Obama announcing his plan to provide $8bn in loan guarantees to nuclear energy plants in Georgia.

Image from USA Today

Introduction
Nuclear power is sometimes promoted as the way of the future for civilizations energy needs. The Obama administration has given support and large amounts of financial assistance towards the construction of new nuclear power reactors. Nuclear power, on paper, is safe, efficient, and sustainable. Within hundreds of nuclear power reactors over the globe, it indeed meets these dimensions successfully. However, due to the nature of the technology behind nuclear power reactors, a minor slip in safety could potentially mark the reactor as the epicenter of a widespread disaster. These disasters have occurred already, in the case of the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania, the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, and more recently, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan. A nuclear reactor meltdown creates nigh-irreparable damage to the immediate environment, contaminating a surrounding area miles in radius with radiation. Nearby inhabitants exposed to meltdown radiation are prone to cancer. Cleanup takes decades, payoffs and infrastructure damage totals billions.

1|Page

Nuclear disasters are the sole reason why regulation agencies exist. The chief nuclear power regulation entity in the United States is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). They are based in the federal government, and hold regulation authority over all nuclear power facilities in the entire country. They publish, maintain, and enforce numerous criteria for nuclear reactors, their facilities, and their management. The NRC is in place to make sure that nuclear disasters do not happen in the US. Within the United States, there are a total of 65 commercially operating nuclear power plants in 31 states. The NRC is confident that all of these facilities follow its regulations, and therefore are safe from causing a nuclear disaster. However, several of these power plants have been marked as at-risk of being shut down from regulatory and market pressures. One such plant is the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant, located in the state of Vermont, and owned by the corporation Entergy. Vermont Yankee has been particularly affected by the increasing pressures on the nuclear power industry. Vermont Yankee is currently scheduled to be decommissioned in 2014. There are several factors to Vermont Yankees demise; surely the global, post -Fukushima attitude has affected its image, but according to the plants corporate owners, the primary reason is economics. According to Entergy, the recent increasing supply and lowering price of natural gas energy from the advent of hydro fracturing has pushed the plant out of the energy market. Entergy blames government subsidies and disadvantages held solely by nuclear power suppliers. This issue was a slow, accumulating weight on Entergy; they attempted to sell the plant in 2010. However, nearly a decade ago, there was other negative commotion surrounding Vermont Yankee. There was an initiative emerging that was putting pressure on the plant and raising awareness for some questionable safety results. While the NRC regulates with a broad, faceless front, this initiative was local, and personified by critics and politicians. While the NRC approved Yankee Nuclear to continue running, the initiative disagreed, and tried to do the right thing from their perspective and call out the plant.

2|Page

The initiative was comprised of a few different types of individuals. Primarily, it was pushed by politicians from the state and municipal government of Vermont. These politicians and lawmakers investigated Vermont Yankees claims of safety and used political methods to regulate the plants business where it saw safety issues. There were also local social critics to the plant, such as local citizens who organized or participated in protests, as well as journalists and environmental science or nuclear energy specialists who were critical to Vermont Yankees actions. After some mishaps and misleading on part of the nuclear plant, the government began using what tools they had to limit the plants activity. Primarily, they refused the issuance of a Certificate of Public good, which endangered the plants overall operations. These actions were arguably out of their scope of power; the NRC, a federal entity, is supposed to regulate and approve plant activity, not the local government. And along that philosophy, a federal judge ruled that the state of Vermont could not control the nuclear plant in that manner. The problem with this entire situation is that the local powers, who were in the immediate vicinity of the plant and its operating reactor, were not able to fight back when they felt that the plants safety was declining. Their fighting did not achieve the results that they desired. The people involved in the local initiative saw Vermont Yankees safety problems as a smoking gun for a potential nuclear disaster down the road. They recognized that a small slip today may mean a big problem in the future. They wanted to keep their houses and families, as well as their region and its citizens, safe from a potential nuclear disaster. The story of Vermont Yankee and its local resistance initiative brings up several important questions. The initiative asserted that there was a decline in quality of operational safety. What if the citizens and politicians of Vermont were correct, the federal regulation entities were incorrect, and Yankee Nuclear was a catastrophe waiting to happen? The initiative failed, but the plant is still shutting down. What if the plant were not to be decommissioned due to economic factors? Could there have been renewed initiatives? Shutting down the plant removes a large portion of the surrounding areas power supply, and the plants decommissioning will now cause electricity production in the area to be outsourced. Was the
3|Page

initiative justified in trying to regulate the plant itself? Did the individuals involved in the initiative understand the impacts of their goal? What kind of lessons can be learned from the initiative?

