Did you catch "The Meltdown: Three Mile Island" on Netflix? TMI remains a danger and TMIA is working hard to ensure the safety of our communities and the surrounding areas. Learn more on this site and support our efforts. Join TMIA. To contact the TMIA office, call 717-233-7897.
Subject: Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 - Issuance of Amendment Nos. 286 and 270 Re: Changes to Technical Specifications for Control Rods (EPID L-2023-LLA-0086)
Utility fraud and corruption are threatening the clean energy transition
“The scariest part of this wave of utility scandals is what we don’t know: How many utilities have committed crimes that prosecutors haven’t noticed?” (Image: Generated by Open AI’s Dall E)
At a press conference last month, flanked by sheriffs and attorneys, Ohio Attorney General David Yost announced the indictments of two utility executives who allegedly tried to “hijack” state electricity policy for their own corrupt ends by paying $4.3 million in bribes to Sam Randazzo, then chair of the state Public Utilities Commission. The two men stand accused of trying to bilk taxpayers out of $1.2 billion on behalf of their former employer, FirstEnergy.
This was just the latest in an ongoing criminal probe of utility corruption that reached deep into the Ohio statehouse. Randazzo had been indicted previously by the Department of Justice, accused of working secretly with executives for more than a decade to secure favorable regulations for FirstEnergy—which pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in 2021 for its role in the scandal. Last year, three lobbyists, along with former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal racketeering charges. (Faced with the prospect of years in prison, one of the lobbyists took his own life.) Another utility operating in Ohio, American Electric Power, is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. “Power is inherently seductive and corrosive,” noted a somber Yost, after laying out the latest alleged plot.
The Ohio scandals are no fluke. They are part of a generational resurgence of fraud and corruption in the utility sector, according to a Floodlight analysis of 30 years of corporate prosecutions and federal lawsuits. And they come at a time when trillions of dollars and the health of the planet are at stake as some power companies embrace—while others seek to block—the transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar, and battery storage.
This is to inform the NRC that the activities necessary for closing the transaction between Vistra Operations Company LLC “VistraOps”) and Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. (“EHNC”) have been completed. The proposed transaction will close on March 1, 2024. We will notify you via telephone once we have completed the closing. We request that the NRC issue the conforming license amendments for Beaver Valley 1 & 2, Davis-Besse, and Perry effective March 1, 2024. Let me know if you have any questions.
SUBJECT: Energy Harbor Fleet- Closing of Transaction between Vistra Operations Company LLC and Energy Harbor Nuclear Corporation (Email)
Getting the 240 acres of land at Indian Point restored and redeveloped is a goal for everyone involved. The loss of $33 million in annual tax revenue and 1,000 jobs is devastating for the local community.
Holtec International, the company charged with completing the complex task of safely storing the spent uranium fuel rods, removing all the buildings and disposing of any waste materials, showed a timeline for the overall project at the last public meeting of the Indian Point Decommissioning Oversight Board held on Dec. 6.
What began as a target date of 2033 has now been pushed back to 2041 by Holtec, a delay they claim is caused by a state law passed last year that bans disposing 1.3 million gallons of treated wastewater with traces of radioactive tritium into the Hudson River.
At that December meeting, heated discussions about Holtec’s projected delay took center stage. The representative for Riverkeeper, Richard Webster, and state assemblywoman Dana Levenberg both expressed their frustration and anger that Holtec had not prepared an alternate plan to dispose of the water. A follow-up meeting of the board scheduled for Feb. 29 was canceled and the next meeting will now be held on April 25, when an update on how the water will be dealt with is anticipated.
At the Dec. 6 meeting of the Decommissiong Oversight Board, Holtec was questioned about why they didn’t have an alternative plan for water disposal if they couldn’t discharge into Hudson.
Holtec plans to take the fight to court
General work continues to clean up the site. But Holtec says that because they can’t release the water into the river, their plan to dismantle buildings including the reactor vessels, has been put on hold.
Now a representative for the company says that Holtec plans to pursue approval to dump the water by challenging the law.
“You can assume at some point there will probably be litigation over that,” Patrick O’Brien, a spokesman for Holtec, told The Herald this week.
