Agency to begin “quick-look” review of Vermont Yankee reactor
On Monday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission officially granted Entergy Corp.’s license to continue operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station for 20 years beyond its scheduled shutdown date of March 2012.
The commission issued the license 10 days after partial meltdowns of reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan triggered hydrogen gas explosions in the wake of a devastating 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
A few days after the catastrophe in Japan unfolded, The New York Times published a report about flaws in the design of the aging reactors used at the plant. The Fukushima facility’s six reactors, two of which have partially melted down, are nearly identical to the Vermont Yankee boiling water reactor. The Mark 1 model, manufactured by General Electric, was discontinued in 1972, the year Vermont Yankee was built and one year after the Fukushima plant was constructed.
In 1972, a nuclear scientist with the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,) raised concerns about the containment system’s capacity to forestall a nuclear meltdown in the event of an extended power blackout and problems with backup generators, according to the New York Times. Electricity keeps pumps constantly flushing cool water over the fuel rods in the reactor and the spent fuel pool. If the pumps stop working, as they did in Japan, the fuel can overheat and cause hydrogen buildup in the reactor to explode and a fire to erupt in the spent fuel pool area, releasing highly radioactive material into the atmosphere.
Last week, President Barack Obama called for a review of nuclear power plants in the United States. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., wrote to the president on Friday, requesting a moratorium on license renewals by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
That request was ignored by the NRC, which issued the 20-year license extension to Louisiana-based Entergy Corp. without taking time to consider the implications of the nuclear accident in Japan. Though the commission plans to review plants in the next few months, it’s not clear the flaws of the Mark 1 model will be part of its evaluation.
Sanders, who is chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, asked NRC Chair Gregory Jaczko in a hearing last week to re-evaluate the decision (made on March 10, the day before the earthquake in Japan) to grant a license to Vermont Yankee. Sanders was flabbergasted by the NRC’s response. “The idea of keeping Vermont Yankee running until it is 60 years old defies comprehension,” the senator said. It is an “especially questionable” decision by the NRC “at a time when a reactor with a similar design is in near meltdown.”
Neil Sheehan, communications director for the NRC’s Region 1 District, said the agency approved the license because of what he characterized as a thoroughgoing examination of the plant. The analysis, he said, began five years ago and included a hearing process, complete staff reviews of the plant and an environmental assessment.
In response to the nuclear meltdowns in Japan, Sheehan said: “We’re going to do a few things,” including a “quick-look” analysis over the course of the next 90 days at reactors around the country. The NRC will review redundancy systems for loss of off-site power, seismic “resistance” and hydrogen releases, Sheehan said.
“There will be significant attention paid to all U.S. reactors in light of events in Japan,” Sheehan said.

Max Breiteneicher/The Commons Vermont Yankee Communications Director Larry Smith says some people think the decommissioning process will require the plant to retain a significant workforce, a concept he refers to as a “myth.”
Larry Smith, communications director for Vermont Yankee, said in a statement that Entergy is pleased with the NRC’s decision to extend Vermont Yankee’s operating license through March 21, 2032.
“Today’s action comes after five years of careful and extensive review and confirms that Vermont Yankee is a safe, reliable source of electricity and capable of operating for another 20 years,” Smith wrote.
Vermont Yankee is also subject to a state statute that requires Entergy to obtain a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board to operate beyond the March 2012 shutdown deadline. A year ago, the Vermont Senate denied the corporation the right to seek that approval.
Vermont is the only state in the country to require that a nuclear operator obtain state permission for license renewal.
Gov. Peter Shumlin, who as president pro tem spearheaded the state Senate decision, called the NRC’s decision to relicense the plant “puzzling.”
“Fortunately, Vermont has taken steps to close down the aging Yankee plant, and I have urged other states with older nuclear facilities to follow our example and take control of the lifespan of their plants,” Shumlin said in a statement.
Vermont’s congressional delegation urged the NRC to respect the state’s right to impose a shutdown of the plant. In a joint statement, Sanders, an independent, and Democrats Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. Peter Welch wrote: “We believe that Entergy should respect and abide by Vermont’s laws and the MOU (memorandum of understanding) signed with the state in 2002, which require approval by the Vermont Legislature, and then the Vermont Public Service Board, for the plant to continue to operate beyond 2012.”
The New York Times reported that a month ago, Tokyo Electric Power Company granted a 10-year license extension to the oldest of the six reactors at Fukushima, which was built in 1971.
According to the Times, Tepco “admitted that it had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment related to the cooling systems, including water pumps and diesel generators, at the power station’s six reactors, according to findings published on the agency’s Web site shortly before the earthquake.”
Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear expert with Fairewinds Associates based in Burlington, said: “We always knew NRC would approve because that’s what NRC does. It’s appalling. The smoke literally hasn’t cleared over Fukushima, and they’re greenlighting VY.”
NRC’s “rubber stamp”
Anti-nuclear activists in Vermont weren’t surprised by the NRC’s decision. The agency has renewed licenses for 62 plants around the country; it has never denied a relicensure application.
As Bob Stannard, a lobbyist with Citizens Action Network, put it: “They’re as predictable as deer walking the same trail every day.”
“Frankly, for many people out there who have concerns and suspicions about the NRC rubber stamping licenses for the industry, that’s confirmation,” Stannard said.
In Germany and China, nuclear plants have been shut down or put on hold. Stannard accused the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of assisting Entergy at all cost.
“This is about losing face for them, as opposed to losing people,” Stannard said. “They’ve raised the middle finger at the congressional delegation and the state of Vermont.”
James Moore, VPIRG’s clean energy program director, said: “I think if anyone wasn’t sure the NRC was a rubber stamp machine for the nuclear industry, this should make that really clear. With what is going on with this very same design in Japan, for the NRC to not even pause and reconsider giving this old reactor
a license past the 20-year expiration date is almost unconscionable.”
Moore said the NRC can’t seem to accept the idea that aging nuclear plants are prone to break down.
“They’ll spend 90 days looking at the paperwork so we can convince ourselves we did the right thing,” Moore said. “They’re supposed to be looking out for the public not the industry and that’s what it smells like in this case.”
Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, chair of the House Natural Resources and Energy Commitee, feigned surprise: “God, I’m shocked.”
“It’s like getting a certificate of wonderfulness from the local trade association,” Klein said. “It just shows you how numb people are and how they refuse to look at the world any differently. Because whatever you think could happen, could happen, and we’re not prepared.”
Could a Fukushima-Daiichi accident happen in Vermont?
Vermont is half a world away from the Pacific Rim’s ring of fire, but we, too, have seismic shifts, floods and hurricanes.
State geologist Larry Becker says the seismic resistance design for nuclear plants should be revisited because earthquakes are getting stronger, even in the Northeast. Plants like Vermont Yankee were designed in the 1960s for 500-year earthquakes. “These days we look at longer return periods,” Becker said.
Vermont Yankee is designed to withstand a 6.2-magnitude quake; the last big quake, which hit the 5.8 mark was in Lake Ossippee, N.H., in 1940according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Moore, of VPIRG, said Vermont Yankee doesn’t pass modern seismic criteria. “You wouldn’t be allowed to build VY today because it’s not a safe enough design, yet somehow we think it’s safe for it to keep going 20 years past expiration. The only prudent thing for NRC to do is to halt any licensing procedures and possibly consider pulling the plug at all plants that are the same make and model until proven safe.
Arnie Gundersen, a Burlington-based nuclear expert and now a national TV commentator on nuclear issues (he is now a regular on CNN), said an earthquake threat at Vermont Yankee is unlikely. The more likely worst case scenario would involve a 1,000 year flood of the Connecticut River, which could knock out the service water that cools the plant.
Vermont Yankee, he said, has more than one “point of vulnerability,” or hole in the plant’s protective armor.
“Entergy is trying to turn the Fukushima argument into earthquakes and giant waves at Vermont Yankee,” Gundersen said. “It’s not about earthquakes or tsunami. It’s about ‘single points of vulnerability.’”
In his view, a Connecticut River flood or a terrorist attack could be as devastating as the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
“If a tsunami had not knocked out the diesels at Fukushima, it also knocked out the service water that cooled the plant, so the net result is the same,” Gundersen said.
Another point of vulnerability is Vermont Yankee’s BWR Mark 1 “Net Positive Suction Head,” or reactor pressure suppression containment system, according to Gundersen. It’s not clear that this was the cause of the explosions that occurred in Japan, he said.
“The NRC staff makes VY’s Net Positive Suction Head issue (and others) disappear because it has told the Advisory Committee Reactor Safeguards in October 2010 that the probability of a containment failure is “zero,” Gundersen wrote in an email. “The NRC’s way to avoid VY’s Net Positive Suction Head accident is to assume it can’t occur.”
Another problem at VY is related to power outages. The backup batteries for the VY’s electrical control panels last eight hours of a station blackout in which there is no offsite or onsite power.
The biggest potential hazard, however, could be the spent fuel pool where used fuel rods are kept cool under water in a vat 40 feet deep. The rods stay hot for five years after they’ve been used.
The pool is on a 50 foot dais, which makes it more vulnerable to quakes, according to Gundersen. It’s also covered with a tin roof, and in the event of a terrorist attack, is a potential source of high level radioactive contamination.
Smith, the spokesman for Entergy, said the pool was designed to be open at the top. The only protection it has from the elements is a sheet metal roof with “blow away panels if you have to relieve pressure.”
Smith said the corporation will soon be removing fuel rods in the pool and putting them in longterm storage in dry fuel casks on the VY site.






























Permalink |
It should be noted that VY has 640 tons of spent fuel stored in its pool. This amounts to 75 million curies of cesium-137. To put that into perspective, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima had 2,000 curies of cesium-137. There is no containment vessel for this pool, yet the NRC declares this failed design safe for 20 more years.
Permalink |
Thank you Bob,
Money talks, yet radiation flocks.
Permalink |
From what I have read the spent fuel is stored near the reactor and there is also dry storage of older fuel rods near the reactor. If we had another ice storm and the power went out we could well be in the same situation that Japan is in now. To me the risk is NOT worth the loss of the property and use of land around Vernon for many lifetimes.
It may be different if VY were owned by a corporation that really cared about Vermont and Vermonters. Entergy doesn’t care about us or safety. If they cared about safety they would have dug up the leaking pipes and repaired them when they first found the leaks.
Tritium , strontium and other radio active isotopes have been leaked and they have NOT repaired those leaks.
Permalink |
The reality is that this license renewal should not come as a shock to people at all. The NRC had made a final decision on March 10 and it was a decision that came after 5 years of research and rigorous safety evaluations and eventually led to a determination that Vermont Yankee is capable of running another 20 years. Although the events in Japan are beyond horrific, they should not discredit the amount of time and research that has already gone into checking Vermont Yankee. The fact that the reaction to this license today is 10-fold what it was on March 10, is understandable but not fact-based, because nothing has changed at Vermont Yankee in the last 12 days, only the public’s view. Something that has been brought to the public’s eye now, is something that has already been considered by the NRC and contributed to their final decision.
Permalink |
Man, I wonder how much cash we taxpayers contributed for the lobbyists that got the NRC to relicense this failing monstrosity. And once Entergy gets the license, and if they can get the state to allow it to keep on running, they will get out of here as fast as they can with their decommissioning money to leave us to clean up the disaster that they leave behind.
Permalink |
I wouldn’t be so concerned about the design if there was some sign the the operator was capable of operating it with an eye to more then profits.
Permalink |
FYI-As to the ‘Rubber Stamp” of the NRC-thought you might wish to know that 4 out of the 5 Commissioner’s (includes the Chairman) were appointed by Obama. I thought that interesting.
Permalink |
No surprise to read that 4 out 5 of the rubber stamp NRC commissioners are Obama appointees. One of the biggest contributors to Obama’s campaign was Excellon, the biggest nuclear power company in the country. I think America needs to send over it’s version of the “Fukishima 50″ (those guys who are giving their lives to the Fukishima meltdown) to Japan to help with the nuke plants. It could be the “Excellon/Entergy/NRC 50″, and it should comprise all of the top executives and commissioners of those organizations. If they are going to preach how safe and clean nuclear power is, like the corporate prostitutes that they are, let them go over to Japan and stand ankle deep in that radioactive water at the reactor that’s so radioactive it causes instant burns. I’m so sick of corporate and gov’t big shots sitting back in the safety of their offices saying everything is fine, while their workers are the ones who get poisoned or killed cleaning up these disasters. And this MOX fuel with plutonium? A crime against humanity.