4|Page

The Vermont Yankee power plant control room. Image from the New York Times

Why did the initiative emerge?

Nuclear disasters are devastating to both countries that need to deal with them and citizens directly affected. Cleanup and compensation expenditures following the Fukushima disaster since 2011 have so far cost Japan $80 billion. 160,000 residents will have to be permanently relocated.1 Given that the Vermont Yankee reactor and Fukushima reactor are of nearly identical designs, it may appear to some that Vermont Yankee will be the next epicenter of a widespread, catastrophic nuclear disaster, possibly affecting New York, the most populous city in the country. The truth of that matter is that Vermont Yankee is not in nearly as much danger, but there are certainly large safety issues present.

The Guardian. Fukushima residents may never go home, say Japanese officials Nov 2013

5|Page

In order to understand an incident like this better, there needs to be some clarification on the technology involved. A nuclear disaster is often referenced synonymously to a nuclear meltdown. A nuclear meltdown is where the radioactive, energy-generating core of a nuclear reactor
A GE-designed Boiling Water Reactor Core. Image from GE

becomes

overheated

and

melts.

Overheating will only happen if the reactors

cooling mechanisms fail to maintain the cores temperature. If a core melts, dangerous reactions between the core and its coolant can cause explosions or damage to other layers of containment. There are many mechanisms in place to maintain a nuclear cores temperature and prevent overheating and subsequent meltdown, even (and especially) in the event of an accident or malfunction. In the case of a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), the coolant used is simply deionized water brought to boil from the nuclear core. The heated water is then taken to a generator to have its heat extracted and turned into electricity. Containments are engineered to safely match the design life of the fuel. There are safety measures in place to guarantee, with several layers of reliability, that different variables are expected and consistent. Such variables include temperature, pressure, and flow rate of the coolant. For instance, in one General Electric BWR design (the same type as Vermont Yankee), there are standby barriers available to deliver power for emergency cooling systems if auxiliary power becomes unavailable. If there is a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), emergency cooling is added to the system relevant to how much coolant has been lost, or is continually leaking.2 The threat of a looming nuclear disaster is an incredible stress on people and communities. Within time periods shortly after nuclear disasters, surveys on American citizens

General Electric. Status report 100 - Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) Jul 2011

6|Page

have shown sharp drops in approval towards reliance on nuclear power.3 Nobody wants to see a nuclear meltdown happen in their back yard. Living local to a nuclear reactor makes people fear for their safety and investments. As one individual illustrated in a Burlington Free Press oped, Can you imagine how such an accident would impact the Vermont economy? can you imagine what effect an accident at Vermont Yankee would have on the value of your home? 4 It is important to note that some nuclear reactors are more at risk that others. The Fukushima plant was affected by both an earthquake and a tsunami; these natural disasters simply will not occur in an environment like southern Vermont. Unlike other United States fault regions such as the West Coast and parts of the Midwest, there is no risk of an earthquake that comes close to the magnitude of the one that triggered the Fukushima disaster. There have been no historical earthquake events in Vermont. There is also a very low tornado rating for Vermont.5 Additionally, the fallout from Fukushima was much larger because that plant contained four reactors. Vermont Yankee has only one. However, nuclear disasters are not majorly triggered by natural disasters. The Three Mile Island accident, a partial core meltdown incident in Pennsylvania in 1979, was attributed to numerous mishaps in safety protocols. Alerts of coolant loss were ignored by operators, and emergency protocols were not followed properly. In addition, automatic safety mechanisms

Photographs of the Three Mile Island, Chernobul, and Fukushima reactors respectively. Images from Wikipedia, Boston.com, and cryptome.com, respectively.
3 4

USA Today. Poll: Fears of nuclear disaster in U.S. rise after Japan quake Mar 2011 Burlingtonfreepress.com. Letter: Vermont Yankee risk not worth taking Apr 2011 5 USA.com. North Montpelier, VT Natural Disasters and Weather Extremes Accessed Nov 2013

7|Page

also failed.6 Although the accident was defused with no injuries or casualties, the incident caused much upheaval in national opinion of reliance on nuclear power. Another important factor detriment to safety of a nuclear plant is age. Vermont Yankee was opened for commercial operations in 1972 with a General Electric BWR design dating to the 1960s. Modern nuclear reactors are built with current technology, and have vastly superior safety and efficiency capabilities. The GE design was only intended to last through a 40-year license, then decommissioned. Entergy had taken several measures to extend its capability to operate for a longer period. As their spent fuel pool approached capacity, they gained approval to construct more storage to continue operation past their original license. They also have increased their power output from 500 MW to 620 MW.7 Vermont Yankee was running both longer and harder than intended by design. The risk of nuclear disaster may seem like the entirety of the reason a company requires to build and operate a plant safely; unfortunately, companies also have reasons for lowering safetys importance. The energy grid is a market, and companies construct power-generating facilities to generate a profit on their product. In the case of nuclear plants, safety costs are significantly greater than coal- or gas-fired plants. In addition, nuclear plants need to deal with the expensive disposal of spent nuclear fuel.8 Entergy has stated that the plant has cost them $400 million in safety costs thus far to operate the plant since their acquisition in 2006, and anticipates the decommissioning of the plant to additionally cost them over $500 million.9 Some senators believe that decommissioning will cost over $1 billion.10 One can observe that a company could cut corners on safety in order to save money and make a larger profit. The initiative seemed to believe that Entergy was deprioritizing safety to save on safety expenditures, and seeking relicensing to sell more power and delay the cost of decommissioning.

6 7

Report of The President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island Oct 1979 The Electricity Journal. The Debate over Re-Licensing the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant May 2010 8 World Nuclear Association. The Economics of Nuclear Power Oct 2013 9 Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee Frequently Asked Questions Accessed Nov 2013 10 The New York Times. Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant Feb 2010

8|Page

The recent claims made against Vermont Yankee, and the driving force of th e initiatives politics, are based on the plants lack of safety due to failing to follow safety standards. The initiative publicized and capitalized on incidents within Vermont Yankee that gave the impression that the necessary safety standards were not upheld. As I move into the who of the initiative, I would like to define precisely what events the initiative was involved with. There were two main events that spiraled lawmakers safety inquiries into strong distrust. Firstly, there was a cooling tower collapse at the plant in 2007. This event was downplayed by Entergy and Vermont Yankee officials, and the lawmakers were reassured via correspondence that the collapse had no impact on plant safety or reliability. Regardless, the event triggered wariness. Second, an investigation was sparked by an Oversight Panel on groundwater contamination through underground pipes. Vermont Yankee denied the possibility, but over time, radioactive contamination was discovered, and Vermont Yankee lost a great deal of credibility. After these events, legislation was pushed harder than ever to disallow the plant to continue operations through its renewed license.

9|Page

From left to right, Gov. Peter Shumlin, Sen. Randy Brock, and Gov. Jim Douglas. Image from the Boston Globe Magazine.

Who comprised the initiative, and what did they do?

The initiative was a political grassroots push against Entergy Nuclear and Vermont Yankee. A grassroots initiative is one supported and advanced by a community. The community in this case was the anti-nuclear population within the state of Vermont, as well as the areas local to Vermont Yankee, i.e. New England. These regions had the most potential to be affected if Vermont Yankee were the center of a disaster. The initiative does not have an explicit origin date; however, I would reason to say that it only started with Entergys ownership of Vermont Yankee. Entergy settled on acquiring Vermont Yankee from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (VYNPC), a New England utilities group, in 2002 for $180 million. Additionally, VYNPC was about to sell the plant for only $23.5 million11; it seems as if VYNCP was inclined to sell the plant off as it neared its license

