Jump to content

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
restore
Line 32: Line 32:
| accessdate = 2007-03-15 }}</ref>
| accessdate = 2007-03-15 }}</ref>


In February 2010, the [[Vermont Senate]] voted 26 to 4 against re-licensing of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant after 2012.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25nuke.html Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant] ''[[The New York Times]]'', February 24, 2010.</ref> The state has no plan to replace the electricity generated by the plant, which has caused concern among many businesses in Vermont, as well as workers unions such as the AFL-CIO and IBEW. A spokesman for IBM, one of the state's largest employers, and its largest consumer of electricity, said "we have to be smarter about this".<ref>http://www.wptz.com/news/22638659/detail.html</ref>
In February 2010, the [[Vermont Senate]] voted 26 to 4 against re-licensing of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant after 2012, citing radioactive [[tritium]] leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems.<ref>Matthew L. Wald. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25nuke.html Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant] ''[[The New York Times]]'', February 24, 2010.</ref> The state has no plan to replace the electricity generated by the plant, which has caused concern among many businesses in Vermont, as well as workers unions such as the AFL-CIO and IBEW. A spokesman for IBM, one of the state's largest employers, and its largest consumer of electricity, said "we have to be smarter about this".<ref>http://www.wptz.com/news/22638659/detail.html</ref>


== Ownership and operational license==
== Ownership and operational license==

Revision as of 22:09, 24 May 2010

Template:Infobox Nuclear power plant

Vermont Yankee is a General Electric boiling water reactor (BWR) type nuclear power plant currently owned by Entergy. It is located in the town of Vernon, Vermont and generates 620 megawatts (MWe) of electricity. The plant began commercial operations in 1972. It provided Vermont with nearly three-fourths (73%)[1] of its electrical generating capacity[2] prior to the 2006 uprate and meets 35% of the overall energy requirements of the state.[3]

In February 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 against re-licensing of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant after 2012, citing radioactive tritium leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems.[4] The state has no plan to replace the electricity generated by the plant, which has caused concern among many businesses in Vermont, as well as workers unions such as the AFL-CIO and IBEW. A spokesman for IBM, one of the state's largest employers, and its largest consumer of electricity, said "we have to be smarter about this".[5]

Ownership and operational license

On July 31, 2002, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (EVY) purchased Vermont Yankee from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (VYNPC) for $180 million. Entergy received the reactor complex, nuclear fuel, inventories, and related real estate. The liability to decommission the plant, as well as related decommissioning trust funds of approximately $310 million, was also transferred to Entergy. The acquisition included a 10-year power purchase agreement (PPA) under which three of the former owners will buy a portion of the electricity produced by the reactor at a cost of approximately 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour.[6]

Vermont Yankee employs approximately 600 people including the employees that work out of the corporate location on Old Ferry Road in Brattleboro, VT.[7]

As a result of an NRC approved Extended Power Uprate (EPU), Vermont Yankee achieved its new rated power of 1,912 MWth (120% of its original licensed thermal power of 1,593 MWth) on May 6, 2006. The power increase was delayed at several plateaus to take data on the reactor's steam dryer in accordance with the NRC imposed power ascension test plan.

In 1978, the Vermont Yankee reactor was the subject of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., an important United States Supreme Court administrative law case which ruled that courts cannot impose procedures upon the NRC as this exceeds their power of judicial review.

Dry cask storage

Due to delays opening the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository by the federal government for long term storage of spent nuclear fuel, Vermont Yankee's spent fuel pool contents are nearing capacity. Entergy Nuclear has gained approval for enough dry cask storage[8] to allow continued operation beyond the existing reactor operating license expiration date in 2012. Loading spent fuel into transportable dry fuel storage casks is also a step toward sending it to a central federal repository. Most of the spent fuel will continue to be stored underwater in the spent fuel pool.

Vermont Yankee began its first dry cask storage campaign in May, 2008. The first 97 short tons (88 t) fully loaded cask was inadvertently lowered to the refueling floor from a height of about 4 inches (100 mm), after successfully being raised from the spent fuel pool. The failure is attributed to a breaking relay in the 110 short tons (100 t) rated overhead crane. The crane was last tested for any weight greater than 70% of the total fully loaded cask in 1975. In August, 2008, Vermont Yankee successfully completed the first dry storage campaign with the transfer of the fifth cask from the reactor building to the storage pad, each loaded with 68 spent fuel assemblies. The casks are moved from the reactor building to a storage pad located above the 500 year floodplain of the Connecticut River using a large specially designed cask moving machine.

Closure/extension planning

Entergy Vermont Yankee applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license extension of 20 years on 27 January 2006.[9] The Vermont state senate voted 26–4 against extending their license[10] after executives were revealed to having given misleading statements while under oath about underground piping at the plant. Subsequently those Entergy employees where cleared of any wrong doing, and it was noted that the statements were taken out of context[11]

Cooling tower collapse

On August 22, 2007, the fourth cell of Vermont Yankee's three story west cooling tower collapsed, spilling some cooling water. The water was part of the non-radioactive circulating water system which draws from the Connecticut River. The collapse was an industrial safety event and did not threaten the integrity of the reactor or release any radiation into the environment. The plant's primary source of condenser cooling water is the river itself. The cooling towers are used to further cool the condenser cooling water at times when the river is not cold enough to absorb the plant's rejected heat and meet the environmental discharge permit. The NRC has stated that the remaining cooling tower is enough to allow the plant to return to full capacity at any time, however up until September 16, 2007 the reactor operated at 50% power.

The cause of the collapse was due to steel bolt corrosion and rotting of lumber. Entergy has asserted that future inspections will be much more stringent in order to guarantee no further problems.

Controversy

See also: List of anti-nuclear protests in the United States § Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant

The cooling tower collapse caused Vermont's governor to question the reliability of the power station:[12]

These events have shaken the confidence of Vermonters and our neighbors in New Hampshire and Massachusetts about the safety and reliability of the plant. They have brought into question whether Vermont Yankee should operate beyond its present operating license expiration date of 2012

— Governor Jim Douglas

In March 2008 the Governor stated that, before the State of Vermont is in a position to consider a license extension for Vermont Yankee, a comprehensive reliability and safety assessment of the power station should be conducted.[12]

Also in March 2008, a state Senate committee advised that it wanted the Legislature to appoint a panel that would oversee an independent review of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Entergy Nuclear, which owns the plant, said the review was unnecessary. The panel gave Vermont Yankee a generally positive review. "What this report suggests to me is there is not a cause or reason to seek the closure of the plant because of operational or safety concerns," said Public Service Commissioner, David O'Brien. However, lawmakers will not renew Yankee's license until a new power contract is in place.[13]

Anti-nuclear groups have said that the proposal doesn't go far enough.[14] There have been many protests in relation to continued operation of the plant.[15][16][17]

Official inspection

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission performed a tri-annual inspection July–August 2008. It found three "minor faults." An Associated Press report said that it had won "high marks."[18]

Senate vote to close reactor

On February 25, 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 against issuing the Vermont Yankee reactor a "Certificate of Public Good" to extend its operations past 2012.[19] Under Vermont law, the relicensing must be approved by both chambers of the Vermont General Assembly for Vermont Yankee to operation. A controversial vote that is sure to be played out as the NRC has the sole authority over nuclear power generation in the United States.[20]

Decommissioning

The company has compiled a trust fund of $347 million for eventual decommissioning.[7][21] The plant's owner plans to dismantle it in 2067, regardless of the decision on the 20-year relicensing.[citation needed] In 2007, the expected cost to decommission the site was calculated to be $875 million dollars.[22]

Ecology

For 2007, the use of this plant was estimated to prevent the release of 2.8 million short tons (2.5 Mt) of CO
2, 6.7 million tons (6.1 Mt) of sulfur dioxide, and 1.3 million tons (1.2 Mt) of nitrous oxides.[23][citation needed]

Tritium leak

In May 2009, the vice-president of operations at Vermont Yankee told the Vermont Public Service Board that he did not believe there was any underground piping at Vermont Yankee which contained radioactivity, but that he would check and respond to the panel.[24] In October 2009, Arnie Gundersen, a member of a special oversight panel convened by the Vermont General Assembly, confirmed the presence of contaminated underground pipes. An Entergy spokesperson told Vermont Public Radio that the earlier testimony was a "miscommunication."[24]

On January 7, 2010, groundwater wells at the Vermont Yankee site were reported[who?] contaminated with tritium, in a probable leak. Levels of the isotope were below the maximum amount deemed acceptable for drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency.[25] By mid-January, however, levels of tritium had continued to rise up to 20,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/l), the federal limit for drinking water. The head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Vermont’s congressional delegation that the agency will devote more resources to addressing concerns about Vermont Yankee, and expects to find the source of the tritium leak there within the next several weeks.[26]

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee reported that groundwater samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were measured at about 775,000 pCi/l (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010 samples from an underground vault tested positive for 2.7 million pCi/l.[27]

Samples taken from the river by the Vermont Department of Health have shown no detectable levels of tritium.[28] The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services made a similar statement after several tests of the river.[29]

