It’s no surprise and it’s not over yet!
On February 26, 2013, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office lost a bid to force the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to consider new information about the risks to the public safety and the environment from Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear reactor. View the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals decision here
The Attorney General tried to argue that Fukushima nuclear disaster revealed new information about high level nuclear waste spent fuel pool fires and core damage events that should be considered before Pilgrim was allowed to be relicensed for another 20 years. These “events” would release large amounts of radioactive material throughout the region, with unimaginable consequences.
The Court ruled in favor of Entergy and the NRC, and would not let the AG proceed with the challenge. No surprise there! Winning a court case against the NRC and the nuclear industry is extremely difficult. This is because the law that created the NRC, called the Atomic Energy Act, gives the NRC expansive powers to make the rules about who can challenge their decisions. As the Court said, the Atomic Energy Act is “a regulatory scheme which is virtually unique in the degree to which broad responsibility is reposed in the administering agency [the NRC]….” The Act is pro-industry, and the NRC, in making more rules (called regulations) on who can challenge its decisions, has taken that mission to heart: protect the industry, shut out public interest advocates.
In the February 26 decision, the Court said the AG did not meet the standards of the NRC procedural laws for getting a hearing on the safety issues. The Court also said the AG could not challenge the Pilgrim relicensing under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires the NRC to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts.
The Court’s decision by no means says Pilgrim is “safe.” In fact, the Court said the NRC still has to make Entergy fix numerous defects at Pilgrim, even though Pilgrim has been relicensed until 2032. There are three types of defects at Pilgrim the NRC is thinking of making Entergy fix as a result of Fukushima: lack of filtered vents for emergencies, inadequate ways to figure out the water level in the spent fuel pool, and inadequate core cooling containment. As we speak, industry is lobbying the NRC to say no fixes, claiming they are too expensive and unwarranted. Today, the New York Times wrote about this: Post-Fukushima, Arguments for Nuclear Safety Bog Down
The NRC isn’t the only one who gets to say how Pilgrim operates, however. State and local officials have a say, too. Entergy must meet state and local environmental and zoning laws. Admittedly, state and local authority over Pilgrim is limited, but it does exist. Unfortunately, Massachusetts state regulators are taking a hands off approve on Entergy’s water pollution. Other officials are looking the other way while Entergy is building a $165 million nuclear waste storage facility without proper permits. Vermont and New York officials have been much more active in trying to protect the public from Entergy’s nuclear reactors in those states.
Politicians at the state and federal level are discussing new laws to address the nuclear waste and other issues. Today, The Hill reported that Ohio Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden expects a draft nuclear waste bill shortly. Sen. Wyden is quote as saying, “I call the nuclear waste issue one of those issues that feels like the longest running battle since the Trojan War, and I think it’s time to get on with it.” Massachusetts state legislators have also announced legislation to deal with Pilgrim. Let’s hope these legislators can “get on with it.”
Meanwhile, back in Manomet, Entergy is going to being refueling Pilgrim in March or April. This means Entergy is going to bring in more nuclear fuel rods so that it can continue to run — and make even more nuclear waste.
Concerned residents across the region are telling federal, state, and local officials that enough is enough… and its time to act.