Citizens worry about radiation from aging reactor
By Mark Donaldson and Jennifer Sung, News Editors
As the 40-year license of Vermont Yankee, a nuclear reactor in Vernon, Vt., approaches its end, its owner, a Louisiana-based corporation Entergy Nuclear, is proposing a 20-year extension and a 20 percent increase in the aging plant's power output, as well as on-site storage for the plant's nuclear waste. These proposals have drawn criticism from concerned groups and citizens, who challenge the aging reactor's safety and insist that it undergo a full inspection before its output is cranked up.

Meanwhile, rivals have argued that these advocates exaggerate the dangers posed by the plant. Unless objections are raised by either the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the Vermont Public Service Board (VT PSB), the rate could be raised as early as March 2.

Two citizen's groups which oppose the use of nuclear power, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NEC) and the Traprock Peace Center, have been vocal in demanding that the plant undergo an Independent Safety Assessment (ISA) before the uprate and license extension can take place.

At last night's film-screening and discussion, hosted by the Traprock Peace Center at Amherst's Jones Library, the Center's executive director Sunny Miller led a discussion during which area residents raised their concerns about the impending uprate. The NRC has already authorized an experimental power ascension test, which will involve increasing the plant's output by five percent at a time at 90-day intervals until it reaches the 20 percent uprate. At that time, the plant's capabilities will be evaluated. Opponents of the uprate have cited concerns that increased vibrations from the uprate could cause damage to the plant, a concern which has also been raised about previous increases in the plant's output.

The NRC has not yet required an ISA of the reactor, but instead ordered a smaller inspection. According to Ray Shadis, the technical advisor for the NEC, the inspectors "selected 45 components or actions … and out of those 45 found eight safety-related defects, and then refused to look any further." According to the NEC, the tests that have been run on the Vermont Yankee are less than five percent of the scope of that ISA. Shadis said he was confident that an ISA performed on the Vermont Yankee reactor would uncover similar irresolvable problems to those found in Maine.

The NEC is concerned by past safety problems with the Vermont Yankee, reporting that the reactor has previously "experienced numerous fires, cracks [and] loss of on-site power to the emergency warning system." The uprate also poses potential health risks, as the Vermont Department of Public Health recently published a report indicating that a 20 percent power boost would increase radiation by 26 percent in surrounding areas. Such an increase would represent a violation of the state's safety limits.

However, UMass Emeritus Professor of Physics Gerry Peterson, who specializes in nuclear energy, argued that some of the dangers of the plant were being overstated. "The Vermont Yankee has a very good safety record," he said. He emphasized that judgments could not be made about the risks of nuclear power based on nuclear accidents in the past, as the Vermont Yankee is a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), a different type than previous, faulty reactors. The Three Mile Island accident near Middletown, PA, in 1979, he argued, was a different type of plant and caused no health problems in the surrounding area, only economic damage. Peterson added that the infamous Chernobyl disaster, which took place in the Soviet Union in 1986, is inapplicable to modern-day plants, as the technology used in Chernobyl was far less sophisticated and safe than modern reactors. "It is wrong to extrapolate from those accidents to a potential accident with a BWR," he said. "This is often done by those who label all reactors simply as 'nukes.'"

Peterson also argued that the uprate and extended license of the plant was neither unique nor dangerous. "Detailed engineering assessments have established that many reactors can operate longer than their original nominal 30- or 40-year lifetime by replacing certain components just as one might replace parts on an automobile to extend its lifetime," Peterson said. "This is being done all over the world where there are over 440 commercial electrical power producing reactors. Original maximum power estimates were also very conservative, so power uprating is common. For example, in Finland, there are two Swedish BWR's that have had their lifetime extended to 60 years, and their power uprated by 26 percent. In the Midwest there has also been power uprating on BWRs, so the Vermont Yankee case does not seem to be too exceptional."

The NEC and Traprock have also taken issue with the current evacuation plans, which only extend within a 10-mile radius from the reactor, and do not include considerations of wind direction or the possibility of a radiation plume. These shortsighted plans have concerned Massachusetts residents living downwind of the plant, many of whom feel they may be at risk in the event of a disaster at the Vermont Yankee. Evacuation has become a vital issue, drawing criticism from Massachusetts Congressman John Olver, as well as several state legislators.

Finally, finding suitable space to store nuclear reactors' highly radioactive used fuel rods is, as always, a controversial topic. The half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years, making it important to find a long-term solution for the storage of nuclear waste. Plans for a large terminal storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada have long been in the works but are yet to be finalized. For now, Entergy has suggested creating storage space in above-ground casks next to the reactor. The New England Coalition has demanded safer hardened on-site storage of nuclear waste (HOSS), as the casks are easily visible and thus potential terrorist targets. Peterson, however, insisted that Entergy's storage plans posed little safety risk. "Concerns about terrorists can easily be countered," he said.

Though Peterson stated that an extensive ISA on the Vermont Yankee couldn't hurt, he suggested that such an inspection would be expensive and unnecessary assuming that the uprating is carefully monitored. "As the reactor is being brought up to the new power levels, all aspects of the reactor should be, and undoubtedly will be, closely monitored," he said. "Furthermore, continual monitoring at the new power levels is important. As for more specific inspections on the reactor as it exists now when it is running well, I do not see the need for them, unless there s a history of poor performance." Peterson claimed there was no such history of poor performance for the reactor, stating that statistics put the Yankee around the median reliability of U.S. plants.

The issue is being considered by the Vermont Public Service Board, who will most likely come to a decision by March 1.

Issue 17, Submitted 2006-02-23 11:57:14