At the December meeting, Holtec discussed two alternatives they explored for disposing the water but ruled them out. One came from a vendor who proposed but then withdrew an idea of using a chemical process to remove tritium from the wastewater. The other option would have grown a crop of plants with the water and then removed it. O’Brien said the company is also exploring the cost to truck the water off-site.
Holtec is also pursuing a state permit to release the water into the Hudson River. For its 40 years of operation Indian Point’s wastewater was released into the river and monitored before being banned last year.
In an image from Holtec’s presentation at the Dec. meeting, they showed an aerial view of the site on 240 acres in Buchanan. The spent fuel casks are at the top of the photo.
According to a spokesperson for the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the agency continues to work closely with federal regulators, Holtec, local officials, and the State’s Decommissioning Oversight Board to ensure the site is cleaned up in a safe, thorough, and prompt manner.
If a completed application were submitted for the permit, a draft permit would be released for public review and comment.
Holtec must comply with state law, critics say
At the December oversight board meeting, critics of Holtec, featuring heated comments by board members Richard Webster of Riverkeeper and state assemblywoman Dana Levenberg, insisted that the company must abide by the new state law.
“Ultimately, it is Holtec’s responsibility to come up with alternatives to discharging the water, and it is surprising that they failed to have alternative plans ready to go given that there has been a lot of vocal opposition to dumping for nearly a year,” Assemblywoman Levenberg told The Herald.
“Alternatives have been discussed at Decommissioning Oversight Board meetings and among members. At present, I think we should be looking at on-site storage. We have heard at DOB meetings that there are tanks that can store wastewater for many years without leaking, and at the next meeting we are supposed to be hearing from an expert, Arnie Gundersen, who will discuss methods for ensuring the safety of long-term on-site storage for the surrounding community.”
Victoria Leung, the staff attorney for Riverkeeper, echoed the call for onsite storage of the water.
“Riverkeeper’s position, and this has been our position before discharge of the water into the Hudson became illegal, is that wastewater should be stored onsite for a minimum of one half-life. That will give us enough time to figure out what to do with the water after that period and also allow time for technology to evolve,” Leung said.
“Holtec is hoping they can decommission this site for less than what’s in the trust fund so they can take home whatever is left over. At other sites they have mentioned that with inflation they’ve had to wait and leave the money in the fund to draw interest a little bit longer and draw it down later when the financial situation is more favorable.”
Governor Kathy Hochul signed the legislation last August, which is intended to protect the economic vitality of the Hudson River Region by restricting discharges of any radiological substance into the Hudson River in connection with the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant.
“The Hudson River is one of New York’s landmark natural treasures, and it’s critical we stand together to protect it for generations to come,” Governor Hochul said. “My administration remains committed to protecting the economic vitality of the region and working closely with local communities who have advocated so passionately for this cause.”
The Hudson River is one of the nation’s landmark natural treasures said Governor Kathy Hochul. (Photo by Jim Striebich)
“The law aims to safeguard communities in New York’s Hudson Valley region. The Administration will continue to work closely with federal regulators, Holtec, local officials and the State’s Decommissioning Oversight Board to identify feasible and acceptable alternatives of wastewater disposal so that decommissioning Indian Point can continue, jobs can be preserved, and the site can be cleaned up in a safe, thorough, and prompt manner,” the governor said.
Role of the NRC in overseeing nuclear operations
The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversees the monitoring of materials to ensure that operators stay within federal limits before the release of any treated water.
Neil Sheehan, a spokesperson for the NRC, acknowledged that Holtec filed a notice of the delay in decommissioning Indian Point and said the agency does not rule on issues of state vs federal control.
“Typically, if the plant owner decides they want to challenge a state law that on its face appears to preempt federal law, they could bring a challenge,” Sheehan said.
“For now it’s a moot issue because the company has decided they’re not going to do anything with the water for now. They sent us a notification recently that said they’re delaying their decommissioning of Indian Point by eight years and part of that is they want to determine what their strategy is for dealing with the water.”
Sheehan explained how water is typically disposed. “We don’t dictate to the company how they plan to dispose of the water. At Vermont Yankee all the water there is shipped off-site,” he said.
“There aren’t many instances where the decision has been made to store the water onsite. In most cases they are discharging it the way they did during the operational life of the plant, which is typically to the nearest body of water. They put it into a tank, they mix it up, they sample it, and then there is a tremendous amount of dilution that takes place before it goes to the river and then it dissolves further in the river,” Sheehan said.
Another slide from Holtec’s presentation at the Dec. meeting shows what buildings will remain on the site. Buildings with yellow tag represent an electrical power issue. Buildings with a green identifier indicate they will contain liquid waste (LW) and rose tagged buildings will remain to support eventual liquid waste (LW) release.
O’Brien maintains that Holtec would base a potential court challenge on the evidence of the safety of current disposal practices. Environmental advocates point to their evidence that they say disproves that claim.
“It’s somewhat frustrating because it’s a known in the industry that the science behind it has shown that it’s safe with environmental monitoring done at all the sites, said Holtec spokesperson O’Brien.
“Unfortunately it’s become a perception vs science argument which is tough. It’s an emotional response. I get the emotion behind it. Trying to educate people to understand the science behind it is a challenge,” he said.
Jim Roberts has been in this business for more than 35 years (hard to believe) and still learning every day. A third-generation Peekskill resident, he started as a lowly researcher at the Westchester Business Journal in 1986 and learned how to be a reporter from many veterans in the field. He’s worked in private companies, Connecticut state government and wrote for the Co-op City Times for 10 years before retiring from full-time work in 2019. Roberts wants to contribute to building the Herald into a news website for residents who care about what’s happening in Peekskill.
Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist, Beyond Nuclear
Michael Keegan, Co-Chair, Don’t Waste Michigan
Stephen Kent, KentCom LLC
MEDIA ALERT/INVITE TO COVER FOR March 5, 2024
ORAL ARGUMENTS TAKE PLACE MARCH 5 IN LANDMARK DC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CASE CHALLENGING HOLTEC RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMP IN NEW MEXICO
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 5, 2024--
WHAT? Journalists are invited to attend and cover oral arguments in Case Number 20-1187, Beyond Nuclear v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The arguments will be presented on March 5 before a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case challenges NRC licensing of Holtec International's consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for high-level radioactive waste targeted at the Eddy Lea Energy Alliance site, midway between Carlsbad and Hobbs in southeastern New Mexico. Petitioners contend that the Holtec license violates the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and other federal laws. Opening the Holtec facility would trigger unprecedented numbers of shipments of highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel (aka “spent” nuclear fuel) across the country. The Court’s ruling in the case could prevent that and set a far-reaching precedent for the disposition of high-level radioactive waste.
WHO? Attorneys representing petitioners who oppose the Holtec radioactive waste dump licensing and attorneys representing respondents and the intervenor who support it, will each make oral arguments in Court. The Petitioners include Beyond Nuclear; Sierra Club; the national grassroots environmental coalition Don't Waste Michigan, et al.*; Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.; and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners (PBLRO). Federal Respondents include the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America. Holtec is the Respondent Intervenor. The Nuclear Energy Institute is an Amicus Curiae. (See the Court's Feb. 22, 2024 ORDER, for the order of parties' oral arguments.)
WHEN & WHERE? Oral arguments in the case start at 9:30am Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 5, 2024. Each side has been allotted 24 minutes. Journalists are invited to attend and cover.
The arguments will be made before Judges Rao, Walker, and Garcia in Courtroom 31, at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse and William B. Bryant Annex, 333 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001, located one block northwest of the U.S. Capitol. The building faces Constitution Avenue where Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues merge. The courthouse entrances include the 3rd Street Entrance, which is handicap accessible, as well as the John Marshall Park Entrance.
Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Petitioner Beyond Nuclear, will monitor the arguments via the court's live online audio, and can also put journalists in touch with Petitioners’ attorneys on request. His contact information is listed above.
