Vermont Yankee Faces an Uncertain Future

Plans to export low-level waste from Vermont to Texas came to fruition in early September 2012 with the first shipment of a 90-gallon drum of low-level radioactive waste to a nuclear waste control facility in Andrews County, Texas. The shipment of waste — facilitated by the Texas-Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission that was established in 1998 — represents the most recent step taken by the state of Vermont on a difficult path to determining the future of nuclear energy generation in the state.

“The purpose of [the waste-shipping agreement] is so that we have a repository for low level waste generated in Vermont,” said Deputy Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service Sarah Hofmann.

In March 2012, the operating license for the Vermont Yankee, Vermont’s only nuclear generation facility, expired. Owners of the facility appealed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for relicensing, which was granted in March 2011.

“We have an extensive oversight process,” said Senior Public Affairs Officer at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Diane Screnci.  “It’s an inspection program that we carry out at each plant in the country. Five or six thousand hours of inspections and inspection-related activities each year where we look at what they are doing.”

The facility, which has been producing nuclear energy since 1972 and is Vermont’s single largest in-state source of energy generation, is the focus of an intense statewide debate about the appropriateness of re-licensing the nuclear facility ­— one that is being played out in both federal and state courtrooms.

There are currently active court cases about the Vermont Yankee at both federal and municipal levels.

At the state level, the public service board is concerned with the potential for environmental degradation and other issues that may arise due to the plant’s aging infrastructure. Critics cite an incident that occurred in August 2007 in which a cooling tower at the Vermont Yankee partially collapsed and caused a 50 percent reduction in energy production while repairs were being made as a primary reason why the license ought not to be renewed.

The terminology used in the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission agreement, which categorizes all of the exported fuel as “low-level,” seems to beg the question, what happens to the high-level waste?

“High level nuclear waste — which is called spent nuclear fuel — is actually [housed] in a spent fuel pool in Vermont Yankee,” said Hofmann. “There are now 13 dry casks on a pad — big concrete canisters. Some of the high level fuel is in these casks and some is in the fuel pool.”

Hofmann is quick to acknowledge the age of the facility and recognize the importance of managing the facility’s aging infrastructure. Across Vermont, critics of the plant have voiced safety concerns.

“I think Vermont Yankee should not have received a license extension from the NRC,” said Stafford Professor of Public Policy, Political Science and Environmental Studies Christopher McGrory Klyza. “The plant is beyond its planned life, has had numerous operational problems and has an untrustworthy operator.”

The federal case pits Entergy — the New Orleans-based energy company that owns the Vermont Yankee — against Governor Peter Shumlin and the state of Vermont.

“[It’s] a case about how much control the state legislature [should] have over the re-licensing,” said Hofmann.

Shumlin’s recently imposed tax increase on nuclear electricity generation has elicited a harsh response from Entergy. Entergy has filed a lawsuit against the state of Vermont in response to this tax hike, claiming that the state is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in which corporations are guaranteed the same rights as people.

Entergy claims that the tax is unconstitutional because it is intended to drive the Vermont Yankee — the state’s sole nuclear energy provider and consequently the only corporation subjected to the new tax hike — out of business despite the federal ruling made by U.S. District Court Judge John Murtha in March 2012 that Vermont Yankee would be allowed to continue operating under the auspices of NRC’s re-licensing.

According to Hofmann, the case has already been decided — district-level federal judges have indicated that the Vermont legislature has overstepped its boundaries — and while the federal case is being processed, the federal court has allowed the plant to remain open. However, the Vermont Yankee is not currently producing any energy.

“Right now there is no Vermont utility taking power from Vermont Yankee under our contractual agreement,” said Hofmann. “We get none of our power from Vermont Yankee at this time.”

According to Hoffman, Vermont Yankee will not play a significant role in Vermont’s energy future.

“The way we did the comprehensive energy plan was to plan without Vermont Yankee because it was slated to shut down in 2012,” said Hofmann.

The future of nuclear energy in Vermont and across the country  is uncertain. Klyza cited costs, waste storage uncertainties and health risks as the primary obstacles to the expansion of nuclear power in the US.

“I might support the development of more nuclear power if, and only if, it were part of a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as a cap and trade program,” said Klyza. “I am opposed to further expansion without such an explicit connection.”