11

Vermont Business Magazine. Vermont Yankee finally sold to Entergy Sep 2002

10 | P a g e

expiration in 2012. This is probably because decommissioning is a long, expensive process, and VYNCP preferred to sell off the plant instead of dealing with the decommissioning process. More importantly, in 2006, Entergy applied to the NRC for Vermont Yankees 20-year license extension. If Entergy had let Vermont Yankee run its course and decommission on schedule, then there would not have been any kind of initiative scrutinizing its dangers. The plant would have met the end of its lifetime on schedule, according to its original design. Entergys action of investing in extending Vermont Yankees lifetime spurred a new initiative that was more aggressive, and more political, than the general, nation-wide anti-nuclear protest that has existed for decades. Therefore, 2006 is not a bad date to choose as a reference point for the initiatives origins. The end goal of the initiative seemed to be to shutter Vermont Yankee. However, the initiatives pressure was originally only to check on Vermont Yankees safety standards as a nuclear plant located in a populated area. The primary political moves were more regulatory and precautionary. Following the defining incidents, the initiative changed gears into a far more aggressive movement in order to stop Vermont Yankee from continuing business unsafely. There was also no explicit organization to the initiative. For the most part, the initiative can be found and quantified only through news articles and political statements against, or reflecting actions taken against Vermont
Entergys logo and slogan. Image from Entergy.

Yankees practices and alleged standards of safety. There exists no comprehensive website

cataloguing actions and statements made by lawmakers or critics that were part of the initiative. There is, however, a large amount of negative press on Vermont Yankee, that seems to culminate into a common believe and cause. This culmination of purpose, towards doing something about Vermont Yankee, is what is defined by the initiative.

11 | P a g e

Descriptions of the initiative often will reference Vermont lawmakers. These individuals were the ones pushing hard for legislative action to be taken on Vermont Yankee. Other supporters not involved in the politics perhaps lent their voice to the cause; however, historically, citizen action has done little to deter the nuclear plants business. (This is an important point that will be discussed in the conclusion of this study.) There were still citizen contributions to the initiative; however, the lawmakers were truly the only ones with enough authority to bring in official regulatory entities and have an effect on Vermont Yankee. There were several powerful players within the initiative that were part of the Vermont lawmakers. The most prominent figures in the initiative were the governors of Vermont during the initiatives active timespan, Jim Douglas (R) until November 2010 and Peter Shumlin (D) thereafter. Gov. Douglas sparked inquiry and correspondence with Vermont Yankee after the cooling tower collapse, and orchestrated a panel of experts to investigate potential leeching of radioactivity into groundwater. Gov. Douglas also led a senate vote to restrict Vermont Yankees permission to operate under their renewed license. Gov. Shumlin has frequently voiced his opposition to Vermont Yankee publicly, and was involved in appealing the 2013 court decision restricting the Senates authority over Vermont Yankees operations. He was also the president pro tem of the Vermont Senate during sessions involving decisions and debate about Vermont Yankee. Another prominent lawmaker in the initiative was Randy Brock (R), a pro-nuclear Vermont senator. Despite advocating nuclear power, Brock was deeply doubtful of Vermont Yankees credibility, and fou nd their business practices uncanny and found the companys administration to be untrustworthy . In addition, as a body of lawmakers, the Vermont senate has been generally agreed in majority with the opinions of the politicians mentioned thus far. The first major incident at Vermont Yankee was a cooling tower collapse in September of 2007. After the incident, various officials, including state senators and Gov. Douglas sent correspondence to Vermont Yankee questioning the implications of the collapse, and what the accident reflected about the plants safety standards. In addition, there were numerous

12 | P a g e
Photograph of Vermont Yankee cooling tower collapse. Image from the New York Times.

requests

made

for

an

Independent

Safety

Assessment to be made of the plants operations.12 The plants representatives responded to the legislators with reassurance, indicating that the cooling tower was nonessential to emergency reactor protocols.13 However, in public statements to the Associated Press, Vermont Yankee officials

expressed the seriousness of the incident. The site vice president, stated, "It's unacceptable to us, and it's not like us." The engineering director of Vermont Yankee stated, "What we know now is that the inspection program we have in place needs to be enhanced." 14 This more apologetic, urgent response is far different than that given straight to government officials. The second major incident began a year after the tower collapse. In 2008, Gov. Douglas and other Vermont lawmakers created a panel of nuclear experts to investigate if Vermont Yankee had underground piping leaking radiation into groundwater15. This inquiry was largely due to the discovery of similar problems in other plants throughout the country. 16 The Oversight Panel was a large step forward for the initiative. It was a move away from passive citizen protest and towards regulatory criticism and inquiry made by qualified analysts and officials. In response to the inquiry, Vermont Yankee strongly denied any possibility of radiationleaking undergrounds piping. A safety team hired by the Vermont Department of Public Service agreed. The Oversight Panel verified this claim with information from NSA, a private nuclear safety organization, and Entergy. However, over the next year, information emerged from
12 13

Correspondence to Senator Leahy from Dale E. Klein. May 2008 Correspondence to Senator Kennedy from Dale E. Klein. Oct 2007 14 Boston.com. Vt. Yankee reports on collapse in tower Sep 2007 15 Times Argus. Backtracking and in trouble: A detailed timeline on who said what on Vt. Yankee Feb 2010 16 The New York Times. A Judge Rules Vermont Cant Shut Nuclear Plant Jan 2012

13 | P a g e

Entergy and subsequent inquiring that there was indeed piping underneath Vermont Yankee that could contain radioactive particles. A very critical report was issued from the Oversight Panel about the incorrect information, to which Entergy responded by taking issue with the tone of the report. Entergy attributed the discrepancy in information to miscommunication. Shortly after, Entergy revealed that they discovered the radioactive isotope tritium in groundwater with a well test. Vermont lawmakers became more suspicious. Then, an underground trench was discovered with radioisotopes in water at a concentration 100 times the federal limit. More information was released about underground pipes leaking radiation. It turned out that there were many underground radioactive pipes that were either undocumented or not disclosed by Vermont Yankee. Finally, Gov. Douglas announced that he wished for Entergy to fire its management and for lawmakers to vote against Vermont Yankees continued operation. This timeline follows from mid-2008 through the beginning of 2010. This course of events is arguably the primary reason for distrust of the nuclear plant, and by extension, the primary cause for the initiative. Gov. Shumlin, a markedly social governor, has issued numerous statements over the years showing his opinions on Vermont Yankee. In March 2012, after a Vermont Yankee protest, Shumlin stated, I am very supportive of the peaceful protesters gathered today i n Brattleboro to express their and my frustration that this aging plant remains open after its agreed-upon license has expired. Were doing all we can so that Vermont can move on from this old plant and move towards an energy future that sends Entergy Louisiana back to Louisiana.17 The current Vermont governor has also been involved in the federal court appeal towards the decision that the Vermont senate cannot restrict Vermont Yankees operations. The precise action was to deny Vermont Yankee a certificate of public good for the plant. Vermont senator Randy Brock can be described as a microcosm of the distrust that Vermont Yankee put in the Vermont lawmakers. Sen. Brock is pro-nuclear power for its

17

Vermont.gov. Gov. Peter Shumlin's statement on Vermont Yankee's continued operation today Mar 2012

14 | P a g e

environmental friendliness, overall safety, and reliability, but he doesnt trust the administration behind Vermont Yankee. He has stated, If their management had been thoroughly infiltrated by anti-nuclear activists, they could not have done a better job destroying their own case.18 It seems that although nuclear power has many promises for Vermont, Entergys plant has ruined its chances for providing safe and trustworthy nuclear power for the state. There has been much political drama in the story of Entergys Vermont Yankee, but it wasnt the only thing the plant had to deal with. Local approval went way down following the Oversight Panel story. After the events, Vermont Yankee tried to boost its local credibility through campaigning with informational booklets in nearby municipalities, but the damage already seemed to have been done.19 There was already a strong anti-nuclear mood in Vermont prior to the Yankee Nuclear story. Bill McKibben, a devout Vermont anti-nuclear activist, brought his opinions to the Vermont House of Representatives, stating that while he endorses reliance on nuclear power, he believes that Vermont Yankee is badly run.20 Citizens have more awareness and less trust for both nuclear plants and the NRCs regulatory influence for granting a plant like Vermont Yankee relicensing, despite its problems.19

18 19

The Boston Globe Manazine. Power Politics May 2010 The Boston Globe Magazine. Power Politics May 2010 20 VTDigger. Climate activist McKibben urges action, warns lawmakers of threats to Vermont way of life Jan 2013

15 | P a g e

Various badges representing stances on Vermont Yankee and nuclear energy reliance in general. Images from the Boston Globe Magazine.

