Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant Given 20-Year Renewal By NRC

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- Federal regulators on Monday gave the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a 20-year license renewal, despite calls for reconsideration following the nuclear disaster in Japan.

Issuance of the license was a foregone conclusion after the NRC voted to approve it on March 10, one day before an earthquake and tsunami triggered the still unfolding crisis at the Fukushima reactors in northeastern Japan, which are of the same design and about the same age as Vermont Yankee.

Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said officials there and with the plant's parent company, New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., were pleased to have the license in hand. But he added, "It's not a cause right now for any celebration in light of world events."

"I think the NRC has done their job," Smith added. "This has been a five-year review. There's been ample opportunity for people to weigh in."

The license renewal was granted a year to the day before Vermont Yankee's initial 40-year license was to expire. The plant still must be relicensed by the state, but the Senate last year rejected the idea, leaving its future uncertain.

The renewal was the first granted by the NRC since events in Japan began to unfold 10 days earlier.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., had issued a statement Sunday calling for a moratorium on new licenses or license renewals for U.S. reactors in the wake of the Japanese crisis.

"It's hard to understand how the NRC could move forward for a license extension for Vermont Yankee at exactly the same time as a nuclear reactor of similar design is in partial meltdown in Japan," Sanders told The Associated Press. "The idea of keeping Vermont Yankee open ... until it is 60 years of age defies comprehension."

Vermont Yankee, which operations in 1972, is located in Vernon, in Vermont's southeast corner, within sight of New Hampshire across the Connecticut River and about three miles from the Massachusetts line. It's a General Electric Mark 1 boiling water reactor, as are the Fukushima reactors.

Entergy bought Vermont Yankee in 2002 from the group of New England utilities that had owned it and boosted its power output in 2005.

Vermont Yankee announced in January of 2010 that test wells had turned up evidence that radioactive tritium had leaked from underground pipes at the plant into surrounding soil and groundwater. Within days it was revealed that plant executives had misled state lawmakers and regulators – the latter under oath – by saying the plant did not have the type of underground pipes that carried radioactive substances.

Vermont is the only state in the country with a law calling on its Legislature to give the go-ahead before state regulators issue the state permit the plant also needs to operate past March of 2010. A month after the revelations about the tritium leaks, the state Senate voted 26-4 against allowing the plant to renew its state permit. After the Senate killed the measure, it never went to the House.

Comments

[wakeisland]

05:33 PM on 03/31/2011

GOOD I'm glad they didn't let the treehuggers win in vermont.
We need more nuclear power and I hope the 20 plants on the drawing board get built

[Kenz300]

02:20 PM on 03/28/2011

Nuclear power is too costly and too dangerous. An accident can poison the water,
air and food we all need to survive. This is just too high a risk to take.
The cost of the clean up in Japan, TMI and Chernobyl will never be fully paid for.
Chernobyl is still not clean up even today. What about the cost of storing the spent
fuel rods FOREVER.

It is time to transition to safe, clean alternative energy. Wind, solar, wave energy,
geothermal, hydro, and second generation biofuels made from waste, algae and cellulose are the future.

[HLL]

02:55 PM on 03/26/2011

We need to transition out of nuclear power, ASAP (and coal and oil) ☮

Michio Kaku, PhD - 3 Raging Nuclear Meltdowns in Progress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07I5qdMEaz4&feature=feedf

[wakeisland]

05:34 PM on 03/31/2011

move to Lancaster PA and live with the Amish then you will be good to go.

[tygh]

03:14 PM on 03/24/2011

10,000 years from now the most visible trace of human habitation will be concrete in-cased nuclear power plants.
Monuments to human hubris.

[HLL]

11:10 AM on 03/26/2011

F & F ~ If only the USA would take the lead and transition us out of nuclear.... and coal and oil also, for that matter; it is time for clean green alternatives ☮

"The Japanese nuclear crisis has sparked global repercussions. Protests erupted across Europe.

Eva Joly, a French member of the European parliament, said at one protest: "We know how to get out of the nuclear plants: We need renewable energy, we need windmills, we need geothermal, and we need solar energy."

