case study finalish

8/22/2019 Case Study Finalish

1/20

1 | P a g e

Obama announcing his plan to provide $8bn in loan guarantees to nuclear energy plants in Georgia. Image from USA Today

Introduction

Nuclear power is sometimes promoted as the way of the future for civilizations energy

needs. The Obama administration has given support and large amounts of financial assistance

towards the construction of new nuclear power reactors. Nuclear power, on paper, is safe,

efficient, and sustainable. Within hundreds of nuclear power reactors over the globe, it indeed

meets these dimensions successfully.

However, due to the nature of the technology behind nuclear power reactors, a minor

slip in safety could potentially mark the reactor as the epicenter of a widespread disaster. These

disasters have occurred already, in the case of the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania,

the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, and more recently, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan. A

nuclear reactor meltdown creates nigh-irreparable damage to the immediate environment,

contaminating a surrounding area miles in radius with radiation. Nearby inhabitants exposed to

meltdown radiation are prone to cancer. Cleanup takes decades, payoffs and infrastructure

damage totals billions.


2/20

2 | P a g e

Nuclear disasters are the sole reason why regulation agencies exist. The chief nuclear

power regulation entity in the United States is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). They

are based in the federal government, and hold regulation authority over all nuclear power

facilities in the entire country. They publish, maintain, and enforce numerous criteria for

nuclear reactors, their facilities, and their management. The NRC is in place to make sure that

nuclear disasters do not happen in the US.

Within the United States, there are a total of 65 commercially operating nuclear power

plants in 31 states. The NRC is confident that all of these facilities follow its regulations, and

therefore are safe from causing a nuclear disaster. However, several of these power plants have

been marked as at-risk of being shut down from regulatory and market pressures. One such

plant is the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant, located in the state of Vermont, and owned by the

corporation Entergy. Vermont Yankee has been particularly affected by the increasing pressures

on the nuclear power industry.

Vermont Yankee is currently scheduled to be decommissioned in 2014. There are

several factors to Vermont Yankees demise; surely the global, post-Fukushima attitude has

affected its image, but according to the plants corporate owners, the primary reason is

economics. According to Entergy, the recent increasing supply and lowering price of natural gas

energy from the advent of hydro fracturing has pushed the plant out of the energy market.

Entergy blames government subsidies and disadvantages held solely by nuclear power

suppliers. This issue was a slow, accumulating weight on Entergy; they attempted to sell the

plant in 2010.

However, nearly a decade ago, there was other negative commotion surrounding

Vermont Yankee. There was an initiative emerging that was putting pressure on the plant and

raising awareness for some questionable safety results. While the NRC regulates with a broad,

faceless front, this initiative was local, and personified by critics and politicians. While the NRC

approved Yankee Nuclear to continue running, the initiative disagreed, and tried to do the right

thing from their perspective and call out the plant.


3/20

3 | P a g e

The initiative was comprised of a few different types of individuals. Primarily, it was

pushed by politicians from the state and municipal government of Vermont. These politicians

and lawmakers investigated Vermont Yankees claims of safety and used political methods to

regulate the plants business where it saw safety issues. There were also local social critics to

the plant, such as local citizens who organized or participated in protests, as well as journalists

and environmental science or nuclear energy specialists who were critical to Vermont Yankees

actions.

After some mishaps and misleading on part of the nuclear plant, the government began

using what tools they had to limit the plants activity. Primarily, they refused the issuance of a

Certificate of Public good, which endangered the plants overall operations. These actions were

arguably out of their scope of power; the NRC, a federal entity, is supposed to regulate and

approve plant activity, not the local government. And along that philosophy, a federal judge

ruled that the state of Vermont could not control the nuclear plant in that manner.

The problem with this entire situation is that the local powers, who were in the

immediate vicinity of the plant and its operating reactor, were not able to fight back when they

felt that the plants safety was declining. Their fighting did not achieve the results that they

desired. The people involved in the local initiative saw Vermont Yankees safety problems as a

smoking gun for a potential nuclear disaster down the road. They recognized that a small slip

today may mean a big problem in the future. They wanted to keep their houses and families, as

well as their region and its citizens, safe from a potential nuclear disaster.