BACKGROUND
The current Case Number 20-1187, Beyond Nuclear v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has been consolidated with D.C. Circuit Court Cases 20-1225, 21-1104, and 21-1147. Here’s a brief summary of how it evolved and the issues it raises:
In March 2017, Holtec applied to NRC for a license to construct and operate a consolidated interim storage facility for up to 173,600 metric tons of highly radioactive commercial irradiated nuclear fuel (aka “spent” nuclear fuel or SNF) and highly radioactive Greater-Than-Class-C "low-level" radioactive waste.
Petitioners opposed to the CISF intervened in the NRC's licensing proceeding regarding Holtec's application. Most also engaged in the environmental scoping and Draft Environmental Impact Statement public comment proceedings, which resulted in many tens of thousands of public comments opposing Holtec's CISF – a record-breaking number for this subject matter. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected all the contentions raised in the licensing proceeding, and effectively discounted most of the comments raised in the National Environmental Policy Act public comment meetings.
Petitioners then filed appeals in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. When the NRC granted Holtec a construction and operation license for its CISF in May 2023, these appeals became ripe for court consideration. Beyond Nuclear's Final Briefs, filed in January 2024, argue that NRC approval of Holtec's license violates the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended (NWPA), and consequently also violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Beyond Nuclear's legal counsel has taken the lead on this argument, although the other Petitioners opposed to NRC's license approval for Holtec's CISF have also raised it.
Don't Waste Michigan, et al., Sierra Club, Fasken, and PBLRO have raised numerous additional arguments, alleging issuance of the license violates the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal laws.
The State of New Mexico has submitted a Friend of the Court Brief on behalf of Petitioners opposed to Holtec's CISF. The City of Fort Worth, Texas also filed a Friend of the Court Brief on behalf of the Petitioners opposed to Holtec's CISF, which focuses on the safety and security risks of transporting high-level radioactive waste to New Mexico, via Texas.
NOTE TO EDITORS AND PRODUCERS -- The documents mentioned in this alert as well as other briefs, filings, and documents pertaining to the case are available on request. For copies of documents, or for further information or interviews, please contact Kevin Kamps at Beyond Nuclear, (240) 462-3216, kevin@beyondnuclear.org.
*Don't Waste Michigan, et al., includes: Don't Waste Michigan (MI); Citizens' Environmental Coalition (NY); Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (MI); Nuclear Energy Information Service (IL); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (CA); and Demand Nuclear Abolition (NM), formerly known as Nuclear Issues Study Group.
-30-
Beyond Nuclear is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization. Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear. Beyond Nuclear: 7304 Carroll Avenue, #182, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Info@beyondnuclear.org. www.beyondnuclear.org.
--
Kevin Kamps Radioactive Waste Specialist Beyond Nuclear 7304 Carroll Avenue, #182 Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic.
NRC Issues Annual Assessments for Nation’s Nuclear Plants
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued annual letters to the nation’s operating commercial nuclear reactors assessing their performance in 2023.
Of the 94 reactors currently in the agency’s Reactor Oversight Process, 88 reached the highest performance category in safety and security. Those reactors (including Vogtle Unit 4, which was authorized for operation last year) remain under the NRC’s “baseline” inspection program, involving thousands of inspection hours for each reactor.
Six reactors were in the second performance category, as they need to resolve one or two items of low safety significance. For this performance level, regulatory oversight includes additional inspection and follow-up of corrective actions. Reactors in this category are Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 (Maryland), Columbia (Washington), River Bend (Louisiana), V.C. Summer (South Carolina); and Watts Bar Units 1 and 2 (Tennessee).
There were no reactors in the third or fourth categories, which trigger additional NRC oversight, or the fifth category, which requires a reactor to shut down to address its performance problems.
Later this spring and summer, the NRC will host public meetings or other events to discuss the details of the plants’ annual assessment results. Separate announcements will be issued for the public assessment meetings.
The NRC’s website outlines oversight of commercial nuclear power on the Reactor Oversight Process page. The NRC routinely updates each plant’s current performance and posts the latest information as it becomes available to the action matrix summary. Assessment letters are posted at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/oversight/listofasmrpt.html (click on “2023006” for each plant). All plants also received an NRC inspection plan for the coming year in their annual assessment letter.
