BRATTLEBORO - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is telling the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant that they can't dip into the fund set aside for dismantling the reactor to pay for storage of highly radioactive spent fuel.
"Decommissioning, as defined in (NRC rules), means to remove a facility safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for either unrestricted or restricted use and termination of the license," according to an e-mail from the NRC. "It does not include spent fuel management costs."
Over Vermont's 230 years several strange political movements persisted long enough to enter the history books. Among them, anti-Masonry, the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant Know Nothing movement, and the Prohibition crusade all fizzled after initial successes.
The most notable fringe movement still alive today is the crusade against nuclear energy. It is, naturally, focused on Vermont's lone nuclear reactor, Vermont Yankee, that went on line in 1972.
Mechanical problems at Vermont Yankee can be fixed, said a member of the public oversight panel tasked with reviewing a reliability assessment of the power plant in Vernon.
"But we have concerns that the global and cultural problems -- not mechanical -- are a real enormous nut to crack," said Arnie Gundersen. "Issues with management are cultural, hard to change and hard to measure that they have been changed."
Entergy, which owns and operates Yankee, simply does not spend enough money or invest enough time to assure the power plant is maintained, said Gundersen.
He called Entergy "penny wise and pound foolish."
It's a corporate attitude that needs to be changed, said Gundersen.
Voters in 25 towns want the state Legislature to stop Vermont Yankee nuclear plant from operating past its scheduled 2012 closing.
In a Town Meeting day vote Tuesday, voters in Brattleboro, Brookline, Calais, Charleston, Charlotte, Corinth, Dummerston, East Montpelier, Greensboro, Guilford, Hinesburg, Holland, Marlboro, Marshfield, Middlesex, Newfane, Plainfield, Richmond, Townshend, Warren, Westfield, Windham, Woodbury and Worcester all approved a measure that calls on state lawmakers to block the Vernon power plant from staying open once its license expires and to force its owners to fully fund a decommissioning fund set up to pay for the plant's eventual dismantling - whenever that is.
Westminster voters approved the article on Saturday.
Exactly how did Entergy get away with not monitoring the radiation emitted by spent fuel stored in dry casks at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon?
To answer that question, the Public Service Board is opening an investigation today in Montpelier. During the investigation, the PSB will also determine if penalties should be assessed against Entergy for any failure on its part to comply with board orders.
In April 2006, the PSB issued a certificate of public good allowing Entergy to store spent fuel in dry casks on a concrete pad just north of the reactor building.
At this time, there are five casks with 68 fuel assemblies each on the pad. As part of that certificate, Entergy was required to continuously monitor the temperature of the dry casks. It was also required to conduct monthly "radiation surveillance" of the casks.
"The Department of Public Service and (Entergy), in consultation with the Department of Health, will develop a protocol for reporting the results of such monitoring and surveillance to the DPS and the Department of Health," stated the certificate of public good.
But on July 31, Entergy filed a letter with the PSB reporting that though it had been monitoring the temperature of the casks, it had not initiated the required monthly radiation checks.
Jody Williams, 58, a native of Brattleboro and a graduate of the University of Vermont, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. In 2006, with five other peace-prize laureates, she co-founded the Nobel Women's Initiative, in support of women's organizations worldwide working for peace, justice and equality. She divides her time between homes in Fredericksburg, Va. and Westminster West, Vt. Williams was in Burlington last Thursday -- the anniversary of the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima -- to speak at a Nuclear Disarmament Day rally sponsored by area peace groups. She sat down with the Free Press before her speech to discuss her views on nuclear energy. Her discourse was sprinkled with obscenities. "You can edit my lovely language," she said at one point. "When I get worked up, I swear a lot."
Advertisement
Tim Johnson: What are your thoughts on nuclear energy as a power source?
(Host) State regulators may levy fines against Vermont Yankee for its failure to monitor radiation that comes from its high-level nuclear waste.
The company was required to report the temperature and radiation from storage containers that hold spent nuclear fuel. State officials say they're concerned about the apparent violation.
VPR's John Dillon reports:
(Dillon) The monitoring was required as part of a state license that allows Yankee to store spent fuel in five steel and concrete casks near the reactor.
It was supposed to begin last year, but Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said the company didn't discover until late June that it had never established the monitoring protocol.
(Smith) "And it's an oversight by us. We did not catch that until an engineer who was assigned to the dry fuel storage project was going through a checklist."
--Combination of Efficiency and Renewables Much More Economical Than New Nuclear Reactors With Skyrocketing Construction Costs; 'Low Balling' of Cost Estimates Imperils 'Nuclear Renaissance,' Just as Runaway Costs Sank the 'Great Bandwagon Market' of 1970s
WASHINGTON, June 18, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.
Technicians at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon are trying to fix another pipe after a "several-gallon-per-minute leak" in service water piping was discovered, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Last week, technicians discovered a leak in the plant's condenser tubes, miles of piping used to cool down radioactive steam produced by the reactor to power the plant's turbine.
The service water leak is located near the plant's intake structure on the Connecticut River, according to the NRC. The section of piping of concern channels water that is sprayed on screens used to minimize the buildup of debris on those screens. The screens themselves keep debris from the river from entering the plant's condenser tubes.