What were the consequences of the initiative?

There are certainly consequences to closing the plant. The biggest impact will be on the nearby area and local community. Vermont Yankee has provided a very large portion of energy for Vermont and New England in its lifetime. Nuclear power has virtually no carbon footprint, and thus is a greener form of energy production than the alternatives available to the state after the plant closes. Vermont Yankee has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the community through charitable giving. The plant hired hundreds of workers at very high wages. As Vermont Yankee shuts down, all of these contributions will start to vanish. On August 27, 2013, Entergy told Yankee employees in a meeting of its plans to decommission Vermont Yankee. This decision directly affected each one of the 623 people employed there. The average wage of an employee at the plant in 2006 was $103,777.21 Closing the plant threatens potentially hundreds of families with moving to a different area in order to continue earning a similar living through similar work. Even if there do exist opportunities for employees to transfer to other nearby nuclear power plants, including some run by Entergy,

21

SentinelSource.com. Vermont Yankee family faces uncertain future Oct 2013

16 | P a g e

not every employee from Vermont Yankee can migrate to close-by facilities. To keep their jobs and maintain their living standards, they will be forced to relocate. In 2011 alone, Vermont Yankee contributed approximately $435,000 to the community through grants, sponsorships, and community events and projects.22 While Vermont Yankee vows to continue its community involvement and charitable giving through its decommissioning timeframe, when the plant is fully decommissioned, there will be no more Vermont Yankee in the community. All of the money the plant gave to the community will not exist, and so far, there are no other businesses or institutions on their way to fill that gap. Outing nuclear energy will naturally require bringing in new energy. While most antinuclear advocates hope that the gap will be filled with other renewable energy sources (primarily wind power in Vermont), the state will no doubt have to rely on more energy from natural gas. The increasingly available supply of natural gas is coming from the process of hydro fracturing23, a process disputed to be toxic to the environment it is conducted in. Additionally, natural gas prices are expected to go up slowly over the next couple of decades.24 Replacing nuclear plant-generated power with natural-gas generated power is taking away a solution to climate change and stable energy prices, and replacing it with the problem. Losing Vermont Yankee is actually two big steps backward for environmental safety. The most devastating impact, however, will probably be from the change in local perception of nuclear power. New England will never be the same towards nuclear energy again after Vermont Yankee. It is hard to imagine investors funneling billions of dollars into a nuclear power facility that will be harassed at every turn by governments, critics and citizens who have learned their lesson from Vermont Yankee.19 The prospect of nuclear energy in Vermont in the foreseeable future is shattered; With that loss also comes the lost opportunity for new developments in the vicinity as well. The solution to all problems mentioned above is to have a clean, safe, and reliable version of Vermont Yankee. But because of the new negative conceptions, there wont be one.
22 23

Vermont Yankee. Community Contributions Accessed Nov 2013 The Boston Globe Magazine. The nuclear option Sep 2013 24 Vtdigger.com. Energy prices bound to rise without Vermont Yankee, grid operator says Sep 2013

17 | P a g e

Citizens protesting the federal court decision overturning the Vermont senates vote to stop Vermont Yankees ope rations. Image from Dylan Kelley Photography.

