Vermont Yankee Matters To YOU

What is Vermont Yankee?

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant has been in the news over the past few weeks, with talk about a tritium leak.

The topic of renewing the operating license for Vermont Yankee for another 20 years is a key issue that will be decided in 2012.

Each of the candidates for governor takes opposite stances on the topic of Vermont Yankee.




Democratic candidate Peter Shumlin:
Against letting the nuclear power plant stay in operation for another twenty years.




“I have been saying for some time that the radioactive leaks at Vermont Yankee could be the largest man-made environmental crisis that Vermont has ever seen,” he said (Gram).







Republican candidate Brian Dubie:
In favor of extending the license past 2012. However, he does not support the license renewal, that is, unless the safety of the citizens of Vermont is assured.

“The [U.S.] Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Vermont Department of Health must prove the plant poses no health risk to Vermonters before I will be satisfied," Dubie said (Garofolo).






Key Questions In The Vermont Yankee Debate

• What would take the place of the energy lost from the plant?
• What can Entergy do to keep the plant open?
• How much money will this cost Vermont and its citizens?

Foundations of Vermont Yankee

• Vermont Yankee is a General Electric boiling water reactor (BWR) type nuclear power plant that was owned by Vermont’s Department of Public Service until 2002, when it was purchased Entergy (Entergy Nuclear).

• Located in Vernon, Vermont

• Generates 650 megawatts (MWe) of electricity an hour (Entergy “Do You Know?”)
• Half of that power goes to Vermont, and the other half goes to other New England states (AP).

Why Vermont's Next Governor Will Impact The Future of Vermont Yankee

• Vermont is the only state that has given itself the power to decline the re-licensing of nuclear power plants.
• The Vermont Public Service Board has the ability to pass Vermont Yankee for the renewal of the operating license, but also can fail the plant if it does not meet specifications.

Vermont Yankee in the 2000's

• During the August, 14 blackout in 2003, Vermont Yankee was among the few of the energy plants that were not forced to shut down
• During 2006, Vermont Yankee went through a “power uprate” which added 20 percent to the amount of energy that the plant can produce.
• In early 2007, one of the cooling towers unexpectedly collapsed, causing the plant to shut down (AP).
• Entergy applied for the relicensing of Vermont Yankee, and in a 26-4 vote by the Vermont Senate, it is not likely that the plant will operate past the expiration of the license, which is in 2012.
• First time that a state legislature has voted to close a nuclear plant (Clayton).

The Debate Over Vermont Yankee Today

The recent discovery of tritium in a former drinking well near the Vermont Yankee power plant

Tritium is a chemical that has been linked to cancer when ingested in large amounts, but also occurs naturally, in small amounts, in ground water.

The recent leak does not indicate any new tritium being exposed from Vermont Yankee’s earlier leak this year in January

The Nuclear Regulatory System (NRC) officials said that the tritium leak first reported on seventh of January, posed no immediate threat to the public health and safety (Gram, DiSavino).

NRC also believes that the leak in January was due to two root causes:

1. Inadequate construction and housekeeping practices of the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) building.

• In 1978, a drain line was added to the newly finished AOG building
• Lack of watertight seal at the joining of the AOG drain and the AOG pipe tunnel.
• Lack of watertight seal where the drain line joins the AOG drain pit.
• Inadequate housekeeping was sighted as debris and silt had been allowed to accumulate in the pipe tunnel through the seal.
• The AOG pipe tunnel floor drain was eventually clogged
• This caused the reactor process water to fill the floor tunnel until the contaminated water leaked from the tunnel from two main points: where the AOG drain and the AOG pipe tunnel were connected (Entergy).

2. Ineffective monitoring of structures and systems

• There are criteria that need to be followed to make sure that the groundwater remains clean
• The Groundwater Protection Initiative (GPI) criteria were only partly met.
• Only three groundwater-monitoring wells were installed at Vermont Yankee, in which construction was finished in 2009.
• The Underground Buried Pipes Program: requires certain pipes to be monitored for leaks
• Was found to be insufficient as the pipes that leaked were not part of the required periodic monitoring (Entergy)

Vermont Yankee’s recent leak of tritium is believed to be caused by the migration of tritiated water, which was previously released from the leak in the advanced off gas system pipe tunnel sealed and repaired earlier this year.

• According to the nuclear power plant, test results indicate that this recent tritium leak does not indicate any threat to public health or safety.
• The amount of tritium detected was 1,040 picocuries per liter (pCi/L).
• This is significantly lower than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s required level to report tritium findings, which is 30,000 pCi/L and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) standard for permissible levels of tritium in drinking water, which is 20,000 pCi/L (DiSavino).

Democratic candidate for Governor, Peter Shumlin:
He believes that Vermont Yankee’s leaks are very significant to the environment and to those who live in it.

“I have been saying for a long time that the crisis at Vermont Yankee is going to be both costly and devastating for those who live near the plant,” Shumlin said.