The story of Vermont Yankee and its local resistance initiative brings up several

important questions. The initiative asserted that there was a decline in quality of operational

safety. What if the citizens and politicians of Vermont were correct, the federal regulation

entities were incorrect, and Yankee Nuclear was a catastrophe waiting to happen? The initiative

failed, but the plant is still shutting down. What if the plant were not to be decommissioned

due to economic factors? Could there have been renewed initiatives? Shutting down the plant

removes a large portion of the surrounding areas power supply, and the plants

decommissioning will now cause electricity production in the area to be outsourced. Was the


4/20

4 | P a g e

initiative justified in trying to regulate the plant itself? Did the individuals involved in the

initiative understand the impacts of their goal? What kind of lessons can be learned from the

initiative?


5/20

5 | P a g e

The Vermont Yankee power plant control room. Image from the New York Times

Why did the initiative emerge?

Nuclear disasters are devastating to both countries that need to deal with them and

citizens directly affected. Cleanup and compensation expenditures following the Fukushima

disaster since 2011 have so far cost Japan $80 billion. 160,000 residents will have to be

permanently relocated.1Given that the Vermont Yankee reactor and Fukushima reactor are of

nearly identical designs, it may appear to some that Vermont Yankee will be the next epicenter

of a widespread, catastrophic nuclear disaster, possibly affecting New York, the most populous

city in the country. The truth of that matter is that Vermont Yankee is not in nearly as much

danger, but there are certainly large safety issues present.

1The Guardian. Fukushima residents may never go home, say Japanese officials Nov 2013


6/20

6 | P a g e

In order to understand an incident like

this better, there needs to be some clarification

on the technology involved. A nuclear disaster is

often referenced synonymously to a nuclear

meltdown. A nuclear meltdown is where the

radioactive, energy-generating core of a nuclear

reactor becomes overheated and melts.

Overheating will only happen if the reactors

cooling mechanisms fail to maintain the cores temperature. If a core melts, dangerous

reactions between the core and its coolant can cause explosions or damage to other layers of

containment.

There are many mechanisms in place to maintain a nuclear cores temperature and

prevent overheating and subsequent meltdown, even (and especially) in the event of an

accident or malfunction. In the case of a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), the coolant used is

simply deionized water brought to boil from the nuclear core. The heated water is then taken

to a generator to have its heat extracted and turned into electricity. Containments are

engineered to safely match the design life of the fuel.

There are safety measures in place to guarantee, with several layers of reliability, that

different variables are expected and consistent. Such variables include temperature, pressure,

and flow rate of the coolant. For instance, in one General Electric BWR design (the same type as

Vermont Yankee), there are standby barriers available to deliver power for emergency cooling

systems if auxiliary power becomes unavailable. If there is a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA),

emergency cooling is added to the system relevant to how much coolant has been lost, or is

continually leaking.2

The threat of a looming nuclear disaster is an incredible stress on people and

communities. Within time periods shortly after nuclear disasters, surveys on American citizens

2General Electric. Status report 100 - Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR)Jul 2011

A GE-designed Boiling Water Reactor Core. Image from GE


7/20

7 | P a g e

Photographs of the Three Mile Island, Chernobul, and Fukushima reactors respectively.

Images from Wikipedia, Boston.com, and cryptome.com, respectively.

have shown sharp drops in approval towards reliance on nuclear power.3Nobody wants to see

a nuclear meltdown happen in their back yard. Living local to a nuclear reactor makes people

fear for their safety and investments. As one individual illustrated in a Burlington Free Press op-

ed, Can you imagine how such an accident would impact the Vermont economy? can you

imagine what effect an accident at Vermont Yankee would have on the value of your home?4

It is important to note that some nuclear reactors are more at risk that others. The

Fukushima plant was affected by both an earthquake and a tsunami; these natural disasters

simply will not occur in an environment like southern Vermont. Unlike other United States fault

regions such as the West Coast and parts of the Midwest, there is no risk of an earthquake that

comes close to the magnitude of the one that triggered the Fukushima disaster. There have

been no historical earthquake events in Vermont. There is also a very low tornado rating for

Vermont.5 Additionally, the fallout from Fukushima was much larger because that plant

contained four reactors. Vermont Yankee has only one.

However, nuclear disasters are not majorly triggered by natural disasters. The Three

Mile Island accident, a partial core meltdown incident in Pennsylvania in 1979, was attributed

to numerous mishaps in safety protocols. Alerts of coolant loss were ignored by operators, and

emergency protocols were not followed properly. In addition, automatic safety mechanisms

3USA Today. Poll: Fears of nuclear disaster in U.S. rise after Japan quake Mar2011

4Burlingtonfreepress.com. Letter: Vermont Yankee risk not worth taking Apr 2011

5USA.com. North Montpelier, VT Natural Disasters and Weather ExtremesAccessed Nov 2013


8/20

8 | P a g e

also failed.6 Although the accident was defused with no injuries or casualties, the incident

caused much upheaval in national opinion of reliance on nuclear power.

Another important factor detriment to safety of a nuclear plant is age. Vermont Yankee

was opened for commercial operations in 1972 with a General Electric BWR design dating to

the 1960s. Modern nuclear reactors are built with current technology, and have vastly superior

safety and efficiency capabilities. The GE design was only intended to last through a 40-year

license, then decommissioned. Entergy had taken several measures to extend its capability to

operate for a longer period. As their spent fuel pool approached capacity, they gained approval

to construct more storage to continue operation past their original license. They also have

increased their power output from 500 MW to 620 MW.7Vermont Yankee was running both

longer and harder than intended by design.

The risk of nuclear disaster may seem like the entirety of the reason a company requires

to build and operate a plant safely; unfortunately, companies also have reasons for lowering

safetys importance. The energy grid is a market, and companies construct power-generating

facilities to generate a profit on their product. In the case of nuclear plants, safety costs are

significantly greater than coal- or gas-fired plants. In addition, nuclear plants need to deal with

the expensive disposal of spent nuclear fuel.8

Entergy has stated that the plant has cost them $400 million in safety costs thus far to

operate the plant since their acquisition in 2006, and anticipates the decommissioning of the

plant to additionally cost them over $500 million.9Some senators believe that decommissioning

will cost over $1 billion.10

One can observe that a company could cut corners on safety in order

to save money and make a larger profit. The initiative seemed to believe that Entergy was

deprioritizing safety to save on safety expenditures, and seeking relicensing to sell more power

and delay the cost of decommissioning.

6Report of The President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island Oct 1979

7The Electricity Journal. The Debate over Re-Licensing the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant May 2010

8World Nuclear Association. The Economics of Nuclear Power Oct 2013

9Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee Frequently Asked Questions Accessed Nov 2013

10The New York Times. Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant Feb 2010


9/20

9 | P a g e

The recent claims made against Vermont Yankee, and the driving force of the initiatives

politics, are based on the plants lack of safety due to failing to follow safety standards. The

initiative publicized and capitalized on incidents within Vermont Yankee that gave the

impression that the necessary safety standards were not upheld.

As I move into the who of the initiative, I would like to define precisely what events

the initiative was involved with. There were two main events that spiraled lawmakers safety

inquiries into strong distrust. Firstly, there was a cooling tower collapse at the plant in 2007.

This event was downplayed by Entergy and Vermont Yankee officials, and the lawmakers were

reassured via correspondence that the collapse had no impact on plant safety or reliability.

Regardless, the event triggered wariness. Second, an investigation was sparked by an Oversight

Panel on groundwater contamination through underground pipes. Vermont Yankee denied the

possibility, but over time, radioactive contamination was discovered, and Vermont Yankee lost

a great deal of credibility. After these events, legislation was pushed harder than ever to

disallow the plant to continue operations through its renewed license.


10/20

10 | P a g e

From left to right, Gov. Peter Shumlin, Sen. Randy Brock, and Gov. Jim Douglas. Image from the Boston Globe Magazine.

Who comprised the initiative, and what did they

do?

The initiative was a political grassroots push against Entergy Nuclear and Vermont

Yankee. A grassroots initiative is one supported and advanced by a community. The community

in this case was the anti-nuclear population within the state of Vermont, as well as the areas

local to Vermont Yankee, i.e. New England. These regions had the most potential to be affected

if Vermont Yankee were the center of a disaster.

The initiative does not have an explicit origin date; however, I would reason to say that

it only started with Entergys ownership of Vermont Yankee. Entergy settled on acquiring

Vermont Yankee from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (VYNPC), a New Englandutilities group, in 2002 for $180 million. Additionally, VYNPC was about to sell the plant for only

$23.5 million11

; it seems as if VYNCP was inclined to sell the plant off as it neared its license

11Vermont Business Magazine. Vermont Yankee finally sold to Entergy Sep 2002


11/20

11 | P a g e

expiration in 2012. This is probably because decommissioning is a long, expensive process, and

VYNCP preferred to sell off the plant instead of dealing with the decommissioning process.

More importantly, in 2006, Entergy applied to the NRC for Vermont Yankees 20-year

license extension. If Entergy had let Vermont Yankee run its course and decommission on

schedule, then there would not have been any kind of initiative scrutinizing its dangers. The

plant would have met the end of its lifetime on schedule, according to its original design.

Entergys action of investing in extending Vermont Yankees lifetime spurred a new initiative

that was more aggressive, and more political, than the general, nation-wide anti-nuclear

protest that has existed for decades. Therefore, 2006 is not a bad date to choose as a reference

point for the initiatives origins.

The end goal of the initiative seemed to be to shutter Vermont Yankee. However, the

initiatives pressure was originally only to check on Vermont Yankees safety standards as a

nuclear plant located in a populated area. The primary political moves were more regulatory

and precautionary. Following the defining incidents, the initiative changed gears into a far

more aggressive movement in order to stop Vermont Yankee from continuing business

unsafely.

There was also no explicit organization tothe initiative. For the most part, the initiative can

be found and quantified only through news

articles and political statements against, or

reflecting actions taken against Vermont

Yankees practices and alleged standards of

safety. There exists no comprehensive website

cataloguing actions and statements made by lawmakers or critics that were part of the

initiative. There is, however, a large amount of negative press on Vermont Yankee, that seems

to culminate into a common believe and cause. This culmination of purpose, towards doing

something about Vermont Yankee, is what is defined by the initiative.

Entergys logo and slogan. Image from Entergy.


12/20

12 | P a g e

Descriptions of the initiative often will reference Vermont lawmakers. These individuals

were the ones pushing hard for legislative action to be taken on Vermont Yankee. Other

supporters not involved in the politics perhaps lent their voice to the cause; however,

historically, citizen action has done little to deter the nuclear plants business. (This is an

important point that will be discussed in the conclusion of this study.) There were still citizen

contributions to the initiative; however, the lawmakers were truly the only ones with enough

authority to bring in official regulatory entities and have an effect on Vermont Yankee.

There were several powerful players within the initiative that were part of the Vermont

lawmakers. The most prominent figures in the initiative were the governors of Vermont during

the initiatives active timespan, Jim Douglas (R) until November 2010 and Peter Shumlin (D)

thereafter. Gov. Douglas sparked inquiry and correspondence with Vermont Yankee after the

cooling tower collapse, and orchestrated a panel of experts to investigate potential leeching of

radioactivity into groundwater. Gov. Douglas also led a senate vote to restrict Vermont

Yankees permission to operate under their renewed license.

Gov. Shumlin has frequently voiced his opposition to Vermont Yankee publicly, and was

involved in appealing the 2013 court decision restricting the Senates authority over Vermont

Yankees operations.He was also the president pro tem of the Vermont Senate during sessions

involving decisions and debate about Vermont Yankee. Another prominent lawmaker in the

initiative was Randy Brock (R), a pro-nuclear Vermont senator. Despite advocating nuclear

power, Brock was deeply doubtful of Vermont Yankees credibility, and found their business

practices uncanny and found the companys administration to be untrustworthy. In addition, as

a body of lawmakers, the Vermont senate has been generally agreed in majority with the

opinions of the politicians mentioned thus far.

The first major incident at Vermont Yankee was a cooling tower collapse in September

of 2007. After the incident, various officials, including state senators and Gov. Douglas sent

correspondence to Vermont Yankee questioning the implications of the collapse, and what the

accident reflected about the plants safety standards. In addition, there were numerous

Photograph of Vermont Yankee cooling tower collapse.

Image from the New York Times.


13/20

13 | P a g e

requests made for an Independent Safety

Assessment to be made of the plants operations.12

The plants representatives responded to the

legislators with reassurance, indicating that the

cooling tower was nonessential to emergency

reactor protocols.13

However, in public statements to the

Associated Press, Vermont Yankee officials

expressed the seriousness of the incident. The site

vice president, stated, "It's unacceptable to us, and

it's not like us." The engineering director of

Vermont Yankee stated, "What we know now is

that the inspection program we have in place needs to be enhanced."14

This more apologetic,

urgent response is far different than that given straight to government officials.