Switzerland has halted plans to re-license its reactors, and 10,000 protesters in Stuttgart prompted German Chancellor Angela Merkel to order and immediate shutdown of Germany's seven pre-1980 nuclear plants..."
~ Amy Goodman, Calling Time on the Nuclear Age, 3-16-11

[playon]

03:46 PM on 03/23/2011

It's OK, should there be a melt-down problem, bucket brigades are standing by to cool the reactor.

[RoyalOak]

01:41 PM on 03/23/2011

What the WHAT? Can someone put this on the front page, please?

[nmaddog7]

02:17 PM on 03/23/2011

@RoyalOak
Here is a list of links directly to Senator Leahy & Sanders,Rep Welch,Gov Shumlin and other VT gov workers Contact Me pages, where you can send a quick note expressing your opinion on the matter. I made it to send to friends/family about this matter
http://bit.ly/fsoHE3
If you want to see what the pro-nuke advocates supporting VT Yankee are saying, check out Yes Vermont Yankee!, where you can post questions directly to the former nuclear industry worker's blog.

[RoyalOak]

04:19 PM on 03/23/2011

Thank you!

[HLL]

05:45 PM on 03/31/2011

F & F for being pro-active, nmaddog7. Thank you for the link! ☮

[netzwerg]

01:26 PM on 03/23/2011

"Why? Because Germany has not replaced enough of their power with other sources. Why? Because solar is not efficient enough and wind power has turned out to be too unreliable."

Wind and solar power is a huge success in Germany. 370000 people work in good paying alternative energies jobs already, growing fast.

Germany’s solar panels produce more power than Japan’s entire 6 reactor Fukushima complex.
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-22-germanys-solar-panels-produce-more-power-than-japans-entire-fuku

[JDLA]

02:17 PM on 03/23/2011

It's funny how numbers work, but, Fukushima Daiichi provides just 2.4% of the entire electricity usage in Japan. The ENTIRE solar energy produced in Germany,is only equal to this 2.4% of the national electricity usage in Japan. This explains why Germany has been buying electricity from France, a country that produces 70% of its electricity from nuclear plants. It's easy to look down your nose at others when you have someone else doing your dirty work.

[sslaughter]

05:28 PM on 03/23/2011

Last I heard, Germany was a net exporter. And they seem to have come to the conclusion it will be better to shift to wind/solar sooner rather than later (but they will shift).

[aligatorhardt]

11:58 PM on 03/23/2011

Perhaps your conclusions are not based on fact.  www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/germany-the-worlds-first-major-renewable-energy-economy

[wakeisland]

05:41 PM on 03/31/2011

Well You see how the green energy field almost sent Spain into bankruptcy

[Chevalier Dupin]

12:42 PM on 03/23/2011

The reactor wasn't the problematic issue in Japan...

[nmaddog7]

02:23 PM on 03/23/2011

VT Yankee is known for being a problem plant. Entergy, the company that manages it, has been covering up leaks of radioactive tritium into the CT River which flows downstream into populated areas. Check out 7 Days, the local paper, and it's online coverage of the VT Yankee debacle.
I actually read someone defending the leaks by saying tritium isn't that bad- I would love to see him/her drink some of that contaminated water on a daily basis, or better yet, let their children drink it-just like those in Vernon are forced to do!

[jb6789]

09:43 AM on 03/25/2011

"Yine". Actually, the complete loss of power and structural damages to various equipment from the tsunami both combined to present a serious risk to the reactors. In a shutdown emergency, solid fuel reactors like the BWR Mark 1 require valve reconfigurations to line up emergency decay heat removal coolant to/from the core. Yes, the primary containment structure is designed to contain the core in event of a partial core meltdown, but there is no guarantee that material amounts of contamination will not be released to the environment. For certain the reactor will become useless and the cleanup enormously expensive.

In the case of Japan, the spent fuel pools, which are always external to the primary and internal to the secondary containment structures, remain the biggest risk. Fuel Element Failures (FEF's) in these spent cores can release large amounts of contamination into the environment. Most people do not realize that a solid fuel spent core contains a large amount of unused U-235...plus high radiation fission products and longer-lived transuranics. Both radioactive gases and solid particulate come out of overheated/uncovered spent fuel which has suffered FEF's.

Based on current evidence, this seems the most likely condition on the ground in and around Japan.