Shumlin's Stances

• Vermont Yankee needs to prevent Vermont taxpayers from spending their money on unforeseen costs down the road as a result of the tritium leaks (Lynn).
• Entergy mount a greater effort to pump out the contaminated water from around the plant; there are only two pumps being employed for that use.
• Entergy should be in charge of providing non-contaminated water to the residents of Vernon, Vermont.

Why Vermonter's May Vote To Close Vermont Yankee

Overall, Vermonter's who will vote to shut down the power plant believe it is unsafe and harmful to the surrounding Veron community, Vermont tax payers, and the environment due to the tritium leaks over the past year.

Republican candidate for Governor, Brian Dubie:
He campaigns to extend its operating license past the date of 2012, and for another twenty years.

After learning about its recent tritium leaks, Dubie continues to support Vermont Yankee, and he is not making a final decision on the future of the plant until he gets more answers on the cause of the leak, as well as its effects on Vermonters and the environment.


Dubie's Stances

• He is now requesting that Entergy demonstrates that the aging plant can still be safely operated (Lynn).
• The costs of the leaks are minimal to Vermonters, and that the plant can be run safely.

Why Vermont's May Vote To Keep Vermont Yankee Open
Many Vermonters also share Dubie’s stance and remain in favor of extending the operating license of Vermont Yankee. Supporters of Dubie’s campaign believe:

• The leaks it has released are a minimal problem
• Shutting the plant down because of a few leaks is not worth the repercussions that that action may bring.
• Vermont Yankee is considered by many to be Vermont’s “hometown power factory,” as it provides one hundred million annually in economic benefit to the state and region though payroll, taxes, and local purchases of goods and services (Vermont Yankee).
• Vermont Yankee provides one-third of the electricity consumed in Vermont (Vermont Yankee).

Key Challenges of Vermont Yankee

• If shut down, the state would lose one-third of its total energy power source.
• The state could potentially be without energy.
• Vermont would need to come up with an alternative way to produce energy for a large region.

Alternatives to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant

Voters that want to shut down the nuclear power plant must take into consideration the effects of closing such a large energy producing plant.

Vermonters may elect to close the plant for a variety of reasons, but, certain questions should be raised when making that decision such as:

• What will replace Vermont Yankee, and produce as much energy for the state of Vermont?
• If the closing of Vermont Yankee drive’s energy prices up, will more Vermonter’s struggle to pay the new energy costs?

Types of energy sources

Renewable sources of energy can include:
• wind power
• solar power
• geothermal
• biomass
• hydropower

Renewable sources can be easily replenished unlike those that are nonrenewable. Vermont Yankee is a nuclear power plant, and nuclear power is nonrenewable source.


If Vermont Yankee closes, then the energy supplied into Vermont’s power grid will need to be replaced.

Short Term Solutions:

• Supply Vermont’s power grid with existing fossil fuel plants (Vermont Department of, 2008).
• Several energy producing partners, including renewable energy developers, could contract with Vermont utility companies and replace the energy that would be lost from Vermont Yankee (Vermont Department of, 2008).

Long Term Solutions:

• Produce reasonable amount of energy through wind, wood-fired, and small hydroelectric power.
• Vermont could look into Hydro Quebec as a permanent replacement to Vermont Yankee (Vermont Department of, 2008).

Hydro Quebec

• Presently produces 4,000 mega watts of renewable green hydropower, in contrast to Vermont Yankee that produces 640 mega watts of base load power (State of Vermont, 2010).
• Has 58 hydroelectric generating stations, 4 thermal generating stations, 1 nuclear generating station, and 1 wind farm (Hydro Quebec, 2010).
• The energy price for Vermonters may still increase.
• Vermont has been receiving energy from Hydro Quebec since the early 1980’s, and has also signed a contract with them in 1987 (Hydro Quebec, 2010). The contract presently in place between Vermont utilities and Hydro Quebec will expire in 2016, allowing opportunity for a new contract to be agreed upon (Hydro Quebec, 2010).

Other Alternative Energy Options
Use hydroelectric sites already around the state of Vermont.

• Presently, Vermont has about 174,000 kilowatts of undeveloped hydroelectric potential.
• If these sites are used to their full potential, they could produce 22% of Vermont’s current energy needs ("Renewable Energy Vermont,").
• Although 22% is a portion of Vermont’s energy needs, the other 78% would need to come from some other source. If Vermont decides to get creative, there are many alternatives to Vermont Yankee.

The Future if Vermont Yankee Closed

On February 24, 2010, the Vermont state senate voted 26-4 against the renewal of the nuclear plant’s license to operate. Unless the senate reverses the vote, and the house approves the extension of the license, the plant will be set to close down for good in March of 2012.

If the plant does in fact close down in 2012, there will be many consequences for the state and people of Vermont (Wald, Carlson, Remsen).

The power plant will need to be decommissioned.

• This a very time consuming process that usually takes decades to complete.
• Nuclear power plants can take anywhere from 10 to 50 years to completely decommission.

Methods used to shut down and decommission a nuclear power plant, each defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Breiteneicher).
The first method used to close down a nuclear power plant is known as DECON.