A Yankee spokesman said the valve to the service water pipe has been shut off, meaning it is not actively leaking at this point. It will only be turned on when enough debris -- such as sticks, stones and mud -- has accumulated on the screens to justify a backwash to flush them clean, said Larry Smith, Yankee's director of communications.
The pipe is an eight-inch line and was found to be leaking in the past two days by technicians conducting their normal inspection rounds, he said.
The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.
Titled "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," Cooper's analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade -- a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.
Ratings Warning From Moody's Followed by Mothballing of New Reactor Plans in Texas and Ontario; Developments in Line with Cooper Report from June Projecting Trillions in Excess Costs for Nuclear, Compared to Combination of Renewables and More Efficiency.
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.
Available online at http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/Institutes_and_Initiatives/Institute_for_Energy_and_the_Environment/New_and_Noteworthy.htm, the Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade - a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.
Cooper said that three late June developments provide new evidence of the validity of the cost-related concerns documented in his report:
Entergy Corp. has filed a proposal with utility regulators in New York state in a push to get approval of its long-running plan to spin off some of its nuclear power plants into a separate company.
Under a plan announced in late 2007, Entergy would spin off six nuclear reactors involved in the wholesale power business into a separate publicly traded company called Enexus Energy Corp.
Enexus would control five nuclear operations: Pilgrim Nuclear Station near Plymouth, Mass.; the James A. Fitzpatrick station in Oswego County, N.Y.; two units at the Indian Point Energy Center in Westchester County, N.Y.; Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vt.; and Palisades Power Plant in Covert, Mich.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has knocked down one of the last hurdles to final federal approval for another 20 years of operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.
The quasi-judicial board held hearings last summer in Newfane on environmental and safety concerns raised by environmental groups. It ruled Wednesday it had dismissed the final challenge by the New England Coalition, an anti-nuclear group.
Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost
$1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.
If plans to build a new fleet of nuclear power plants make it past the drawing board, the cost to taxpayers and electricity consumers could be massive, according to a new study released by the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School.
In a 78-page report, economist Mark Cooper concluded that investing the money in efficiency and renewable power would be more economical than building new nuclear power plants.
"The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour, considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour," stated a summary of the report.
Cooper's report found that during the life of 100 new nuclear reactors the cost to ratepayers and American taxpayers could be between $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more than the same power generated by a combination of energy efficiency and renewable power.
We live in the shadow of Vermont Yankee (VY). We live with alarm radios in our homes, provided for us free by VY, to alert us if there is an accident at the outdated plant located only a few miles from our homes. We store our potassium iodide pills supplied by the VT Department of Health where we can easily find them. We dutifully review the emergency evacuation route that we must travel in case of a nuclear accident, knowing that VY has acknowledged that it is ineffective. Daily we feel unsafe in the homes and community that we love and have worked hard to live in.
Imagine reading these headlines in your newspaper about a nearby nuclear plant: "Nuclear Plant Tower Collapses" and " Plant at 60% reduced Power Due to Radioactive Water Leaks." Imagine reading these headlines knowing there is no insurance that will cover you or your home from the risks of an accident or sabotage or dangerous levels of radioactive waste.
Remember that this plant would not be licensed by today's standards and is currently running at 20% over its original design capacity. Please imagine yourself in our place, and remember you too are not that far away and would be affected if there was a major disaster.
Please ask your legislator to reject the relicensing of this aged nuclear reactor.
The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant edged one step closer Thursday to getting its final federal approval for another 20 years of operation.
But while one arm of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it was satisfied with recent additional analyses done by Entergy Nuclear about the effects of metal fatigue on a key safety system, another arm of the federal agency criticized Entergy's plan on how it would handle its high-level radioactive waste and its decommissioning trust fund, saying it was lacking key information and financial analysis.
The issue of metal fatigue in the spray nozzles in the reactor's containment was first raised by the New England Coalition during the appeal process of the NRC's initial approval.
Vermont Yankee technicians failed to address in an adequate manner a safety issue related to a high-pressure coolant injection system, stated a report issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week.
But, said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC, because of its very low level of significance, and because the company has already entered the issue into its corrective action program, the NRC is treating it as a non-cited violation.
"We'll be following up on the company's corrective actions in this area through our routine oversight," said Sheehan.
The report was a once-every-two-years inspection the NRC conducts to look at a plant's problem identification and resolution program -- it's system for catching problems early and then fixing them before they can develop into significant issues.
The audience of nearly 75 people was pretty much split down the middle in its opinion on whether Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant should receive a certificate of public good from the state's Public Service Board.
While some attendees were concerned about the economic impact of closing the plant others were concerned about the economic impact of not closing the plant.
It wasn't just invectives that flew from mouths of the anti-nuclear activists at Thursday's Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting in Brattleboro.
One activist also threw compost at Vermont Yankee's site vice president Michael Colomb.
"You folks have no idea what to do with spent fuel or radioactive waste," said Sally Shaw, of Gill, Mass.
Carrying a bag to the front of the conference room, she threw a handful of "spent food" at Colomb and other Entergy executives before depositing handfuls of compost on a table where NRC officials sat.
"That's really good quality compost," she said.
Group items tagged 