[JDLA]

12:34 PM on 03/23/2011

Let's say we want to use wind power for a percentage of our electric needs. America's 103 nuclear plants supply provide 20% of our electricity so that seems like a reasonable place to start. A 2MW turbine operating at the industry accepted 35% capacity (wind doesn't blow constantly) generates 3,066 MWH per year. An average nuclear plan generates 17,520,000 MWH per year. so 5,714 turbines replaces one nuclear facility. 103 nuclear plants times 5,714 turbines = 588,542 turbines to generate 20% of our electrical needs and replace Nuclear . (The turbines cost about 3 million each)
Where to put them all? We have about 1800 miles of Atlantic coastline! A turbine every 1,000 ft
would allow for 9,504 turbines from Bangor Maine to Miami Fla. So, now we would need a wind farm 62 rows deep to get to 588,542 turbines. Problem is, each row also needs to be 1,000 ft apart so we have a grid of turbines from Maine to Florida extending 12 miles out into the ocean.
Then there is the enormous amount of new electrical infrastructure cabling that will be needed to deliver this power.
We'll save the discussion about the environmental impact for another time.
All for 20% of America's electrical needs........................... or 103 Nuclear plants.

[netzwerg]

01:15 PM on 03/23/2011

2MW turbines are a bit oldschool.
We already got lots of 6MW turbines up and running, such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxp6QTjgJg

[JDLA]

01:54 PM on 03/23/2011

ok lets look at these monstrosities. Each tower is 138 meters high (453 feet) and its walls are 45 centimeters (18 inches) thick, the diameter of the rotor is 126 meters (413 feet) because of their large size, they produce 3 times the electricity of a 2MW turbine. This ONLY requires 196,181 of these turbines, but because of their larger span, the towers need to be another 400 feet apart . So now we have 6,789 gigantic turbines, spaced 1400 feet apart running from Bangor Maine to Miami Florida. A grid that is 29 rows deep of gigantic turbines 1400 ft apart that stretches 7.7 miles ( much deeper water and towers would have to be built much taller) out into the ocean. As long as its in somebody else's back yard, and the hurricanes don't bother them, or the occasional freighter that plows into one...................... at 4.5 mill each, $882,814,000,000 to purchase these, then there is installation, deep water installation, additional power grid cables, maintenance, lawsuits, we should be at a couple of trillion no time. So for the small price of destroying our entire coast line and spending a trillions we will get 20% of our current electrical needs met What a deal!

[aligatorhardt]

12:07 AM on 03/24/2011

Turbines of up to 15 MW are being designed using super cooled magnets which allow size and weight to be half compared to conventional designs.

[aligatorhardt]

12:04 AM on 03/24/2011

It is not believable to claim any wind turbine can only be expected to deliver 30% of nameplate voltage when every location is different and new models are more efficient than some old ones, and modern wind resource testing allows locations to be evaluated before wind systems are installed. It is an ancient talking point only to claim that you can determine the rate of return with no specific information on the equipment or the site. Your figures are strictly imaginary, and dishonest.

[JDLA]

08:49 PM on 03/24/2011

Straight from the horses mouth........http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html read myth number 4 with true answer. As I said in the first place, accepted industry standards.
I was too generous with my 35%. According to the above renewable energy website only 30% of a turbine maximum output can be expected.

[notdarkyet]

11:40 AM on 03/23/2011

Germany is set to get rid of their nuclear plants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110323/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_germany_abandoning_nuclear_power

[JDLA]

12:04 PM on 03/23/2011

Germany voted to shut down nuclear power inr 2000 . The plan was to phase out all reactors by the year 2020. Germany decided to take 7 of their 17 nuclear power plants offline - the oldest 7 will be turned off for 3 months for a safety review. Why now? because they have enough other sources to survive the next three months, the lowest electricity demand months of the year. These 7 are actually undergoing a review to determine if they should operate beyond 2020. Why? Because Germany has not replaced enough of their power with other sources. Why? Because solar is not efficient enough and wind power has turned out to be too unreliable; in order to be reliable Germany will need many more wind turbines than originally planned, and the power from these turbines will require the construction of 3,600 kilometers of additional high voltage electric lines at a cost of 9.5 billion Euro. In 11 years how much progress has Germany made? Of the 3,600 km of electric lines needed, Germany has built 90 km so far. Any bets on the year 2020? Nuclear power plants will still be running.