Permalink |
CONTINUED OPERATION OF VERMONT YANKEE IS GOOD FOR NEW ENGLAND
Instead of VY closing, a more likely scenario is as follows:
The NRC, after 5 years of study and review by people who were there before Obama, has issued a 20-year license extension. In the US, 17 of 36 plants with BWRs had their license extended from about 40 years to about 60 years. All of the extensions, except one, were for Mark 1 reactors similar to VY.
Entergy, to protect the arbitrary destruction of a multi-billion dollar asset of its shareholders (the replacement cost of VY is about $4 billion) has the fiduciary obligation go to court; lawyers, at $1,000/hr, are smiling.
It will be a multi-year, multi-million dollar court case that will ultimately be decided by the conservative Supreme Court where Vermont will likely NOT prevail. Vermont’s legal case to close VY is very “thin”; legislature actions may not be found legal by higher courts. Some members of the Vermont Law School agree. It would be more prudent to plan for the likely continued operation of VY.
Legislatures, led by politicos out for political gain, can be led in a direction that is harmful to the economic well-being of Vermonters. Example: the Vermont legislature, swayed by well-meaning folks some years ago to declare hydro power as NOT renewable, recently reversed itself and declared hydro power IS renewable, something most of the rest of the world already knew.
A long-term power offer from Entergy similar to that from Hydro-Quebec, plus about $5 million/yr for the Clean Energy Development Fund, plus more diligent cleanup by Vermont Yankee; plus more direct oversight of VY by the Vermont government and more openness by Entergy, will probably set the stage for a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board.
VY’s direct employment is about 650. Direct payroll with benefits is about $85 million per year. The economic multiplier effect is about three, meaning many businesses in a 25-mile radius from VY will be under significant ADDITIONAL economic pressure and will have to cut staffs; estimates are more than 1,000 employees.
Closing VY will mean this 300 square-mile area will become an economic backwater, just as Windsor, Vermont, became a backwater when companies moved out; Windsor has not recovered after 30 years.
Instead of being a significant benefit to the budgets of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, the VY area will become a significant burden for many years.
Vermont’s tax collections will be less by many millions of dollars and payments for unemployment benefits, etc., will be up.
Permalink |
Is the Good Life Possible with Vermont Yankee?
Vermont has “pro-nukes,” “anti-nukes” and those residents not seeming to fit in either group…perhaps there’s room for another category entitled, “anti-Vermont Yankee?” Some Vermonters have said they’re not against nuclear power, (if) the leaks can be stopped, the spent fuel rod storage problem can be solved and the structures can be fabricated to withstand all possible weather anomalies.
Vermont Yankee (VY) is located in the town of Vernon which sits in the southeastern corner of the state at the junction formed by the Connecticut River and the Massachusetts border, and was once actually a part of the town of Hinsdale, NH. Purportedly, Vernon’s 2141 people have even discussed seceding from Vermont (to either NH or MA) if the Legislature refuses to grant VY a license extension beyond 2012.
VY, operating since 1972 and employing about 650 people, is the state’s largest power source with a nominal 540 megawatt boiling water reactor, and is one of five operating nuclear plants in New England. In 2002, VY was sold by eight New England utilities to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, a subsidiary of the Entergy Corporation of New Orleans, the second largest nuclear generator in the US.
In February of 2010, the VT Senate voted 26-4 against allowing the Public Service Board (PSB) to consider re-certifying VY after 2012, citing radioactive (tritium) leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007 and other problems. In the event the PSB refuses to issue them a Certificate of Public Good, VY could elect to continue to operate and the case would be decided in court, since the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently granted a license renewal to operate until 2032.
So, where does all this see-sawing leave the customer who’s concerned about how high electric bills will be if VY closes? Since the Vernon plant supplies about a third of the state’s total power, how will that amount be replaced? The average Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC) member would pay between 50 & 60 cents extra each month if VY closes. Replacement power will have to be purchased from the New England grid, which isn’t the most cost-effective way to obtain electricity, but it appears to be the best option right now.
If Vermont Yankee’s past record predicts its future and safety modifications aren’t made, many Vermonters feel it should be closed permanently. Most VEC members seem to agree. Perhaps divining its prospects, two days after Peter Shumlin became the new VT Governor, Entergy put Vermont Yankee up for sale.
(Don Worth is the Director for District 1 on the VEC Board of Directors and is running for re-election in May. The foregoing does not express the opinion of VEC or its Board.)