GROUPS TAKES BELLEFONTE FIGHT TO A HIGHER COURT
Yesterday the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League filed a Petition for Review in the US Court of Appeals of the Bellefonte nuclear power plant in Alabama. The League seeks judicial review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s reinstatement of construction permits for two nuclear reactors, the so-called Bellefonte 1 and 2.
The League’s petition relies in part on a statement from a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who voted against the Bellefonte Construction Permit. In January Commissioner Jaczko wrote, “There is an inherent danger in ignoring this obvious fact. Licenses exist for a purpose. We use them to fulfill our statutory mandate of protecting the public health and safety.”
Local residents supporting the League’s petition criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s action. Louise Gorenflo, of the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team in Chattanooga, said, “NRC’s mission is to protect public health. But they’re bending over backwards to accommodate TVA and ignoring their role as regulators.”
The League’s Science Director, Louis Zeller, said, “TVA has cannibalized its original plant, rendering it useless. The off-again, on-again history of this plant, the uncertain management, and the unprecedented reinstatement add up to a situation which is both dangerous and illegal.”
James B. Dougherty authored the March 30th petition to the court. This month the League hired Mr. Dougherty to work with them on the Bellefonte challenge.
The Bellefonte construction permit was first issued in 1974; construction was halted twice, in 1985 and 1994, before the permit was withdrawn in 2005. Since then, salvage operations have removed valuable components such as stainless steel pipes.
Yesterday the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League filed a Petition for Review in the US Court of Appeals of the Bellefonte nuclear power plant in Alabama. The League seeks judicial review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s reinstatement of construction permits for two nuclear reactors, the so-called Bellefonte 1 and 2.
The League’s petition relies in part on a statement from a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who voted against the Bellefonte Construction Permit. In January Commissioner Jaczko wrote, “There is an inherent danger in ignoring this obvious fact. Licenses exist for a purpose. We use them to fulfill our statutory mandate of protecting the public health and safety.”
Local residents supporting the League’s petition criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s action. Louise Gorenflo, of the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team in Chattanooga, said, “NRC’s mission is to protect public health. But they’re bending over backwards to accommodate TVA and ignoring their role as regulators.”
The League’s Science Director, Louis Zeller, said, “TVA has cannibalized its original plant, rendering it useless. The off-again, on-again history of this plant, the uncertain management, and the unprecedented reinstatement add up to a situation which is both dangerous and illegal.”
James B. Dougherty authored the March 30th petition to the court. This month the League hired Mr. Dougherty to work with them on the Bellefonte challenge.
The Bellefonte construction permit was first issued in 1974; construction was halted twice, in 1985 and 1994, before the permit was withdrawn in 2005. Since then, salvage operations have removed valuable components such as stainless steel pipes.
Points of Contact:
Louis Zeller (336) 982-2691 office, (336) 977-0852 cell
Louise Gorenflo (931) 484-2633
James Dougherty (202) 488-1140
Louis Zeller (336) 982-2691 office, (336) 977-0852 cell
Louise Gorenflo (931) 484-2633
James Dougherty (202) 488-1140
>
Update April 1, 2009:
Interesting Article in this mornings Scottsboro Daily Sentinel newspaper. Headline Reads: "Group Tries To Block Bellefonte," true. What is not true is this statement in the article, refering to Units 1 & 2 Construction Permits, "The Commission voted 3-1 in February to reinstate construction permits..." that is not true and reflects the continuing stream of propaganda being pandered to the citizens about this project.
>
Interesting Article in this mornings Scottsboro Daily Sentinel newspaper. Headline Reads: "Group Tries To Block Bellefonte," true. What is not true is this statement in the article, refering to Units 1 & 2 Construction Permits, "The Commission voted 3-1 in February to reinstate construction permits..." that is not true and reflects the continuing stream of propaganda being pandered to the citizens about this project.
>
The truth is, not one, none, zilch, zero, -0- votes of approval were given to reinstate the construction permits. The vote results of the 4 NRC Commissioners were: 1-disapproved and 3 voted both disapproved and approved. There was NO VOTE OF APPROVAL. The single disapproved voter stated, "...there is an inherent danger in ignoring the obvious fact. Licenses exist for a purpose. We use them to fulfill our statutory mandate of protecting the public health and safety." This statement was made due to the NRC's policy concerning terminated and deferred status which states, "... a terminated plant is a nuclear power plant at which the licensee has announced that construction has been permanently stopped, but which still has a valid construction permit." There is no valid construction permit for Bellefonte Units 1 & 2, it was cancelled by the TVA. This policy statement was highlighted in COMMISSIONER SVINICKI's comments and rulings. The Commissioners which voted with Commissioner Svinicki's "disapproved-approved" vote each stated an agreement with her position.
>
>
It is significant that the NRC Staff Reviewer noted there could be no return to a terminated or deferred status of the Construction Permit as there is no Construction License in existence as required by NRC Policy as it was cancelled by the TVA.
>
>
However, the NRC Staff and the 3 Commissioners voting "approved-disapproved," with no single vote of approval, went ahead over the objections of the Senior Staff Reviewer and Commissioner Jaczko's protest and moved to reinstate a non-existing construction permit and placed the TVA's non-existant, previously cancelled permit into a terminated status in violation of the NRC's Policy and Regulatory Guidance.
>
This is the reason this case will be heard in the Federal Court System. It is also the reason the 3 Commissioners voted "approved-disapproved." There was no legal form or fashion they could vote Approved as there was no Construction Permit/License in existence, it had been cancelled.
>
The 3 errant Commissioners schemed to violate NRC Policy and circumvent procedures in the Nuclear Licensing Process. The question now arises, did the 3 Commissioners actions violate the Atomic Energy Act?
2 comments:
How can three commissioners vote both approve and disapprove? That's like a US Senator getting up and voting yea and nay at the same time. How would they record the vote? You make no sense on this one.
I make no sense? You may blame that on the NRC, 3 Commissioners voted both approve and disapprove, 1 voted disapprove to reinstate the non-existant (License was cancelled 2 years ago by TVA.) Construction Permit/License.
Post a Comment