The second major incident began a year after the tower collapse. In 2008, Gov. Douglas

and other Vermont lawmakers created a panel of nuclear experts to investigate if Vermont

Yankee had underground piping leaking radiation into groundwater15

. This inquiry was largely

due to the discovery of similar problems in other plants throughout the country.16

The

Oversight Panel was a large step forward for the initiative. It was a move away from passive

citizen protest and towards regulatory criticism and inquiry made by qualified analysts and

officials.

In response to the inquiry, Vermont Yankee strongly denied any possibility of radiation-

leaking undergrounds piping. A safety team hired by the Vermont Department of Public Service

agreed. The Oversight Panel verified this claim with information from NSA, a private nuclear

safety organization, and Entergy. However, over the next year, information emerged from

12Correspondence to Senator Leahy from Dale E. Klein. May 2008

13Correspondence to Senator Kennedy from Dale E. Klein. Oct 2007

14Boston.com. Vt. Yankee reports on collapse in tower Sep 2007

15Times Argus. Backtracking and in trouble: A detailed timeline on who said what on Vt. Yankee Feb 2010

16The New York Times. A Judge Rules Vermont Cant Shut Nuclear Plant Jan 2012


14/20

14 | P a g e

Entergy and subsequent inquiring that there was indeed piping underneath Vermont Yankee

that could contain radioactive particles. A very critical report was issued from the Oversight

Panel about the incorrect information, to which Entergy responded by taking issue with the

tone of the report. Entergy attributed the discrepancy in information to miscommunication.

Shortly after, Entergy revealed that they discovered the radioactive isotope tritium in

groundwater with a well test. Vermont lawmakers became more suspicious. Then, an

underground trench was discovered with radioisotopes in water at a concentration 100 times

the federal limit. More information was released about underground pipes leaking radiation. It

turned out that there were many underground radioactive pipes that were either

undocumented or not disclosed by Vermont Yankee.

Finally, Gov. Douglas announced that he wished for Entergy to fire its management and

for lawmakers to vote against Vermont Yankees continued operation. This timeline follows

from mid-2008 through the beginning of 2010. This course of events is arguably the primary

reason for distrust of the nuclear plant, and by extension, the primary cause for the initiative.

Gov. Shumlin, a markedly social governor, has issued numerous statements over the

years showing his opinions on Vermont Yankee. In March 2012, after a Vermont Yankee

protest, Shumlin stated, I am very supportive of the peaceful protesters gathered today inBrattleboro to express their and my frustration that this aging plant remains open after its

agreed-upon license has expired. Were doing all we can so that Vermont can move on from

this old plant and move towards an energy future that sends Entergy Louisiana back to

Louisiana.17

The current Vermont governor has also been involved in the federal court appeal

towards the decision that the Vermont senate cannot restrict Vermont Yankees operations.

The precise action was to deny Vermont Yankee a certificate of public good for the plant.

Vermont senator Randy Brock can be described as a microcosm of the distrust that

Vermont Yankee put in the Vermont lawmakers. Sen. Brock is pro-nuclear power for its

17Vermont.gov. Gov. Peter Shumlin's statement on Vermont Yankee's continued operation today Mar 2012


15/20

15 | P a g e

environmental friendliness, overall safety, and reliability, but he doesnt trust the

administration behind Vermont Yankee. He has stated, If their management had been

thoroughly infiltrated by anti-nuclear activists, they could not have done a better job destroying

their own case.18

It seems that although nuclear power has many promises for Vermont,

Entergys plant has ruined its chances for providing safe and trustworthy nuclear power for the

state.

