Assessment of Yankee is crucial
June 14, 2003
By KARL NOVAK
The Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor is about a three-hour drive from
Burlington
via interstate highways. A major portion of our commercial freight uses I-89
and I-91 and ultimately provides the array of goods and services we come to
expect in our everyday lives. Using these interstate highways, tourists flock to
our state by the hundreds of thousands to experience the unique scenery and
myriad of high quality activities offered by our State.
Located in
Vernon
, the safety of Vermont Yankee is a prime consideration to all Vermonters when
one takes into account the huge detrimental economic fallout that could occur if
Vermont Yankee were to have a major accident. The interstate system as we know
it would be dramatically altered, bottlenecks would reduce or halt the flow of
traffic on I-91, and significant economic repercussions would reverberate all
over our State, not to mention the potential state-wide hazards of radioactive
fallout.
We all face a delicate moment in the history of Vermont Yankee, as Entergy,
the recent purchaser of this nuclear power plant, is aggressively pushing the
approval of increasing the designed output (uprate) of Vermont Yankee by 20
percent (an additional 300 plus megawatts) of thermal nuclear power from the
aged shell of the 30-plus-year-old reactor at Vernon. The request for a 20
percent uprate is exceptionally large when one considers the fact that uprate
requests are normally for 1-3 percent.
A major accident at Vermont Yankee would do irreparable damage and deeply
tarnish the well-honed image of our state.
Nevertheless, Entergy has not asked for an independent safety assessment.
Prudence and a common concern for the safety, well-being and economic viability
of all of us in
Vermont
makes an independent safety assessment of this critical facility a must for the
following reasons:
 | Thirty plus years of radiation, stress and strain, fatigue and corrosion
have all taken their toll on Vermont Yankee. |
|
Historically, none of New Englandˇ¦s power
reactors has operated until the expiration of its license. All were shut
down after heightened and focused scrutiny revealed aging and design based
safety-related defects.
|
|
Entergy has continued to misrepresent this
project so as to mislead the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel, the
Vermont Public Service Board, and the people by insisting that reactor
pressure and temperature will not be increased. This is a lie of omission
when what is relevant is that the amount of heat generated (in BTUˇ¦s)
will increase, the amount of steam generated (in pounds per hour), and the
amount of radiation (in both neutron flow and gamma shine), and the curie
content of the waste stream will increase. An additional 20 percent of steam
forced through the system will produce extra wear and tear and stress on all
components and could well lead to component failures, as well as additional
accident hazards and far-reaching consequences.
|
|
Out of 93 uprates, only a few have been as high as 20 percent and
those were granted in 2001 and 2002. In that short time, extended uprate
related, safety-significant, component failures have already occurred.
|
|
The engineering behind the proposed extended uprate is experimental
and barely two years old.
|