[netzwerg]

01:17 PM on 03/23/2011

but.... but.... but....

[nmaddog7]

02:38 PM on 03/23/2011

Okay, those 7 plants are the ones built b4 1980, VT Yankee was built b4 1980. It also has been notorious for leaks which have been hidden by the co that manages it Entergy-which isn't based in state. Also..
1.Wind/Solar-we need to invest in innovation in these, just like the DoD invest in robotics, which has spurred huge leaps in the technology. I think we all are on the same page that energy is a huge part of our national security, and unless you work for gas/oil companies you probably would agree that if wind/solar/and other alt sources can be pulled off it would be a positive development. Just look at what progress the Dutch have made in managing flooding because after the big flood in the early 20th century they made it a matter of national security.
And 2. VT need to look at energy conservation as well. VT gov has been involved in building some housing projects that use energy conservation as well as mixed use design principles. In a cold state like VT, the minimum should be to use the latest in insulation tech when constructing new buildings. If you've ever been to Stowe,VT, you'd have noticed that even chains like McDonalds have no neon signs or horrible bright paint. Since the state depends on it's nature for it's economy, it have a unique oppurtunity to add it's image by investing in new energy ideas.

[KeysDan]

11:23 AM on 03/23/2011

Nuclear energy is a relic of the past century, a psychic reparation for the use of nuclear energy for weapons and a chance to "convert" it into "Peaceful Uses". Most of the present day commercial energy sources present risk: oil drilling, coal mining, and even natural gas, when greed gets in the way with fractional drilling. But nuclear energy, in any sane analysis, shows that the risks outweigh in eons, the benefits. Cesium 137 has a half life of 30 years, requiring about 200 years for decay to bring it to one percent, a safe level. And, the radioactive wastes can hang around for 10,000 years, longer than the containers that hold it. Even the radioactive iodine, which has a short half life, can cause thyroid cancer.

[alvdh1]

09:05 AM on 03/23/2011

Here is the day by day account of the events at the Fukushima nuclear accident. I am providing this do to the virtual news blackout of the ongoing events here and at other media outlets. The media is treating it as if the crisis has ended. Mother Jones maintains near hourly reporting of the events. Libya must be a story journalist can get there arms around as opposed to the complexity of issues at Fukushima. This is appalling, even for the Huffington Post to walk away from this story. Radiation levels were 1,600 times normal 12 miles from the plant yesterday. Medical workers fled a hospital 6 miles from the plant, abandoning 128 elderly patients - 14 have died as a result. Radiation levels are 27 times above normal in Hitachi 62 miles from the plant.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/03/japans-nuclear-emergency

[nmaddog7]

02:43 PM on 03/23/2011

Cool I'll check that out. I found it amazing the other day when AH1N1 was trending on Twitter and the Japanese crisis hasn't been on the trends list for #tags.
Wikipedia also is a good source b/c it uses a large group to go through all the b/s and repetitive MSM articles and finds the most useful of them, also it's graphics on what has been done are much cleared on the Fukushima plant Wiki page.

[aligatorhardt]

12:12 AM on 03/24/2011

Also see  www.allthingsnuclear.org   for updates and general information.

[TSRVT]

08:51 AM on 03/23/2011

Oops - forgot the link mentioned below. Here it is:

http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm

[TSRVT]

08:50 AM on 03/23/2011

To those who say that an earthquake or a tsunami are the only threats to nuke plants, I would point them to the ice storm that his the northeastern US in 1998. It cripples electrical transmission lines everywhere from upstate NY to all of northern New England and much of Quebec. Some regions were without power for up the three weeks.

For another eye-opener, check out this link. It allows you to draw a radius on a map. Just for yucks, draw a 50 mile radius around Vernon, VT. You will see that it encompasses all of southern VT, most of southern NH, and a huge chunk of western MA, all the way to the CT border. Now talk to me about re-licensing this ramshackle heap we fondly know as VT Yankee.

[Lunamoth]

08:30 AM on 03/23/2011

The NRC is working very hard at preserving their power and their jobs.