There has been much political drama in the story of Entergys Vermont Yankee, but it

wasnt the only thing the plant had to deal with. Local approval went way down following the

Oversight Panel story. After the events, Vermont Yankee tried to boost its local credibility

through campaigning with informational booklets in nearby municipalities, but the damage

already seemed to have been done.19

There was already a strong anti-nuclear mood in Vermont prior to the Yankee Nuclear

story. Bill McKibben, a devout Vermont anti-nuclear activist, brought his opinions to the

Vermont House of Representatives, stating that while he endorses reliance on nuclear power,

he believes that Vermont Yankee is badly run.20

Citizens have more awareness and less trust

for both nuclear plants and the NRCs regulatory influence for granting a plant like Vermont

Yankee relicensing, despite its problems.19

18The Boston Globe Manazine. Power Politics May 2010

19The Boston Globe Magazine. Power Politics May 2010

20VTDigger. Climate activist McKibben urges action, warns lawmakers of threats to Vermont way of life Jan 2013


16/20

16 | P a g e

Various badges representing stances on Vermont Yankee and nuclear energy reliance in general.

Images from the Boston Globe Magazine.What were the consequences of the initiative?

There are certainly consequences to closing the plant. The biggest impact will be on the

nearby area and local community. Vermont Yankee has provided a very large portion of energy

for Vermont and New England in its lifetime. Nuclear power has virtually no carbon footprint,

and thus is a greener form of energy production than the alternatives available to the state

after the plant closes. Vermont Yankee has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the

community through charitable giving. The plant hired hundreds of workers at very high wages.

As Vermont Yankee shuts down, all of these contributions will start to vanish.

On August 27, 2013, Entergy told Yankee employees in a meeting of its plans to

decommission Vermont Yankee. This decision directly affected each one of the 623 people

employed there. The average wage of an employee at the plant in 2006 was $103,777.21

Closing

the plant threatens potentially hundreds of families with moving to a different area in order to

continue earning a similar living through similar work. Even if there do exist opportunities for

employees to transfer to other nearby nuclear power plants, including some run by Entergy,

21SentinelSource.com. Vermont Yankee family faces uncertain future Oct 2013


17/20

17 | P a g e

not every employee from Vermont Yankee can migrate to close-by facilities. To keep their jobs

and maintain their living standards, they will be forced to relocate.

In 2011 alone, Vermont Yankee contributed approximately $435,000 to the community

through grants, sponsorships, and community events and projects.22 While Vermont Yankee

vows to continue its community involvement and charitable giving through its decommissioning

timeframe, when the plant is fully decommissioned, there will be no more Vermont Yankee in

the community. All of the money the plant gave to the community will not exist, and so far,

there are no other businesses or institutions on their way to fill that gap.

Outing nuclear energy will naturally require bringing in new energy. While most anti-

nuclear advocates hope that the gap will be filled with other renewable energy sources

(primarily wind power in Vermont), the state will no doubt have to rely on more energy from

natural gas. The increasingly available supply of natural gas is coming from the process of hydro

fracturing23

, a process disputed to be toxic to the environment it is conducted in. Additionally,

natural gas prices are expected to go up slowly over the next couple of decades.24

Replacing

nuclear plant-generated power with natural-gas generated power is taking away a solution to

climate change and stable energy prices, and replacing it with the problem. Losing Vermont

Yankee is actually two big steps backward for environmental safety.

The most devastating impact, however, will probably be from the change in local

perception of nuclear power. New England will never be the same towards nuclear energy

again after Vermont Yankee. It is hard to imagine investors funneling billions of dollars into a

nuclear power facility that will be harassed at every turn by governments, critics and citizens

who have learned their lesson from Vermont Yankee.19

The prospect of nuclear energy in

Vermont in the foreseeable future is shattered; With that loss also comes the lost opportunity

for new developments in the vicinity as well. The solution to all problems mentioned above is to

have a clean, safe, and reliable version of Vermont Yankee. But because of the new negative

conceptions, there wont be one.

22Vermont Yankee. Community Contributions Accessed Nov 2013

23The Boston Globe Magazine. The nuclear option Sep 2013

24Vtdigger.com. Energy prices bound to rise without Vermont Yankee, grid operator says Sep 2013


18/20

18 | P a g e

Citizens protesting the federal court decision overturning the Vermont senates vote to stop Vermont Yankees operations.

Image from Dylan Kelley Photography.

Conclusions

Vermont Yankee is shutting down in 2014. But Entergy does not blame a shift in

perception of nuclear power; they blame the economy. Entergy attributes their loss in profits to

the energy market becoming increasingly competitive against natural gas prices and the rising

cost of safety standards9. Entergy, in its public statements about its closing, has not mentioned

the ordeal it went through trying to relicense their power plant, or its multitude of ongoing

lawsuits against organizations that have lost trust in them.

