BRATTLEBORO — Last year's comprehensive reliability assessment of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant (the “NSA Report”), and last month's release of the report of the independent board overseeing that study, offer a little something for everyone.
Opponents seeking to deny Entergy the license to continue operating the plant beyond 2012 find the reports damning. Some proponents claim vindication in the reports concluding that a safe and reliable Vermont Yankee is possible, that it says the nuclear plant has received a clean bill of health.
The reports boil down to one phrase: “Yes, but.”
“Acceptable reliability of VY for operation beyond 2012 is possible,” the audit begins to conclude (in the “yes” part).
But only "if the recommendations of this report and the NSA Report are taken.”
That's a big if. The auditors and their oversight panel both enumerate myriad grave concerns that range from Entergy's quality assurance practices, its deferred maintenance routines, and high staff turnover that could result in the loss of critical institutional knowledge. The auditors say increased state and federal oversight will be necessary to maintain the public's safety, and that more transparency is needed for public accountability.
Frankly, given the dismal state of state and federal budgets to the economy to the business interests of Entergy - interests the company is duty-bound to protect for its shareholders - it is unrealistic to expect the company to comply with these recommendations in their entirety.
And even if those concerns can all magically be addressed, last month's report warns of the open question of reliability issues for nuclear power plants of VY's vintage, rightly calling into question the very premise of the concept of “acceptable reliability.”
Even now, with the damning evidence of last year's cooling tower collapse, the plant is not aging well. These plants can suffer multiple equipment failures that take them offline for years, and though problems of these magnitudes are highly unusual now, the report points out that nobody can predict the future integrity, reliability, and safety of these plants as they age.
Nobody wants to see the loss of Vermont Yankee to this region's economy - even most opponents, whether they now realize it or not. The many positive contributions to the community and the economy of the company and its employees cannot go unacknowledged.
But is all that really enough to offset the obvious increasing risk of catastrophe from a plant that is approaching the tail end of its intended lifespan and not doing so very gracefully?