During the course of searching for the source of the tritium leak, other radionuclides were found in the soil at the site. Levels of cesium-137, were elevated to three to ten times higher than background levels. Silt in a pipe tunnel had higher levels yet, but the contamination outside the pipe tunnel was limited to a small volume, about 150 cubic feet (4.2 m3), of soil. According to the Vermont State Department of Health, there was no health risk from the cesium, as the quantities were small and it had not migrated. As a fission fragment, cesium-137 is an indicator of a fuel leak, but in this case, the consensus is that the cesium-137 probably leaked from defective fuel assemblies during or prior to 2001, when the last such type of leak was reported by Vermont Yankee. Such problems with fuel rods were not uncommon in the 1970s and 1980s.[30]

The levels of cesium-137 detected in the silt on site were 2,600 picocuries/kg. For comparison sake, a kilogram of bananas contains almost 50% more radioactivity than that, or 3,500 pCi/kg.[31]

Security problems

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave the plant the lowest grade for security of all nuclear plants in the United States in August 2001.[citation needed] A security breach in 2008 was reported to the public, but the nature of the breach was not revealed due to security reasons.[32][33]

See also

References

  1. ^ 400 MW in 2008, Joe Baird, Vermont Dam Dilemma, Burlington Free Press, Burlington, Vermont, page 1D, 9 August 2009
  2. ^ "Vermont Nuclear Industry". Energy Information Administration. 2006-09-28. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
  3. ^ "US Nuclear Plants; Vermont Yankee". Energy Information Administration. 2005-03-18. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
  4. ^ Matthew L. Wald. Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant The New York Times, February 24, 2010.
  5. ^ http://www.wptz.com/news/22638659/detail.html
  6. ^ "Vermont Yankee finally sold to Entergy". Vermont Business Magazine. 2002-09-01. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
  7. ^ a b Cosgrove, Brian, a spokesman for Entergy (July 1, 2008). "Entergy is vital to future of state". The Burlington Free Press.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ NRC Dry Cask Storage
  9. ^ "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station - License Renewal Application". Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2007-02-27. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
  10. ^ "Senate pulls plug on Vermont Yankee". Burlington Free Press. 2010-02-25. Retrieved 2010-02-26.
  11. ^ "Storm of criticism hits Entergy over Vt. Yankee". Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus. 2010-01-16. Retrieved 2010-02-27.
  12. ^ a b Governor Urges NRC to Approve Independent Safety Assessment
  13. ^ Slota, Bianca (March 17, 2009). "Oversight Panel Gives Yankee Go-Ahead". WCAX News. Retrieved 2009-03-18.
  14. ^ Senate committee wants oversight of Vermont Yankee
  15. ^ Eleven arrested in latest protest over Vermont Yankee
  16. ^ Vermont Yankee Resistance Grows
  17. ^ Anti-nuclear campaign opens with spoof. The Burlington Free Press.
  18. ^ Gram, Dave (September 27, 2008). "Vt. Yankee passes review". The Burlington Free Press.
  19. ^ Wald, Matthew (February 25, 2010). "Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant". The New York Times.
  20. ^ "30 V.S.A. § 248(e)(2)". Vermont Statutes Annotated. Retrieved 2010-02-25.
  21. ^ "Bankrupt nuke plant owners can't 'walk away' from site clean up". Brattleboro Reformer. March 13, 2009.
  22. ^ "Spent Fuel Management Program and Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate (ML083390193)". NRC. February 3, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-12.
  23. ^ Sheppard, Heather (13 August 2009). "Letter to the Editor:Dreams and rhetoric don't equal megawatts". Burlington Free Press. Burlington, Vermont. pp. 7B.
  24. ^ a b Barlow, Daniel (February 2, 2010). "Backtracking and in trouble: A detailed timeline on who said what on Vt. Yankee". Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
  25. ^ Gram, Dave (7 January 2010). "Vt. Yankee Well Tests Shows Radioactive Isotope". Montpelier, Vermont: Associated Press. Retrieved January 11, 2010.
  26. ^ "Delegation ask NRC for assurances on Vermont Yankee". The Burlington Free Press. 27 January 2010. Retrieved 27 January 2010.
  27. ^ http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100206/NEWS02/2060308/Vermont-Yankee-zeroes-in-on-possible-source-of-leak
  28. ^ http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_14345871
  29. ^ [1]
  30. ^ "Plant tests pointing to failed fuel rods," Rutland Herald, April 5, 2010
  31. ^ CDR Handbook on Radiation Measurement and Protection, pg 620
  32. ^ http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080516/NEWS04/805160347/1003/NEWS02
  33. ^ [http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2002/02-023i.html NRC DETERMINES INSPECTION FINDING FOR VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR PLANT TO BE OF SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant&oldid=364005234"