[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9593-9594]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             NUCLEAR POWER

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to say a word about a critical 
issue for the State of Vermont and for my State's energy future, and 
that deals with the Vermont Yankee nuclear powerplant. The Vermont 
Yankee nuclear powerplant is one of 23 plants in our country with the 
same design--General Electric Mark One--as the Fukushima plants that 
have experienced partial or perhaps full meltdowns in Japan.
  All of us feel terribly about what has happened in Japan, and our 
hearts go out to that struggling country. But at the same time, in our 
Nation, we also have some very disturbing developments regarding 
nuclear power, and I wish to touch this afternoon on two of them.
  The first is, we have a situation in the State of Vermont in which a 
powerful $14 billion energy company called Entergy is trying to force 
the people of my State to keep an aging and troubled nuclear reactor 
open for another 20 years. This is a plant that is 40 years old. They 
want to keep it open for another 20 years. The Vermont Yankee plant's 
original 40-year license expires in March of 2012, and I firmly believe 
40 years is enough. But that is not just my opinion.
  Vermont, uniquely, thanks in part to an agreement between the State 
and Entergy when it purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002, has asserted its 
authority through our State legislature to decide whether Vermont 
Yankee should operate beyond March of 2012. The Vermont State Senate, 
representing the wishes of the people of our State, voted on a 
bipartisan basis, 26 to 4--26 to 4--not to grant an extension of the 
license of that plant. The law is clear that States have the right to 
reject nuclear power for economic reasons, and that is exactly what the 
Vermont State Senate did in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.
  We know Vermont Yankee has had serious problems in the last several 
years, including a collapse of its cooling towers in 2007 and 
radioactive tritium leaks in 2005 and 2010. The tritium leaks came from 
pipes plant officials claimed under oath did not exist.
  In support of the Vermont legislature's decision, the Vermont 
congressional delegation has been clear that Entergy should respect 
Vermont's laws. In other words, what we are saying--the delegation 
here--is that Entergy should respect the laws of the State of Vermont 
and what our State senate has done. However, just last week, we learned 
that Entergy's well-paid corporate lobbyists and lawyers have been 
meeting in secret with Federal agencies, including the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission staff, pushing the Federal Government to 
intervene in the lawsuit Entergy filed against Vermont. Entergy wants 
the Federal Government to take up its extreme argument that Vermont's 
right to decide its own energy future is preempted by Federal nuclear 
safety laws.
  It so happens that NRC Chairman Greg Jazcko, who is, in my view, a 
fairminded public servant, does not agree with Entergy. He told me last 
week at a Senate hearing that ``I see nothing that would tell me that 
there's a preemption issue here.'' He said in a conversation with 
reporters that Vermont had a ``role to play in determining Vermont 
Yankee's future'' and that he ``doubted the NRC would do anything to 
interfere with the state's process.'' I believe the Chairman's position 
is correct. The NRC regulates safety--safety--although some Vermonters 
believe they do not do that very well. Nevertheless, it is not the 
arbiter of political or legal disputes between a powerful energy 
company and the State of Vermont. That is not the business of the NRC.
  So I was very surprised to learn last week that against the 
Chairman's public recommendation, the NRC voted in secret, by a 3-to-2 
margin, to tell the Department of Justice to intervene on Entergy's 
behalf. When I questioned the NRC's Commissioners at a hearing last 
week, they refused to tell us how they voted. Several of them admitted 
they had not even read the major 1983 Supreme Court opinion on this 
issue--a case between PG&E v. California, where the Supreme Court 
said--and I quote an important point regarding States rights and 
nuclear energy. This is the quote from the Supreme Court:

       The promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished 
     ``at all costs.'' The elaborate licensing and safety 
     provisions and the continued preservation of state regulation 
     in traditional areas belie that. Moreover, Congress has 
     allowed the states to determine--as a matter of economics--
     whether a nuclear plant vis-a-vis a fossil fuel plant should 
     be built. The decision of California to exercise that 
     authority does not, in itself, constitute a basis for 
     preemption. . . . the legal reality remains that Congress has 
     left sufficient authority in the states to allow the 
     development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for 
     economic reasons.