Conclusions
Vermont Yankee is shutting down in 2014. But Entergy does not blame a shift in perception of nuclear power; they blame the economy. Entergy attributes their loss in profits to the energy market becoming increasingly competitive against natural gas prices and the rising cost of safety standards9. Entergy, in its public statements about its closing, has not mentioned the ordeal it went through trying to relicense their power plant, or its multitude of ongoing lawsuits against organizations that have lost trust in them. Though the plant is shutting down, and the goal of the initiative appears to have been met, and the politicians and anti-nuclear activists seem to have won, the truth is that initiative never actually succeeded. Vermonts decision to refuse Vermont Yankee a certificate of public good was overturned in court. Despite Gov. Shumlins stated intent to fight the federal cou rt on its ruling, there are many reasons to believe that Vermonts decision would be overruled, and Vermont Yankee would obtain its new license to operate. Barbara Moran, who has written several pieces describing the conflicts Vermont Yankee has endured, says that among what she considers the three dominant (and alliterate)
18 | P a g e

contributing factors in Vermont Yankees demise, being fracking, funding, and Fukushima 23, fracking is definitely the most important factor. Fracking has increased the countrys natu ral gas supply, and generated too much competition for Vermont Yankee to handle. While dim outlooks and low credibility has surely hurt Vermont Yankee s ability to generate money, frackings threat to Entergys profits was the final straw that caused the corporation to call it quits. This indicates something frightening about the initiatives power. Despite the stress that the initiative caused on Entergy and Yankee Nuclear, and the publicity it generated, the initiative itself was not the cause for the plant to shut down. Recall the origins of the initiative; it originated due to people in Vermont, and the surrounding area, being fearful of Vermont Yankees diminishing safety standards potentially leading to a nuclear disaster. Since the initiative failed, that means the fearful citizens and the lawmakers representing them did not greatly influence the decision to close the plant. What if economic factors were not an issue? Imagine an alternate universe where Entergy continued to fight tooth and nail to keep Vermont Yankee open. If the federal court ruling that stopped the Vermont Senates actions were not overturned, then Vermont Yankee would continue operations, and everyone involved in the initiative would have to try all over again. If federal entities continued to make the decisions they have made in the past, the initiative may never be able to prevent a foreseen incident. One may say that if Vermont Yankee were to continue operations, the NRC s regulatory pressure would prevent its safety standards from dwindling too much to put the plants reactor at risk of starting a nuclear incident. The Three-Mile Island reactor was under supervision, and approval, by the NRC, and yet it still had an incident that led to a partial meltdown and a large irradiated zone around the reactor. People who lived within this zone may say that the NRC did not comprehensively qualify the safety Three-Mile Island plant. Similarly, although Yankee Nuclear has also been qualified and licensed by the NRC, the qualification may not have been comprehensive, and Yankee Nuclear may still have had lacking safety standards.

19 | P a g e

There are a few general lessons to be learned from the Vermont Yankee local resistance initiative. I believe that these lessons culminate in one sentence: The higher you go, the more influence you will achieve. The people protesting peacefully in front of the plant may have generated articles, but never did they stop the plant from operating on schedule. Vermont lawmakers were able to achieve correspondence from Vermont Yankee, and even call them out on blatantly misinforming regulatory entities and the general public, but the federal courts stopped them from doing anything about it themselves. It appears as if the next step was for the initiative to transcend its local boundaries and influence an organization with federal oversight. If the NRC had the same opinions on Vermont Yankee as Gov. Shumlin, then Vermont Yankee would never have received relicensing. The only reason that these federal entities are not assuming the same opinions as anti-nuclear activists is because there are other, greater reasons that the federal entities have to defend nuclear power. The initiative was geared solely towards Vermont Yankee, which is a single plant in an array of nuclear reactor facilities throughout the country. Each facility is governed almost exclusively by the NRC, a federal entity. The federal government, under the Obama administration, has put several structures in place to enable the development of nuclear power in the United States. Perhaps this initiative for nuclear power in the US has influenced the NRC into being more liberal with their accreditation and licensing standards of nuclear plants. In any case, the reason why the initiative failed was because the initiative did not penetrate high enough. It is fortunate for the initiative that it achieved its goal almost by accident; however, if the smoking gun they saw proved true, and if they were not so lucky as to have Entergy close the plant itself, and finally, if Entergy and Vermont Yankee did not fix the issues which caused them to lose Vermonts trust in the first place, then in the not -so-distant future, Vermont could very well be in danger.

20 | P a g e