Energy

Vermont delegation clashes with nuclear industry

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is joined by Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee field hearing on opiate addiction held in Rutland on Monday, March 17, 2014. Photo by Laura Krantz/VTDigger
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., left, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt. File photo by Laura Krantz/VTDigger
VERNON — As the federal government works to come up with new rules for decommissioning nuclear plants like Vermont Yankee, U.S. Rep. Peter Welch can distill his hopes into two words.

“We’re trying to say over and over again: ‘community involvement, community involvement, community involvement,’” said Welch, D-Vt.

He doesn’t believe the nuclear industry has the same goals. That’s why he and 14 other federal lawmakers — including Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. — have sent a letter to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressing their concerns about the industry’s recent lobbying.

The Nuclear Energy Institute is pushing for “limited scope” rulemaking that does not, for instance, mandate increased state and local input in decommissioning. But the lawmakers’ letter contends that approach “risks prioritizing the concerns of the nuclear industry over those of our constituents.”

“This feels very much like a brazen effort by the (nuclear) industry to jump ahead of the line,” Welch said Tuesday.

Vermont Yankee was a divisive presence in the state during its 42-year run as an operating nuclear facility. The end of power production at the Vernon plant, however, signaled a new era of conflict.

Issues — often pitting Vermont officials against plant owner Entergy, the NRC or both — have included the proper uses of the plant’s decommissioning trust fund, the scope of emergency planning and the timing of decommissioning.

Those conflicts have stemmed partly from a lack of clear federal regulations for decommissioning nuclear plants. Rather, nuclear licensees are forced to seek a variety of license amendments and regulatory exemptions to make changes after their plants shut down.

So the NRC has started a yearslong process to come up with better decommissioning rules, with officials saying the agency “understands that the decommissioning process can be improved and made more efficient and predictable.”

Neil Sheehan
Neil Sheehan. File photo from The Commons

It’s an opportunity for everyone with an interest in decommissioning — including activists, governmental officials and plant operators — to try to shape that process. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission has received more than 170 comments on rulemaking.

As could be expected, there is plenty of disagreement. For example, Vermont officials pushed for more financial regulation of decommissioning nuclear operators, while the Nuclear Energy Institute — a Washington, D.C.-based industry group — countered that such regulations are unnecessary.

The institute argues that there’s already a “proven regulatory framework” for decommissioning and no need for wholesale change. The group is asking the NRC only to adopt clear regulations so plant operators don’t have to undertake costly, time-consuming license amendments and regulatory exemptions.

In a Sept. 16 letter addressed to NRC Chairman Stephen Burns, Welch and his colleagues aren’t buying it. “We are concerned by recent requests calling on the NRC to narrow the scope of this rulemaking,” the lawmakers wrote.

The legislative group — consisting of Vermont’s delegation, 11 lawmakers from Massachusetts and one from Illinois — lay out their vision for better nuclear plant decommissioning. Their requests include:

• Community involvement should be enhanced, in part by requiring plant operators to include state and local officials’ input in their decommissioning plans.

• Decommissioning trust funds should be used “strictly for statutorily authorized purposes.”

• Spent nuclear fuel must be moved into sealed dry casks “as quickly as possible.”

• All of a plant’s emergency capabilities should remain in place until that fuel transfer takes place.

• A former nuclear site should be “returned to beneficial use promptly, instead of decades after the plant ceases operations.” The federally approved program called SAFSTOR currently allows decommissioning to take up to six decades.

In their letter, the lawmakers argue that “delaying consideration of these important issues would hamper the NRC’s proper goal of comprehensively reviewing and revising the rules that govern the decommissioning process.”

Welch has been heavily involved in the decommissioning debate via his seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over nuclear issues. “The rulemaking process is underway,” Welch said Tuesday. “We have had some positive signals from the NRC that they would take very seriously our request about local government participation.”

But Welch is concerned that the Nuclear Energy Institute “is wanting to basically bifurcate the rulemaking process” and overlook his requests. Welch equates it to “the industry charging ahead and the community falling behind.”

Rod McCullum, a Nuclear Energy Institute senior director who handles decommissioning issues, doesn’t see that as a fair assessment. The changes proposed in the congressional letter, McCullum argues, actually would hamper decommissioning by making it more expensive and less efficient.

“Let’s fix this in a way that makes it more efficient so we can get to what the community and the utility are both interested in, which is safe and timely decommissioning,” McCullum said.

“We’d love to work with the signatories of this letter in that direction,” he added. “But we must look at the unintended consequences as well.”

Sheehan said the NRC is not taking a stance on the legislative letter, as staff members are still reviewing the many comments submitted on decommissioning rulemaking.

He cautioned that the work of creating new regulations for decommissioning nuclear plants will not be quick. At this point, the agency’s schedule calls for a final decommissioning rule to be presented in 2019 to NRC commissioners, who must vote before it can take effect.

“We have made clear that the decommissioning rulemaking process will take several years, which is not unusual for the development of new regulations given all of the steps involved,” Sheehan said.


If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

Mike Faher

Recent Stories

  • Jessie McIndoe

    I laughed out loud when I read this. More public involvement indeed! Coming from the gang of three that has stifled public involvement in energy projects in Vermont for years. The hypocrisy is astounding as is the fact that Peter Welch’s wife, Margaret Cheney, who sits on Vermont’s Public Service Board, has been blocking public involvement in PSB operations since she was planted there by Shumlin.

    How many times have stories appeared here about the PSB shutting the people out of a say in energy projects? I have lost count. Time for some real changes in our DC delegation before the rest of the Green Mountain Nation Forest turns into a Spanish-owned industrial wasteland.

  • This entire article speaks woefully for the many years of active power generation when decommissioning matters should have been decided, legislated, and put into prepared planning. I have to include ALL players in that statement, since I spent quite a few years within the second emergency circle out from Vernon as a first responder, and we weren’t among those who were integral to the Vernon primary evac/emergency plan. In other words, I thought this plant flew much a plane without oxygen masks and seat-belts for quite awhile! Amazing how a money stream can take so much precedent over an entire river that flows south past a couple million people…