$(document).ready(function() { $(window).scroll(function() { if ($('body').height() <= ($(window).height() + $(window).scrollTop()+500)) { $('#upnext').css('display','block'); }else { $('#upnext').css('display','none'); } }); });
Not-for-Profit, Award-Winning Community News and Views for Windham County, Vermont • Since 2006

On Vermont Yankee, Welch calls for transparency, expediency

U.S. representative asks NRC to allow more state and local input in decommissioning, but federal agency stands firm on allowing long-range SAFSTOR plan

BRATTLEBORO—Facing the four overseers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during a Sept. 9 hearing, U.S. Rep. Peter Welch saw an opportunity to ask about Vermont Yankee.

His two primary questions: Can the NRC allow more state and local input on nuclear-plant decommissioning? And can the federal government hasten the decades-long cleanup at VY?

The NRC’s answers were, respectively, “maybe,” and “no.”

In the most telling exchange between commission Chairman Stephen Burns and Vermont’s sole representative in the House, Burns said the NRC won’t attempt to influence Yankee’s decommissioning schedule under the extended dormancy program called SAFSTOR.

“You understand that there’s a huge price that the community pays for that?” Welch asked. “You basically have this very important facility and location — in this case, along the banks of the Connecticut River — that essentially cannot be used or developed.”

Burns replied: “Essentially, the options are primarily SAFSTOR or going to a more immediate decommissioning. But again, the NRC, because it has found either of those options to be a safe option, we don’t compel one versus the other.”

The conversation happened during a joint hearing in Washington of two subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee: Environment and the Economy, and Energy and Power. Welch sits on the latter subcommittee, whose hearing’s topic was “Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

Eight months after Vermont Yankee ceased producing power in Vernon, many have had questions about the NRC’s oversight of the decommissioning process. At the Sept. 9 hearing, Welch echoed a common complaint about public participation in that process: “how extensive will that be, or how limited will it be?”

Welch mentioned a recent NRC teleconference “that lasted several hours. About 2{1/2} hours were devoted to hearing from the [Nuclear Energy Institute], which was essentially [Vermont Yankee owner] Entergy, and only 20 minutes from the Vermont Public Service Department.”

Advocating for a seat at the table

“How extensive[ly] are you going to allow legitimate public representatives to have a seat at the table?” Welch asked.

“Right now, it appears to be almost limited to the public comment period, and I’m sure you read the comments and take those comments into account,” he said.

“But when there’s an actual discussion, having our attorney general or a Public Service Department that’s appointed by our governor — and certainly community representatives from the southern Vermont area — is really consequential to considering [...] the decisions you’re going to make.”

In particular, Welch cited “the decisions your commission must make about the use of the decommissioning fund.”

That’s a controversial topic, given that the size of that trust fund dictates how soon Vermont Yankee is cleaned up.

The state is challenging several of Entergy’s proposed uses of the fund, including property tax payments and spent-fuel management.

At the NRC hearing, Welch called for “strict monitoring and limited uses of the decommissioning fund itself.”

“There’s an inherent conflict, to some extent, between the merchant generator — in this case, Entergy — which wants to put as many costs on [the decommissioning fund] as possible, and the community, which wants strict limitations related to managing the radioactive contamination situation,” Welch said.

Burns’ initial response defended the NRC’s public-input policies: “What the NRC tries to do is ensure through its part of its oversight program that there are opportunities for public engagement, public information, and the like.”

Later, though, Welch appealed to his fellow representatives by noting that the implications of the NRC’s policies reach well beyond Vermont.

“This is going to face all of us who have any kind of nuclear facility,” Welch said. “And having a legitimate way for the community to be heard through their representatives, I think, is absolutely essential to the decommissioning process.”

In response, NRC Commissioner Jeff Baran said the agency is drafting new regulations regarding decommissioning.

“We now have initiated a rule-making to take a fresh look at a number of these issues, including what is the appropriate role for state and local governments and the public,” Baran said. “Is the current level of public participation adequate?”

After the hearing, Welch spokeswoman Kirsten Hartman issued a statement focusing on that pledge.

“Following up on this testimony, the congressman will be sending a letter to the NRC to ensure that they follow through on this commitment,” Hartman wrote in an e-mail.

NRC: SAFSTOR is legitimate

But on the topic of Yankee’s decommissioning schedule, Welch received no such assurances.

The NRC mandates that, under the SAFSTOR program, decommissioning must be completed within 60 years of a plant’s shutdown. Money is a big factor in how that will play out in Vernon: Yankee’s decommissioning fund now holds about $636 million, and Entergy says it will need $1.2 billion to complete the task.

Welch said putting Yankee in SAFSTOR “means that site restoration is going to be postponed literally for generations, and there’s a real big question as to whether or not we should try to proceed with decommissioning sooner rather than later — in five years rather than 60 years.”

The extended schedule is “something that’s of enormous concern to our governor, down to the Selectboards,” he said.

But Burns essentially said the ancillary effects of SAFSTOR are not within NRC’s purview.

“Our regulations allow for different options for decommissioning, and that includes SAFSTOR,” Burns said. “From the NRC’s standpoint and the safety standpoint, we believe that that is a safe and legitimate way to go. Whether other means — for example, a more immediate decommissioning — occur is probably more a matter of the dialog between the state and the company itself, because we have found that SAFSTOR is legitimate.”

Asked for comment on the NRC-Welch exchange, Entergy spokesman Martin Cohn reiterated that “Vermont Yankee will follow the NRC’s approved SAFSTOR process, where the facility is maintained and monitored in a safe condition, and the decontamination and dismantling of the station occurs later.”

Cohn also hinted at the federal government’s obligation to find a central repository for spent nuclear fuel — an obligation the government is nowhere near meeting at this point.

“With regard to the use of the decommissioning trust fund, Entergy continues to be compliant with all regulatory requirements,” Cohn wrote in an email.

“We appreciate Congressman Welch’s interest in safely completing the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee and look forward to Congressman Welch working with his colleagues to move forward on the issue of spent-fuel management, a vital element of the decommissioning process.”

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!

We rely on the donations and financial support of our readers to help make The Commons available to all. Please join us today.

What do you think? Leave us a comment

Editor’s note: Our terms of service require you to use your real names. We will remove anonymous or pseudonymous comments that come to our attention. We rely on our readers’ personal integrity to stand behind what they say; please do not write anything to someone that you wouldn’t say to his or her face without your needing to wear a ski mask while saying it. Thanks for doing your part to make your responses forceful, thoughtful, provocative, and civil. We also consider your comments for the letters column in the print newspaper.


We are currently reconfiguring our comments software. Please check back if you’d like to read or leave comments on this story. —The editors

Originally published in The Commons issue #323 (Wednesday, September 16, 2015). This story appeared on page A4.

Share this story


Related stories

More by Mike Faher