• This is the process of completely decontaminating, disassembling, and removing all of the parts and radioactive material for storage.
• The process can take up to ten years to complete.
• The estimated cost for Vermont Yankee to decontaminate the plant is estimated to be between $600 million and $900 million.
• After the plant has been decontaminated, the land is usually restored to its natural surroundings (Breiteneicher).

SAFSTOR is the next step in decommissioning.

• Used to keep a nuclear power plant safely stored until it is ready to be decontaminated during the DECON phase.
• The radioactive fuel is drained and stored in a container onsite while the systems are disconnected and disassembled.
• The plant is then locked up and safely monitored during which the radioactive fluids decay slowly over time.
• Can take up to 60 years before the nuclear plant can become fully decommissioned.
• Would cost Vermont Yankee about $200 million for the first five years of the phase, and $6 million for every year after those first five years.
• Vermont Yankee has always been required to keep a fund ready for decommissioning, in case it needed to happen.
• Presently Vermont Yankee’s fund is around $450 million.

Effects of Vermont Yankee Closing
The closure will have a large effect on the employees of Vermont Yankee.

• The median income for a Vermonter is $52,104.
• The nuclear power plant currently employs around 660 people who make an average of $81,000 per year.
• If the Vermont Yankee shuts down, there will be 660 (higher than average paying jobs) lost in Vermont.
• The income generated by these workers wage over $1 billion.
• Vermont Yankee employees depend on the income to live, some of which may need to relocate out of state to find new jobs.
• The estimated cumulative population loss in the state of Vermont would be around 500 people (Carlson).

Vermont Yankee also provides to the state and nation’s economy.

• If the plant were to be shut down in 2012, it is estimated that there would be a $5 billion dollar loss, overall, in Vermont’s economy.
• The company currently pays around $49 million dollars to Vermont in taxes and around $19 million to Vermont’s clean energy fund. If the plant closes, all of this money will also be lost (Breiteneicher).

The loss of the energy that power the plant currently provides.

• It is likely that the price of power in Vermont will greatly increase, and may drive many large businesses to move outside of Vermont.
• This could include the biggest current employer in Vermont, IBM.

Vermont Yankee's donations to several non-profit charities.

• Last year, the company donated over to over 100 non-profits totaling over $398 thousand
• There is also a food shelf in the Vernon area that is completely funded by the Entergy Corporation (Breiteneicher).

Although is it impossible to predict the future of the Vermont Yankee, it is very clear that if the plant closes, there will be a major impact on Vernon area, as well as the state itself. There will be much work needed to be done to completely decommission the plant, and the state will have to resolve issues regarding the loss of jobs, power, and money that Vermont Yankee once supplied. All of these factors need to be considered before making a final decision on the future of the nuclear power plant.


References

"Alternatives to Vermont Yankee." Vermont Department of Public Service. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. .
Andersen, Ralph “Groundwater Protection Initiative.” Nuclear Power Plant Emissions. 20 Oct. 2010.

AP. "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Continues Lobbying for New License | Masslive.com." Real-Time News - Editor's Pick. 03 Oct. 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. .

"Aperçu COM 2010-129 An." Hydro-Québec. 12 Aug. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. .

Breiteneicher, Max. "The Shutdown of Vermont Yankee Seems Inevitable. What Then?" The Commons 65 (2010). VT Digger, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2010. .

Carlson, Kristin. "Vt. Senate Votes to Close Vt. Yankee." WCAX, 24 Feb. 2010. Web. 21 Oct. 2010. .

Clayton, Mark. "State Senate Pulls the Plug on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant - CSMonitor.com."

The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. 24 Feb. 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. .

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. .

DiSavino, Scott. "XE.com - Entergy Finds Tritium at Vermont Yankee Again." XE - The World's Favorite Currency and Foreign Exchange Site. 11 Oct. 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2010.
.

Entergy Corporation. "Do You Know?" Vermont Yankee. 1999. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. .

Entergy Nuclear. "Entergy Nuclear - Vermont Yankee." Entergy Nuclear | The Power of People. 1998. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. .

"Entergy Vermont Yankee Root Cause Analysis: Department of Health Summary." Vermont Department of Health. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. .

Garofolo, Chris. "Shumlin, Dubie Weigh in on Vermont Yankee - Brattleboro Reformer." Home - Brattleboro Reformer. 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. .

Gram, Dave. "Shumlin: Vermont Nuke Plant Should Step up Cleanup." Boston.com. 11 Oct. 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. .

Lynn, By Angelo. "Editorial: Stark Contrasts on Entergy | Addison County Independent."
Addison County Independent | Covering the 23 Towns of Addison County, Vermont. 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. .

Remsen, Nancy. "Vermont Yankee Future Dogged by Doubt." Burlington Free Press, 25 Oct. 2009. Web. 19 Oct. 2010. .

"Small Hydro Power - Vermont." Renewable Energy Vermont. Web. 23 Oct. 2010. .

State of Vermont Government , Office of Lt. Governor Brian Dubie. (2010). Laying the
groundwork for a secure energy future Retrieved from http://ltgov.vermont.gov/logbook
Wald, Matthew L. "Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant." Nytimes.com. New York Times, 24 Feb. 2010. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. .