Though the plant is shutting down, and the goal of the initiative appears to have been

met, and the politicians and anti-nuclear activists seem to have won, the truth is that initiative

never actually succeeded. Vermonts decision to refuse Vermont Yankee a certificate of public

good was overturned in court. Despite Gov. Shumlins stated intent to fight the federal court on

its ruling, there are many reasons to believe that Vermonts decision would be overruled, and

Vermont Yankee would obtain its new license to operate.

Barbara Moran, who has written several pieces describing the conflicts Vermont Yankee

has endured, says that among what she considers the three dominant (and alliterate)


19/20

19 | P a g e

contributing factors in Vermont Yankees demise, being fracking, funding, and Fukushima23

,

fracking is definitely the most important factor. Fracking has increased the countrys natural gas

supply, and generated too much competition for Vermont Yankee to handle. While dim

outlooks and low credibility has surely hurt Vermont Yankees ability to generate money,

frackings threat to Entergys profits was the final straw that caused the corporation to call it

quits.

This indicates something frightening about the initiatives power. Despite the stress that

the initiative caused on Entergy and Yankee Nuclear, and the publicity it generated, the

initiative itself was not the cause for the plant to shut down. Recall the origins of the initiative;

it originated due to people in Vermont, and the surrounding area, being fearful of Vermont

Yankees diminishing safety standards potentially leading to a nuclear disaster. Since the

initiative failed, that means the fearful citizens and the lawmakers representing them did not

greatly influence the decision to close the plant.

What if economic factors were not an issue? Imagine an alternate universe where

Entergy continued to fight tooth and nail to keep Vermont Yankee open. If the federal court

ruling that stopped the Vermont Senates actions were not overturned, then Vermont Yankee

would continue operations, and everyone involved in the initiative would have to try all over

again. If federal entities continued to make the decisions they have made in the past, the

initiative may never be able to prevent a foreseen incident.

One may say that if Vermont Yankee were to continue operations, the NRC s regulatory

pressure would prevent its safety standards from dwindling too much to put the plants reactor

at risk of starting a nuclear incident. The Three-Mile Island reactor was under supervision, and

approval, by the NRC, and yet it still had an incident that led to a partial meltdown and a large

irradiated zone around the reactor. People who lived within this zone may say that the NRC did

not comprehensively qualify the safety Three-Mile Island plant. Similarly, although Yankee

Nuclear has also been qualified and licensed by the NRC, the qualification may not have been

comprehensive, and Yankee Nuclear may still have had lacking safety standards.


20/20

20 | P a g e

There are a few general lessons to be learned from the Vermont Yankee local resistance

initiative. I believe that these lessons culminate in one sentence: The higher you go, the more

influence you will achieve. The people protesting peacefully in front of the plant may have

generated articles, but never did they stop the plant from operating on schedule. Vermont

lawmakers were able to achieve correspondence from Vermont Yankee, and even call them out

on blatantly misinforming regulatory entities and the general public, but the federal courts

stopped them from doing anything about it themselves.

It appears as if the next step was for the initiative to transcend its local boundaries and

influence an organization with federal oversight. If the NRC had the same opinions on Vermont

Yankee as Gov. Shumlin, then Vermont Yankee would never have received relicensing. The only

reason that these federal entities are not assuming the same opinions as anti-nuclear activists is

because there are other, greater reasons that the federal entities have to defend nuclear

power.

The initiative was geared solely towards Vermont Yankee, which is a single plant in an

array of nuclear reactor facilities throughout the country. Each facility is governed almost

exclusively by the NRC, a federal entity. The federal government, under the Obama

administration, has put several structures in place to enable the development of nuclear power

in the United States. Perhaps this initiative for nuclear power in the US has influenced the NRC

into being more liberal with their accreditation and licensing standards of nuclear plants.

In any case, the reason why the initiative failed was because the initiative did not

penetrate high enough. It is fortunate for the initiative that it achieved its goal almost by

accident; however, if the smoking gun they saw proved true, and if they were not so lucky as to

have Entergy close the plant itself, and finally, if Entergy and Vermont Yankee did not fix the

issues which caused them to lose Vermonts trust in the first place, then in the not -so-distant

future, Vermont could very well be in danger.

case study finalish

Documents