In Vermont, nuke power faces a test
VERNON, Vt. -- Apr 16 - USA TODAY
The pro-nuclear governor here has gotten a pie in the face. Compost has
been thrown on a nuclear power plant manager. Protesters, including
several grandmothers, have been arrested for trespassing at the plant
gate.
This was not what President Obama, who hopes to spark a renaissance in
nuclear power, had in mind this year when he urged an end to "the same
old stale debates between the left and the right, between
environmentalists and entrepreneurs." In Vermont, the same old debate
rages on. As an embattled nuclear plant seeks to extend its operating
life -- and become a symbol of the conflict over whether to expand
nuclear power -- it's "no nukes" vs. "pro nukes," and not much in
between.
The no-nukers are winning. On Feb. 24, the state Senate voted 26-4 to
close 38-year-old Vermont Yankee when its license expires in two years,
even though it employs 640 people, pays $16.5 million a year in state
and local taxes, provides one-third of Vermont's power and helps make
the state's carbon footprint the region's smallest.
Vermont Yankee is one of more than two dozen aging U.S. reactors that
have leaked radioactive tritium from underground pipes. Its case has
cast a pall on the revival of nuclear power and revived the anti-nuclear
movement.
"Fights like this don't come along very often," says Jim Riccio
of Greenpeace USA, one of a half-dozen groups seeking the plant's
closure.
No nuclear plant has been started in the USA since the Three Mile Island
accident -- the 1979 partial core meltdown at a Pennsylvania reactor --
vaporized public support for atomic power.
A nuclear renaissance has long been advocated by some political
conservatives, such as former senator Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and
business groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers.
Because atomic energy produces much less carbon pollution than fuels
such as coal, they've been joined by some environmentalists (early
Greenpeace organizer Patrick Moore, Whole Earth Catalog editor Stewart
Brand) and some more liberal politicians (Obama and Sen. John Kerry,
D-Mass.).
In his State of the Union Address, Obama proposed "a new generation of
safe, clean nuclear power plants" to reduce carbon emissions and promote
U.S. energy independence. In February, he announced $8.3 billion in loan
guarantees for two reactors to be built in Georgia.
Americans are increasingly sympathetic. A Gallup Poll last month found
that 62% favor nuclear power as one way to generate electricity, the
highest percentage since Gallup began polling on the topic in 1994.
Vermont Yankee's application for a 20-year license extension, however,
has mobilized veterans of the nuclear protests of the 1970s and people
not yet born when their elders were being arrested at places such as
Seabrook, N.H., and Diablo Canyon, Calif.
Opponents have long argued that nuclear power is unsafe -- vulnerable to
everything from operator error to terrorism -- and produces radioactive
waste for which there is no long-term solution. Now, they're also
challenging the wisdom of operating vintage reactors past their original
40-year licenses.
Larry Smith, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, says its opponents won't
listen to reason: "They're hippies from the '60s who want to be against
something, and it's nuclear power."
The anti-nuclear movement, though, has matured.
It has lawyers, lobbyists and engineering consultants. One group, the
New England Coalition, has sued to force the plant to shield the nuclear
waste storage area from view and to monitor the temperature of storage
casks containing radioactive waste. Deb Katz of the Citizens Awareness
Network says her group "uses the plant's own information against it.
We're not the hippy-dippy, no-nukes types."
No easy path
Given the nuclear industry's history of cost overruns and construction
delays, many lenders and investors are leery. So the industry's future
hinges on public support for government loan guarantees and for
permission (from state regulators) to pass on construction costs to
ratepayers before plants are finished.
About 20 "new generation" plants, touted as safer and more efficient
than those of Vermont Yankee's age, are proposed. But they would take
years to build.
So to maintain its 20% share of U.S. electrical production over the next
decade, the nuclear industry must keep running the plants it already
has. To this end, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted
20-year license extensions to 59 of the 104 commercial reactors located
at 65 sites around the country. Most of the rest, like Vermont Yankee,
have applied for extensions or will do so.
Vermont Senate President Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, says Vermont Yankee
has national implications for what he calls "the head-in-the-sand
attitude that we can continue to run 104 aging plants past their design
life. We're an example of how elected officials might take a more active
role against that."
Many observers, such as incoming NRC historian Thomas Wellock, view
public support for nuclear power as broad but shallow -- "just one
accident away from heading south in a hurry," says John Kassel of the
Conservation Law Foundation.
For that reason, Vermont Yankee is a stone in the shoe of the nuclear
industry:
*In 2007, one of the plant's two cooling towers partially collapsed.
Although there was no direct safety threat, a photo of gushing water
quickly spread over the Internet.
*In January, the plant reported that tritium, which can cause cancer if
ingested in large quantities, was leaking into ground near the
Connecticut River. Tritium levels rose for more than a month before
beginning to drop.
(Last month, plant officials said they had found and fixed the leaks and
would pump out 300,000 gallons of groundwater and remove tritium-tainted
soil. Days later, however, they announced that small amounts of
Cesium-137, another radioactive substance, also had been discovered in
soil near the plant.)
*The tritium leaks came from underground pipes that plant managers
previously told state officials did not exist. Republican Gov. Jim
Douglas, who has supported the plant's extension, called it "a breach of
trust."
New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., which owns the plant, disciplined
several managers, two of whom had been featured in an "I am Vermont
Yankee" campaign. The company says there was no deliberate deception,
just a misunderstanding over the definition of underground pipes.
The explanation fell flat.
"If the board of directors and management were infiltrated by
anti-nuclear activists, I do not believe they could have done a better
job destroying their own case," said Republican state Sen. Randy Brock,
a surprise vote against the plant.
Vermont, alone among the states, has the power to deny a nuclear license
extension. (It negotiated the authority when Entergy bought the plant.)
Although the NRC staff has recommended an extension, the state Senate
vote would retire the plant unless senators reverse themselves (and the
House also votes yes).
Shumlin, the Senate president, says that won't happen: "Once you've lost
Vermonters' trust, it's almost impossible to get it back."
The NRC and the nuclear industry say plants can run safely at higher
power levels and for more years than defined in their original licenses.
But the tritium leaks have undermined confidence.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Energy and
Environment Subcommittee, has said he is "appalled by the safety
procedures not only at Vermont Yankee, but at other nuclear facilities
across the country who have failed to inspect thousands of miles of
buried pipes."
There are other signs around the nation that a nuclear renaissance is
not inevitable:
*Ameren Corp. has suspended plans for a second nuclear reactor in
Missouri after lawmakers failed to repeal a 1976 law barring utilities
from charging customers for certain new power plant costs even before it
starts producing electricity.
*Florida Power & Light stopped work toward two new reactors in January
after state regulators rejected the company's rate increase request, a
decision CEO Lew Hay said was "about politics, not economics."
*Efforts to reverse state bans on nuclear plant building -- eight states
have them -- stalled in Minnesota and West Virginia.
Long-held viewpoints
What's striking about the Vermont Yankee debate is how, despite Obama's
appeal for new thinking, the debaters stick to their traditional
arguments. Neither Smith, the plant spokesman, nor Brad Ferland, head of
a pro-nuclear business group, knows of any nuclear opponents in the
state who've switched sides.
It's a bit of a culture war. While plant proponents extol its steady
supply of relatively cheap electricity, opponents talk about renewable
sources -- solar, wind, wood -- and using less power.
Even Vermonters who might be expected to be open to changing their minds
are standing pat.
*Annette Roydon, 64, lives a few miles from the plant. She is the town
of Vernon's emergency management director and deputy health officer. She
runs a 65-acre organic farm and attended the Putney School, Marlboro
College and Antioch College -- all staunchly liberal.
"I'm very granola," she says.
She supports extending the nuclear plant's license. So do the chairmen
of the Selectmen and the school board, and almost everyone else in town.
In 2009, the annual town meeting unanimously passed a resolution backing
the extension. The town has hired a lobbyist in Montpelier to press the
case.
Roydon says she doesn't doubt the safety of the plant or nuclear power.
She says the nuclear industry is the most heavily regulated in U.S.
history; that no one has ever died in an accident at a U.S. nuclear
plant; that Vermont Yankee employees feel the plant is safe enough to
live near it.
"I'm more concerned about a train derailment than I am about the plant,"
she says, and doubts Vermont's 180 part-time "citizen legislators" have
the expertise to decide its fate.
The plant accounts for more than half Vernon's revenue. "If it closed,
how'd we pay our bills?"
*Cort Richardson, 58, seems like someone Obama hopes will reconsider
nuclear power: a former protester who now works with government
regulators and industry engineers on the waste issue. He has come to
take an analytical, unemotional view of nuclear power.
But Richardson is no more sanguine about nuclear now than when he was
among more than 1,400 protesters arrested at Seabrook 33 years ago. For
all the complaints about safety and waste, "nuclear power's Achilles
heel has always been its economic underpinnings," he says.
Nuclear plants are so expensive to build (at least $6 billion to $8
billion) and so needy of public subsidies, he says, "You simply can't
afford to build enough of them to make a difference" in the nation's
energy needs.
Richardson, who voted for Obama and admires him, says he wishes he could
talk to the president about nuclear power: "He's such a bright guy. I
can't believe he's really bought this story."
(c) Copyright 2010 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. To
subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.usatoday.com |