Home » NEWS » Energy » Entergy nuclear plant awarded license renewal

Entergy nuclear plant awarded license renewal

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Federal regulators yesterday gave the Entergy Corp.-owned Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a 20-year license renewal, despite calls for reconsideration following the nuclear disaster in Japan.

Issuance of the license was a foregone conclusion after the NRC voted to approve it March 10, one day before an earthquake and tsunami triggered the still unfolding crisis at the Fukushima reactors in northeastern Japan, which are of the same design and about the same age as Vermont Yankee.

Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said officials there and with New Orleans-based Entergy were pleased to have the license in hand. But he added, “It’s not a cause right now for any celebration in light of world events.”

The license renewal was granted a year to the day before Vermont Yankee’s initial 40-year license was to expire. The plant still must be re-licensed by the state, but the Senate last year rejected the idea, leaving its future uncertain.

The renewal was the first granted by the NRC since events in Japan began to unfold 10 days earlier.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had issued a statement Sunday calling for a moratorium on new licenses or license renewals for U.S. reactors in the wake of the Japanese crisis.

Vermont Yankee announced in Jan. 2010 that test wells had turned up evidence that radioactive tritium had leaked from underground pipes at the plant into surrounding soil and groundwater. Within days it was revealed that plant executives had misled state lawmakers and regulators — the latter under oath — by saying the plant did not have the type of underground pipes that carried radioactive substances.

Vermont is the only state in the country with a law calling on its Legislature to give the go-ahead before state regulators issue the state permit the plant also needs to operate past March 2010. A month after the revelations about the tritium leaks, the state Senate voted 26-4 against allowing the plant to renew its state permit. After the Senate killed the measure, it never went to the House.

Source: The Associated Press


… we’d like to ask for your support. More people are reading the Mississippi Business Journal than ever before, but advertising revenues for all conventional media are falling fast. Unlike many, we do not use a pay wall, because we want to continue providing Mississippi’s most comprehensive business news each and every day. But that takes time, money and hard work. We do it because it is important to us … and equally important to you, if you value the flow of trustworthy news and information which have always kept America strong and free for more than 200 years.

If those who read our content will help fund it, we can continue to bring you the very best in news and information. Please consider joining us as a valued member, or if you prefer, make a one-time contribution.

Click for more info

About Megan Wright

One comment

  1. Obama’s proposed U.S. Nuclear energy expansion won’t save taxpayers money.

    In most cases nuclear reactors have to be subsidized by taxpayers. When nuclear reactors leak as shown in Japan, it can be expensive; consider Japan’s current damage estimates at $230 Billion; more if one of the damaged reactors melts down spreading high levels of radiation. Too many nuclear reactors are too close to large U.S. populations. Should e.g., the Vermont reactor ever have a serious radiation leak or meltdown, it is foreseeable winds may blow radiation fallout into largely populated areas with radiation intensity determined by wind currents. In addition to catastrophic health costs, a leaking reactor could for decades destroy the value of real estate of entire cities and shutdown industries. The potential risks of developing more nuclear reactors in the U.S. cannot be justified considering the potential long-term health and financial risks to U.S. Citizens. From a military standpoint, U.S. enemies would only have to blowup U.S. nuclear reactors near or in large cities, perhaps within a couple hundred miles, to spread lethal radiation. Nuclear reactors are a losing bet when you consider their downside.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *