With less than a year left before its operating license expires, the debate over the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is reaching radioactive levels.
On one side are the 39-year-old plant’s owners, Louisiana-based Entergy Corp., and its supporters, mostly business interests and plant workers who say the Vernon, Vt., plant is vital to the state’s economy. On the other are a growing number of Vermonters, including Gov. Peter Shumlin and many in the legislature, who cite a string of problems over the years and say the plant is unsafe and should not be given a 20-year extension to its license.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has never denied a license to any plant, has given its approval to the renewal. In issuing the approval, the NRC insisted that the plant is safe to operate in spite of a long history of problems. It also ignored its own report on recent problems that exonerated Entergy from any fault, instead blaming problems with the original construction.
However, Vermont is the only state where the people still have a say in the process. The renewal requires the approval of the legislature, which has already voted against it once, though the matter can come up again before next year’s expiration date.
The debate is being carried out against the backdrop of the ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan and the Obama administration’s support of nuclear energy. The discussion is further clouded by broken promises, falsehoods, and misrepresentations by Entergy officials.
Last week, Entergy filed suit in federal district court in Burlington arguing that the Vermont legislature should not be able to override the NRC’s approval of the license renewal. The company also filed an injunction requesting that the plant be allowed to continue past the March 2012 closing date until the suit is settled.
Gov. Peter Shumlin and other state officials have vowed to fight Entergy’s lawsuit.
When Entergy purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002, the company agreed to abide by the state legislature’s jurisdiction over the plant. Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard last week took out a full page advertisement in several Vermont newspapers to explain why they are reneging on the agreement.
His reasoning?
“That was not a concern to us back in 2002,” he writes.
As recently as 2009, a company spokesman reiterated Entergy’s support for public involvement in the approval process. Up to that point, while there was some opposition to the plant, most Vermonters generally seemed to accept it.
Then came the reports of leaks, with conflicting information from both Entergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At one point Entergy and the NRC tried to organize a meeting about the problems – but scheduled it out-of-state (in New Hampshire), did not invite the press, and invited only public officials and others who supported the plant. Once that became public, the plan was quickly scuttled in favor of a more open forum in Brattleboro.
The ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan sharpened the debate even further, since the Japanese reactors are of the same design as Vermont Yankee. Nevertheless, plant officials continue to insist “it can’t happen here.”
Earlier this week, Vermont’s third largest utility company decided not to enter into a new contract with Vermont Yankee. A company representative insisted that a major accident was unlikely. While it’s true that a tsunami in Vermont is unlikely, and a major earthquake is unlikely, there are many other scenarios that could trigger a disaster.
In fact, just a few years ago one wall of a cooling tower collapsed for no other reason than it was poorly built.
And so it goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment