Vermont Yankee has new case against the state of VT
Posted in the Brattleboro Forum
#1 Jul 7, 2013
#2 Jul 7, 2013
More permit challenges ahead
Several legal experts said that although many of the implications of the ruling are unclear, one thing is certain: There will likely be a rise in lawsuits challenging monetary conditions attached to land-use permits.
Over time, Beard said, agencies will likely incorporate the Nollan and Dolan standard when weighing permit applications.
Landowners who currently disagree with terms placed on their permits have another strong arrow in their quiver, he said, and that may lead to a flood of new litigation.
Other wetland mitigation experts, however, cautioned that mitigation requirements -- even off-site -- should stand up if they follow current national and state standards.
Jan Goldman-Carter of the National Wildlife Federation said current guidelines, if implemented correctly, would satisfy the Nollan and Dolan standard.
The "bottom line is that the majority opinion accepts wetland mitigation as a legitimate government policy and does not disparage or question off-site wetland mitigation or other wetland mitigation conditions," said Goldman-Carter, who wrote an amicus brief in the case.
"The court does not reject or question the case we made ... that such conditions would meet the nexus and rough proportionality tests of Nollan-Dolan if they are applied."
But Pidot said the ruling could have ramifications beyond land-use and mitigation permits.
For example, say EPA is considering a Clean Air Act permit for a new power plant. The agency may require that the facility install scrubbers to reduce hazardous air emissions. But that takes money, so is that condition also subject to the Nollan and Dolan standard?
"The murky area is how broad is the rule that the court's articulating," Pidot said. "The court is clearly saying that when a government demands a payment in exchange for a permit, that falls under this framework. But what happens when the government requires a landowner to do something that only requires the expenditure of money?"
Justice Elena Kagan and the court's liberal wing disagreed with Alito's interpretation and, writing the court's dissent, said the majority ruling is much too sweeping. Koontz should not have prevailed, she wrote, because the water district "never demanded anything" in return for the permit -- it only presented him options -- and, second, no taking occurred because Koontz never agreed to anything and no property changed hands.
"The boundaries of the majority's new rule are uncertain," she wrote. "But it threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in States and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure."
#3 Jul 7, 2013
what's the soon to be handed down PSB ruling to SHUT DOWN that unreliable Dirty Bomb known as Vermont Yankee Mark I reactor, and the State's PSB right to do so got to do with this SC ruling?
#4 Jul 7, 2013
States will no longer be able to extort money in exchange for private property development permits .....But I think you know that, you just wanted to slander VY.
#5 Jul 7, 2013
uhm, the property in Vernon for VY Already IS developed, as in that nuke that's been there for 41+ years, and the cooling pools which are going to remain there for many more after the DB ('safe' & 'green' reactor to ewe) is SHUT DOWN
So I ask again, WTF has the SC ruling got to do with the price of radioactive tea in Vernon?
#6 Jul 8, 2013
#7 Jul 8, 2013
so ewe can't answer a simple question about this claim ewe made regarding the SC decision and how
"Vermont Yankee has new case against the state of VT" ??
so in other words ewe just like to throw a lot of bullsh't out and hope something somehow sticks
ewe'r basically another mike mulligan
#8 Jul 8, 2013
I respect Mike Mulligan, unlike you he is genuine and respectful. You appear to be just another troll who lacks annalitical skills.
#9 Jul 8, 2013
ewe mean 'analytical'?
OK then why not just articulate exactly wtf ewe'r trying to say here and show everyone how much sense it supposedly makes?
Right, cuz as I said the title was just pointless BS thrown out, as are all ewe'r many posted threads
Soaring Radiation Along Fukushima Daiichi Coast
#10 Jul 8, 2013
"The Supreme Court...establishing a significantly stricter standard for conditions regulators place on permit applications... the water district also said Koontz could move forward with his development as long as he hired contractors to make improvements to district-owned wetlands miles away...The conservative justice went on to say the standard should apply when the government "commands the relinquishment of funds liked to a specific, identifiable property interest....Property rights activists have long tried to move takings analysis into a more heightened scrutiny framework...Several legal experts said that although many of the implications of the ruling are unclear, one thing is certain: There will likely be a rise in lawsuits challenging monetary conditions attached to land-use permits...
The court is clearly saying that when a government demands a payment in exchange for a permit, that falls under this framework. But what happens when the government requires a landowner to do something that only requires the expenditure of money?"
#11 Jul 8, 2013
I get that govt. all too often uses the BS excuse of 'wetlands'(formerly 'swamps') etc. to impose more restrictions on land use and make property owners pay $$ in the form of a 'variance' whatever to get a permit to build/develop nearby.
When my folks wanted to add a garage to the house 12 years ago the damn town claimed that cuz there's a 'wetland' waaay over across the street they had to pay a $150 variance fee b4 the permit to add the garage was granted.
It's not like there were ducks etc. going there across the street or anything, and the $$ certainly wasn't going to be used by the town to better that small area anyhow and wasn't.
It was really just a Tiny little remnant of what was a very small swamp many years earlier, and it got filled in with leaves from nearby lawns for years and was nothing but woods now but they nonetheless used old maps and BS force to get revenue from residents- a scam, kinda like that Carbon Credits scam of Al Gore and gang to 'solve' the BS 'global warming' non-existant 'problem'.
r u implying that this could affect the fact that Vermont wants Entergy to pay up $$ for the looooong term storage and/or eventual removal of all that radtastic waste on site?(as with other nukes across the country and their operation and waste problems)
Unlike the bogus concern over the phony 'wetland' near my folks house, there is a REAL legitimate concern over nuke plant safety and reliablility and of course how to take care of all the hot rad waste
#12 Jul 9, 2013
used fuel storage
#13 Jul 9, 2013
One-third of the nuclear fuel in the Vermont Yankee reactor is replaced every 18 months. The fuel that is removed from the reactor and stored on-site continues to be a valuable resource because only about 10 percent of the energy contained in the fuel has been used and 90 percent of that energy can be reclaimed through recycling and used to create more electricity.