  That is the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1983.
  I reminded the NRC at that hearing, and do so again today, that this 
lawsuit is none of their business, and their getting involved damages 
the credibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC opted to 
relicense Vermont Yankee based on safety, and that is where their 
concern and authority begins and ends. The main point is this: The NRC 
does not represent the people of Vermont and has no right to tell us 
what kind of energy future we will have. The people of Vermont 
believe--and I agree--that our future lies significantly with energy 
efficiency and sustainable energy. Today, I renew my call on the floor 
of the Senate for the Federal Government to stay out of this case. 
Entergy is a $14 billion corporation. They have all kinds of lobbyists 
and they make all kinds of campaign contributions. They don't need the 
help of the Federal Government.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased the Senator took to the floor to speak 
to the American people about what they are going through in his State. 
I am not as familiar with the condition of the nuclear powerplant, so I 
will not go there. I trust my friend's judgment. There are some serious 
issues raised--a different design of the plant--and the fact that it is 
close or identical to the design of the plant in Japan that had all the 
issues. Here is the point. I support the Senator. I was proud of the 
way he questioned the issues.
  I will pose a question to the Senator. Isn't it true that there is a 
lot of talk around Washington about how States rights should be 
protected?
  Mr. SANDERS. I tell my good friend from California, day after day, we 
hear from some of our colleagues how they don't trust the Federal 
Government and they don't want the Federal Government getting involved 
in the issues impacting their constituents. So the answer to the 
Senator's question is yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Building on that, isn't it true that the NRC--as we have 
learned by reading their founding documents--is an independent 
commission; isn't that a fact?
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes, that is true.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, given those two points, plus the ones 
my friend made, it seems untenable that the NRC, which is supposed to 
be an independent agency, would assert itself into a matter between the 
State of Vermont and a private company. I just say, as chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, how strongly I support what the 
Senator is trying to do, which is to allow his State to, frankly, have 
a say over something as important as the economics surrounding energy. 
My friend knows we work hard in this day and age to make sure America 
can leap forward and save energy and lead the world and invent 
alternatives.
  In light of what happened in Japan, this becomes more and more 
important. I hope my friend will take heart and know that this chairman 
of the committee stands with him on this battle.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Boxer for her thoughts and the 
extraordinary leadership she is providing on the Environment Committee.
  I think everyone understands that the function of the NRC is very 
simple. It is to make sure the 104 nuclear powerplants in this country 
run as safely as possible. That is their job. Their job is not to tell 
the State of Vermont or the State of California or the State of 
Pennsylvania what future they might

[[Page 9594]]

want to pursue in terms of energy. They are not supposed to be a 
proponent of the nuclear industry. That is not their job. Their job is 
to make sure our nuclear plants are being run safely. So in terms of 
economics, the people of Vermont or any other State in this country 
have the right to determine what the future of nuclear powerplants is 
in their State. What our State is saying is, after 40 years, we want to 
shut down Vermont Yankee. We want to move in a new direction that we 
think benefits our State. We do not want the Department of Justice to 
intervene in this case, where Entergy is suing Vermont.
  Let me conclude, while we are on the issue of nuclear power, and 
point out that the Associated Press recently revealed that 48 out of 65 
nuclear power sites in this country have leaked radioactive tritium, 
and Vermont Yankee is one of those sites. Thirty-seven facilities had 
leaks at levels that violated Federal drinking water standards, and 
some leaks have migrated off the sites, contaminating private wells, 
although none is yet known to have contaminated public drinking water 
supplies.
  These allegations by the Associated Press are extremely disturbing. 
Safety at our nuclear plants should be the most important priority at 
the NRC, particularly after what we saw happen in Japan. The function 
of the NRC is not to represent the nuclear power industry; it is to 
represent the needs of the people of the United States.
  That is why I will be working as a member of the Environment 
Committee, which has oversight over the NRC, with our chairperson, 
Senator Barbara Boxer, and others on the committee who are interested 
in this issue, to call for a GAO investigation of the allegations made 
by the Associated Press. We need to determine whether it is true that 
the NRC is systematically working with the industry to undermine safety 
standards for aging plants in order to keep them operating.
  Let me conclude by mentioning that around the world there is growing 
concern about the dangers of nuclear power, and I think that concern 
has been heightened by the terrible tragedy in Japan. It is important 
to note that Germany has decided to close all 17 nuclear plants in the 
next decade and not to build any new ones. They are getting out of the 
nuclear business. Switzerland is also phasing out nuclear power. In 
Italy, just a few weeks ago, 94 percent of the people voted in an 
election against restarting the nuclear power industry.
  Here in the United States, some States are moving in the same 
direction. In addition to Vermont, New York, led by Governor Cuomo, 
wants the Indian Point plant shut down. Massachusetts is supporting 
Vermont in its lawsuit to preserve States rights to decide their own 
energy future, and I believe other States will support us as well.
  The bottom line--and the law supports this--is that if States such as 
Vermont want to move away from aging and troubled nuclear reactors and 
to a sustainable energy future, we have the right to do that. I will 
fight tooth and nail to protect that right.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

                          ____________________