When headlines in your local media regularly highlight mishaps at the old and infirm nuke plant in your neighborhood, you’d probably start to wonder whether it makes sense to keep feeding it fissile fuel for another twenty years. That’s what we’re pondering here in Vermont, where Entergy Nuclear’s “Vermont Yankee” seems to be in the news–and lampooned in editorial cartoons–every other week. Exhibit A:
Credit: Tim Newcomb http://www.newcombstudios.com/cartoons.html
Just two weeks ago, in a story headlined “Yankee Plant’s Reliability Questioned” Vermont Public Radio reported that Yankee’s owners failed to disclose the fact that the plant has storm drains that flow to the Connecticut River and have been contaminated with radioactive Cobalt-60. Apparently, only “minute particles” of the raidoisotope have been found in the river sediments (thank goodness!) and the problem that led to the contamination was supposedly fixed years ago. Nonetheless, Entergy Nuclear’s failure to tell the nuclear engineer hired by the Vermont Legislature to monitor Yankee’s operation about the problem doesn’t inspire great confidence.
Trying to keep up with all of Yankee’s well-publicized mishaps is no easy task. Your friends at CLF have tried to make it easier for you with our new fact sheet “30 Big Mistakes (and counting): VERMONT YANKEE IS YANKING YOUR CHAIN.” You can get a copy by clicking here.
For those of you who’ve been keeping score already and who know that giving the operators of this plant another twenty years would be a big mistake on Vermont’s part, please take action! You can tell the Vermont Public Service Board you don’t want another twenty years of having Vermont’s chain yanked by Yankee’s owners by clicking here or you can print out a copy of the “30 Big Mistakes” and send it to your Vermont state legislator.
Jeff Unsicker
Thanks, CLF, for spreading the word about Vermont Yankee – and for all your work on this important policy issue.
Those of us who live near the reactor (my work, my wife’s work, our house, our son and his wife’s work and their house are all within the nuclear emergency evacuation zone) are constantly reading about those “big mistakes” — and a whole bunch of smaller ones — in the Brattleboro newspaper. Also constant are spin, misleading information and outright lies by the reactor’s owner, Entergy Nuclear Corporation and its army of lobbyists.
So we really appreciate help in educating and mobilizing the rest of Vermont to stop what would be the biggest possible mistake: allowing the reactor to continue running at 120% of the output it was designed to produce for 20 years beyond the period it was designed to operate.
Let’s not let an out of state, profit-driven corporation define our energy future. Instead, let’s work together to replace VY with increased efficiency, renewables and other safe alternatives.
Lissa Weinmann
This is a note from VT Rep Janet Ancel in her Nov. newsletter:
Over time, having listened to friends and neighbors, and to a great many experts, it has become clear to me that the case to permit Vermont Yankee to continue to operate past 2012 simply hasn’t been made. The only credible argument for keeping Yankee operating beyond 2012 (when its current operating license expires) is the effect on power costs, or whether there is an economic benefit for Vermonters. For anyone served by Washington Electric Coop, this argument is mostly irrelevant because Washington Electric does not have a contract with Vermont Yankee. In any case, the economic benefit to Vermonters must be weighed against the reliability of the plant.
Recently, the Joint Fiscal Committee, on which I serve, received the Quarterly Status Report on Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee prepared by Fairewinds Associates. The purpose of the quarterly reports is to provide the legislature with oversight on the reliability of the Vermont Yankee plant. I have to admit that for someone who has not been dealing with this issue on a day to day basis, I found the report very disturbing.
First, ENVY has not yet addressed a list of 80 shortcomings identified by the Public Service Department’s consultant, in spite of a commitment to have them all addressed by the end of the year. These shortcomings put into question the reliability of the plant. More serious is the fact that ENVY did not disclose the existence of underground pipes with radioactive contamination. Because the pipes are old, this radioactivity may leak into groundwater. There are other issues in the report which you can find athttp://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/Vermont%20Yankee.htm, along with many other documents that have been presented to the legislature, but these were the most alarming.
It is hard for me to imagine a scenario where it can be shown that continued operation is in the best interest of the state. This is an old plant and its reliability is seriously in question. We don’t have information on economic benefit since the negotiations between ENVY and the Vermontutilities have been kept secret. But we do know that no agreement has been reached. Issues around decommissioning have not been addressed and ENVY’s efforts to spin Vermont Yankee off to a shell corporation are not reassuring.
Vermont Yankee can operate after 2012 only with legislative approval, under a statute passed a few years ago. Because federal law completely preempts safety considerations, the decision of the Vermont Legislature must be based on reliability or economic benefit. If it can be shown that the decision not to allow for continued operation was made for reasons of safety, it is quite likely that our decision would be overturned. That may be frustrating to people who are legitimately concerned about safety, but it’s an important part of the legal situation we’re in.
Gary Sachs
Just so you know—
the word radioisotope is badly mis-spelled in your article