The solid ceramic fuel pellets in the fuel bundles that have been removed from the reactor as spent fuel and stored in dry casks are air cooled by natural circulation through the cask. The pellets have been stored in water for more than five years and are generating very little heat. With the shielding in the 100-ton storage casks, the used fuel is very secure. Even if a cask was broken open and the pellets scattered on the ground, they would just lie there, continuing to be air cooled. Radiation dose to the offsite public would be insignificant.
Used fuel in the pool is also very secure. The reactor building and radioactive waste storage facilities are designed for the maximum design basis earthquake and 360 mph winds from a tornado, with 300 mph winds advancing at 60 mph. The fuel pool and the entire cooling system are in those buildings. The system is powered by two redundant emergency backup diesel generators when normal power is lost. There also are backup water supplies to the spent fuel storage pool. Post 9-11 and based on hypothetical spent pool fire studies, the fuel is stored in the pool in a checker-board pattern, with the fuel most recently removed from the reactor, which generates the most heat, surrounded by older fuel (which has been cooling in the pool for up to 35 years) that will absorb heat.
There was an event this February at Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts, a plant like Vermont Yankee. This event illustrates the design margin. During storm Nemo, all offsite power was lost for two days. The reactor scrammed and emergency backup diesels started automatically, as designed. The reactor was brought to cold shutdown by the Pilgrim reactor operations team in 10 hours, and fuel pool cooling, which can be suspended for a long time due to the large volume of water in the pool, was restored after 21 hours!
#14 Jul 9, 2013
I’ve struggled to understand how the debate over nuclear power got to be so politically polarized. Starting with the famous book “Soft Energy Paths,” the author wants to do away with nuclear weapons (don’t we all?) and he concludes that we must do away with all nuclear power generation—a source of 20 percent of the US electricity supply—in order to do this. This means finding and developing economically-viable technologies to replace the 24/7 base-load power generated by nuclear plants without massive increases in the use of fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, it also has led in some quarters to doing as much as possible to discredit nuclear power. Some supporters of nuclear power call this spreading FUD – Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
Using examples that increase fear of radiation is a common tactic. For example the warning that an element has a “half-life of millions of years” implies that it will be harmful or dangerous that long. The opposite is true. The longer the half-life, the more slowly the radiation is given off and the lower the dose each year.
Implying that radiation comes only from the generation of electricity with nuclear power and from nuclear weapons is also false. Radiation is natural. The uranium in the granite in this statehouse building was radioactive millions of years ago, and will be radioactive in millions more. This is a natural part of our environment, and we all get low doses of radiation continually.
The sun’s light, heat, and other radiation comes from nuclear reactions. We could even say the “Solar Power is Nuclear Power.”
#15 Jul 9, 2013
Designed for the safety systems design basis earthquake.
Located in buildings designed for the design basis earthquake.
Buildings designed for 360 mph winds (tornado of 300 mph advancing at 60 mph).
Power can be supplied by the emergency diesels.
Two 100-percent-capacity cooling pumps, heat exchangers, and filter-demineralizers.
Cooling water to heat exchangers supplied by safety grade service water.
Backup water supplies to the pool.
Pool has a thick stainless steel liner.
Piping is arranged to prevent siphoning.
Pool has no drain line.
Pool liner set in thick reinforced concrete walls and floors.
Pool is in the middle of the building—not against any outside walls.
Outside walls around the pool are thick, reinforced concrete.
Massive steel girders support the reactor building roof, walls, and overhead crane rails.
These girders and the overhead crane will destroy penetrating aircraft.
Fuel storage racks have increased capacity for maximum amount of used fuel storage.
#16 Jul 9, 2013
By Howard Shaffer
#17 Jul 9, 2013
One might ask what legitimate connection the Legislature had/has between dry cask storage and the state's extortion in exchange of the permit.
#18 Jul 9, 2013
one might ask (yet again) what the title of the thread here is supposed to mean
"spreading FUD – Fear Uncertainty and Doubt."
-Fukushima Uncontained Dirtybomb
-Folly Unsound Disasterous
Incidences of thyroid cancer on the rise among Fukushima children http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/v...
#19 Jul 10, 2013
ewe mean the Certificate of Public Good needed by Entergy/VY to continue operating their DirtyBomb in Vernon?
ewe insinuating that there's some kind of back-handed extortion going on, that the PSB won't grant the CPG unless Entergy rightfully pay$ up for the looong term future handling & storage of all that deadly waste?
ewe sound like one of those cynical anti-govt. types that mike mulligan warns us about
#20 Jul 11, 2013
No, I mean permit.
Add your comments below
|Two arraigned in I-91 heroin bust (Oct '14)||6 hr||Long Island Liberal||18|
|Did Anyone Get Kilt In Your Flood (Aug '11)||Mar 19||Redneck||6|
|Man accuses judge of extortion, theft (Apr '09)||Mar 19||Markey fife||33|
|Jude Fitzgerald faces charges||Mar 12||Sherrif fife||2|
|Obama's Top Ten Lies Last Night/ Clinton's Crim... (Jan '16)||Feb '17||Long Island Liberal||7|
|Review: Biologic Integrative Health - Samantha ... (Feb '10)||Jan '17||Wtf dr Moore||64|
Find what you want!
Search Brattleboro Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC