY is about $4 billion) will go to court; lawyers, at $1,000/hr, are smiling. It will be a multi-year, multi-million dollar court case that will ultimately be decided by the conservative Supreme Court where Vermont will likely NOT prevail. Vermont’s legal case to close VY is very “thin”. Some members of the Vermont Law School agree. It would be more prudent to plan for continued operation of VY.
Legislatures, led by politicos out for political gain, can be led in a direction that is harmful to the economic well-being of Vermonters. Example: the Vermont legislature, swayed by well-meaning folks some years ago to declare hydro power as NOT renewable, recently reversed itself and declared hydro power IS renewable, something most of the rest of the world already knew.
A long-term power offer from Entergy similar to that from Hydro-Quebec, plus about $5 million/yr for the Clean Energy Development Fund, plus more diligent cleanup by Vermont Yankee; plus more direct oversight of VY by the Vermont government and more openness by Entergy, will probably set the stage for issuing a Certificate of Public Good by the Vermont Public Service Board.
VY’s direct employment is about 650. Direct payroll with benefits is about $80 million per year. The economic multiplier effect is about three, meaning many businesses in a 25-mile radius from VY will be under significant ADDITIONAL economic pressure and will have to cut staffs; estimates are more than 1,000 employees.
Closing VY will mean this 300 square-mile area will become an economic backwater, just as Windsor, Vermont, became a backwater when companies moved out; Windsor has not recovered after 30 years. Instead of being a significant benefit to the budgets of Massachusetts and Vermont, the VY area will become a significant burden for many years. Vermont’s tax collections will be less by many millions of dollars and payments for unemployment benefits, etc., will be up.
Permalink |
This pathetic effort will go absolutely nowhere. Vermont Yankee’s reactor is the same design as those currently melting down in Japan. Yikes!!
Permalink |
And Hebert represents what district? Ha!
I hope the folks down in Windham County organize to get this guy replaced.
Permalink |
I can agree that with events in Japan there is hysteria around this issue. I can agree that the likelihood of a quake/tsunami event in Vernon is pretty small. However look at most major events in history and the chance of it happening was pretty small. Experts have the knowledge to make an informed decision on the risks involved, they are not able to say what level of risk the public should support. With the consequences of a chance event so high, even if the likelihood is low, and with it so easy to believe Entergy will screw up the response, its going to be hard to trust the experts on this one.
Permalink |
Representative Mike Hebert;
Who do you work for, our enemies or the people to the U.S? THINK ABOUT IT, HOW IS THIS NUCLEAR RADIATION DISASTER AND LEAK ANY DIFFERENT THEN A ISLAMIC TERRORIST BRINGING IN AND SETTING OFF A DIRTY BOMB. I wasn’t even aware of all the problems of Vermont’s Yankee Nuclear Power Plant; the situation in Japan is making everyone pay close attention to Nuclear Power Plants. It is an old antiquated Plant that should be taken offline, and dismantled it is not just Vermont that you need to worry about when a NUCLEAR RADIATION LEAK OCCURES. So you are a freshman Representative, well I will donate all the money I can to ensure that you are recalled and a representative that will protect the citizens of the United States is given the trust of that office. Yes I care about the Jobs related to that community and at Yankee, but we can engineer a safer Nuclear Power Plant AT A SAFER LOCATION.
P.S: I AM ALSO REPUBLICAN, AND I CAN ATTEST THAT YOU GIVE REPUBLICANS A BAD NAME!
Permalink |
Nukes and smokestack technology is on its way out. And not a moment too soon!
Primates usually know enough not to soil their own nests. Hopefully humans will soon catch up to the wisdom of our ape ancestors and stop despoiling our planet for our wasteful energy overconsumption.
Permalink |
Rep. Hebert certainly understands who butters his town’s bread, but let the rest of us understand, in case it’s slipped our minds, that Entergy signed off on this process. Their lawyers vetted it, their executives thought about it, and they signed off on it. Now that they didn’t get their expected result, they want to renege. Typical.
Permalink |
May I offer: supporters tout economic benefits of continued operation of VY; opponents speak of safety, radiation leaks and possible cataclysm. No one adequately factors the logistic ramifications of shutting down the plant because no one yet knows exactly what that will entail (or more accurately when). The arguments are not on the same plane. One assumes the plant is safe, meaning negligible risk of depopulating SE Vermont, adjacent NH & MA, while the other rests on suspicions that the risk is anything but negligible and increases with age.
What’s true? What’s true is that above-ground nuclear reactors are inherently more dangerous alive than dead. A meteorite or commandeered airliner that would otherwise poke a hole in the ground could instead trigger that depopulation. There are all sorts of far-fetched possibilities. How dangerous something is depends on probability and consequences. Here we have low probability with a range of consequences reaching into the unimaginably horrifying. Refusing to imagine the unimaginable is irresponsible. Low probability increases with age, less because of deterioration than simply more opportunity for something unlikely to occur. Given enough time, with fission reactors scattered around the world, uninhabitable areas are inevitable. I should say: increasing numbers of uninhabitable areas.
Much of the current debate is based on nonsense. Fission reactors aren’t perfectly safe, nor are they doomsday machines poisoning everything around them. Operated perfectly, a few will fail before being decommissioned and a few failures will be catastrophic. That’s more likely for reactors perched on faults and more likely still for reactors perched beside the ocean on faults, but no reactor anywhere is proof against catastrophe, natural or deliberate. Every reactor everywhere is generating dangerous and coveted spent fuel that may turn out to be the real hazard, depending on who eventually ends up with it. Whether Vermont rolls the dice that the next disaster, or the disaster after that, will be somewhere else, someone else’s problem, is a real choice and it’s unequivocally a political choice. We have to decide whether we want to roll the dice. We have to decide whether we want to continue contributing to the growing distributed stockpile of fissionable and highly radioactive material generated. We need to listen to the people who know, as well as can be known, what are the real risks, the real benefits. But the decision isn’t of course vs. of course not. It isn’t 233÷(1/√232)=. It’s what size economic benefit are we willing to gamble against how likely a bad end, and how bad might that end be?
In our case, unfortunately, that complicated computation is skewed (or perhaps trumped) by the fact that VY is operated by a company that seems unable to tell the truth. This whole process depends on accurate information and by now we can’t trust a word they say. That doesn’t necessarily mean their operation is or will be less than perfect, but
we’re betting an awful lot on cards we can’t see.
Don’t beat up Rep. Hebert. He’s doing his job. He was hired to try to shift the balance from political consideration (us deciding what’s best for us) to economic consideration (corporations deciding what’s best for them). There are people in Windham Co. who believe that nothing can go wrong with VY and that nothing can replace VY, so what’s good for Entergy is good for them. He represents those people.
Permalink |
many thanks to john greenberg. well said!
Permalink |
“Fission reactors aren’t perfectly safe, nor are they doomsday machines poisoning everything around them. Operated perfectly, a few will fail before being decommissioned and a few failures will be catastrophic”
Solve for “R”
Risk (R) = Probability X Severity
Severity of a loss of cooling accident in a plant running at 120% of design capacity or any event that released the materials in the spent fuel pool would equal INFINITY for VT.
Probably can’t be zero so:
R = Infinity
Permalink |
Representative Mike Hebert, like so many of his colleagues, shoots from the lip and does not do his homework. I guess it’s human to support jobs for your constituents no matter how catastrophic the consequences or, at least, another twenty years of tritium leaks into the ground water. Rep. Hebert thinks we should rely on scientists and not his colleagues to determine a Certificate of Public Good for VY. Here’s a scientist of exceptional qualifications – Frank N. von Hippel in a NYT Op-Ed of March 23: “The nuclear industry is a text book example of “regulatory capture” in which an industry gains control of an agency meant to regulate it!” Professor Hippel is a nuclear physicist, professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, Co-chair of the International Panel on Fissle Material and a former member of The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Would Rep. Hebert consider that qualification enough? So, Rep. Hebert would like the ‘captured’ NRC to decide Vermont fate! As an act of faith in his position I would respectively ask Rep. Hebert to drink a bottle of water drawn from a well within a hundred yards of Vermont Yankee. That would be most convincing of his sincerity.
Permalink |
Normally the Vermont Public Service Board issues Certificates of Public Good.
In case of Vermont Yankee, only the Vermont Senate, by a recorded vote, put the PSB on notice that the PSB does not have the final say regarding VY; this is not a law signed by the governor, only a Senate statement of intent.
VY engages in interstate commerce and as such federal law has precedence.
Permalink |
The utilities have stated for some time now that they can replace the energy lost by the shutting down of Vermont Yankee. In addition I am deeply concerned that folks do not recognize the raw engineering and technological talent along the Connecticut river valley.
Again, the plant was run beyond its design capacity 120% and that in and of itself show that the managment at Entergy is willing to put everyone in the region in grave danger. The fact that it was done with one of the oldest plants in the country is beyond belief. When I discuss this situation with my pro nuclear friends they are all taken by surprise clearly recognizing the danger. The plant’s structural integrity has been permanently compromised and must be shut down.