BURLINGTON (AP) — Democratic gubernatorial candidate Peter Shumlin called Monday for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant to dramatically increase its extraction of contaminated groundwater from its site in Vernon, following news three days earlier that radioactive tritium was found in a well drawing from an underground aquifer and used for drinking water.

“I have been saying for some time that the radioactive leaks at Vermont Yankee could be the largest man-made environmental crisis that Vermont has ever seen,” Shumlin said at a news conference, adding that plant owner Entergy Corp., based in New Orleans, must be held accountable for the costs of cleanup.

“Unless Entergy Louisiana is held accountable for this disaster, it could cost Vermonters millions of dollars and put the health and safety of thousands at risk,” he said. “Entergy Louisiana needs to take immediate steps to ensure that this crisis does not worsen.”

Shumlin, the president pro tem of the Vermont Senate and a longtime critic of the state’s lone reactor, also stepped up his criticism of his Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, whom he called too friendly to Vermont Yankee and Entergy.

“Brian will stand up for the stockholders of Entergy Louisiana instead of protecting the pocketbooks and health and safety of the people of the state of Vermont,” Shumlin said.

Vermont Yankee is seeking a 20-year extension of its license, scheduled to expire in 2012.

Vermont is the only state with a law saying the Legislature must approve the extension of a power plant’s license. Vermont Yankee’s extension request failed to get out of the Senate in February.

The vote came a month after tritium leaks were first announced and after revelations that top plant personnel had misled state officials by saying Vermont Yankee did not have underground piping that carried, and could leak, radioactive substances like tritium.

Dubie has said he believes the decision on the plant’s future should be left to the state Public Service Board, which would issue a new state license for the plant, and to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

“Brian has been very clear from the beginning that the NRC is going to be the one who will determine whether the plant is safe,” Dubie spokeswoman Kate Duffy said Monday. “This is a conversation that has to be driven by science and evidence, not politics and emotion.”

Shumlin called on Vermont Yankee to triple the number of pumps, from two to six, that it has been using to pull contaminated groundwater from the reactor site on the west bank of the Connecticut River since last winter. In January, officials announced that radioactive tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that has been linked to cancer if ingested in large amounts, had turned up in a test well at Vermont Yankee. Since then, other radioactive isotopes also have been found.

Plant spokesman Larry Smith said technicians at Vermont Yankee had already pulled about 267,000 gallons of water from the ground in an effort to address the tritium leaks and expected to meet their goal of extracting 300,000 gallons by December.

Shumlin said the new discovery — tritium found at 200 to 220 feet underground, far deeper than previous depths of 30 to 70 feet — should require the pumping to continue well past December.

Smith noted that the new tritium measurement, about 1,040 picocuries per liter of water, was well below the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety standard for drinking water of 20,000 picocuries per liter. He said there is no threat to public health and safety.

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_16314049

By Dave Gram

Associated Press Writer / October 8, 2010

MONTPELIER, Vt.—Radioactive tritium that has leaked from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plan  has turned up for the first time in a former drinking water well tied to a deep underground aquifer, plant and federal officials said Friday.

Plant officials said the new test results indicated there was no threat to public health and safety. Two positive readings, showing just over 1,000 picocuries of tritium per liter of water, were well below the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit for tritium in drinking water — 20,000 picocuries per liter.

However, the presence of any tritium, an isotope of hydrogen and a byproduct of nuclear fission that has been tied to cancer when ingested in large amounts, was troubling to state Rep. David Deen, a river steward with the Connecticut River Watershed Council. The plant is adjacent to the river in Vermont’s southeast corner.

“That’s really bad news,” Deen said. “I was hoping it was going to be contained and that the shallow ground water would flush itself and that we would be done with it.”

The tritium leak that was first announced in January. Asked whether people living near the plant had anything more to worry about than before the latest development, the state Health Department’s radiological health chief, William Irwin, said, “I don’t think so.”

Irwin said there still is a high likelihood that the underground water system will flush itself out over time. He said, however, a great deal of uncertainty surrounds the situation because no one has an exact map of underground rock fractures through which the affected water is flowing.

The test results turned up in water samples pulled from a section of the well shaft extending from 200 to 220 feet below the surface of the plant site in Vernon. That’s about three times deeper than the deepest test well drilled this year — 70 feet — as the plant has tracked the spread of tritium and other radioactive substances through shallower ground water surrounding the 38-year-old reactor.

The well, which had been used as a water supply for Vermont Yankee workers, was shut down in February because of its proximity to the radioactive leaks. Plant, state and federal officials, like Deen, had hoped the contaminated groundwater would be limited to that which has turned up in various test wells on the site since them.

“What it means is that it has gotten through that rock layer that was protecting the drinking water aquifer,” Deen said.

It could not be immediately determined how large the aquifer under Vermont Yankee is. Irwin said he is not a hydrogeologist and did not have that information. Deen said, “That’s the aquifer that most of the wells in that area are tapped into.”

The future of Vermont Yankee, which is seeking a 20-year extension on a license currently set to expire in 2012, has become a major issue in this year’s race for governor. The plant is owned by New Orleans-based Entergy Corp.

The Republican candidate, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, has generally been supportive of the plant, but adopted a tougher tone Friday. He said the latest findings show that the plant “has much more work to do in order to regain the trust and confidence of Vermonters” following last winter’s revelations about the leaks and the fact that plant officials had misled the state about the existence of underground pipes at the plant that could leak radioactive substances.

The Democratic candidate, state Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, has been consistent in calling for Vermont Yankee to close when its license expires in 2012. “How many leaks and lies does Brian Dubie have to live through before he will stand up for the people of Vermont instead of the stockholders of Entergy Louisiana?” Shumlin said. “We need a governor who gets it right the first time and has the courage to stand up to corporate power when it is wrong.”

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Radioactive tritium has been detected for the first time in a former drinking-water well at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, a potential indication that tritium that leaked from the plant has migrated to a deep underground aquifer, state, federal and plant officials said late Friday afternoon.

“The significance is, this is the first time we’ve seen this in any sort of drinking-water aquifer, but the levels are very, very low,” said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The announcement prompted Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Dubie to issue a statement in which he shifted his tone regarding the future of the 38-year-old plant.

“Until questions are answered and public health can be assured, I cannot support the plant’s continued operation past 2012,” Dubie said in a news release Friday evening.

Until Friday, Dubie hasn’t suggested he could not support the plant’s continued operation, and in debates he has said he was hesitant about closing down the plant.At an Oct. 1 election debate about energy issues, Dubie also said, “Before I hand a pink slip to a mom or a dad of the 650 people who work at Vermont Yankee, I’m going to look them in the eye and say, ‘I did my job. I evaluated all the data, and this is the conclusion I came to.’”

Thursday night, when six gubernatorial candidates were asked during a Vermont Public Television debate to indicate if they would support closing Vermont Yankee, all but Dubie raised their hands. Vermont Yankee’s operating license expires in 2012, and its owners are seeking a 20-year extension.

Not long after the tritium leak was reported at the plant last January, the state Senate voted against allowing the Public Service Board to decide on an extension. The future of the plant that provides one-third of Vermont’s electric power is a front-burner issue in the race for governor. Dubie’s Democratic opponent, Peter Shumlin, led the push for the Senate vote and has called for shutting down the plant in 2012. Dubie opposed the Senate vote, arguing the Public Service Board should make the decision, not the Legislature.

In his statement Friday, the Republican did not mention the Public Service Board but said the NRC and the Vermont Department of Health “must prove the plant poses no health risk to Vermonters before I will be satisfied.” Dubie campaign spokeswoman Kate Duffy contended Friday’s statement wasn’t a change in position for Dubie, as he has said all along that the plant’s safety is paramount. “He’s using this announcement to reiterate his position,” she said. Friday’s written statement e-mailed to the Free Press from Dubie was titled “Lt. Gov. Dubie demands answers from VY.”

When asked what questions Dubie wants answered, Duffy said by e-mail, “He didn’t have a list of specific questions for VY, but said the burden of proof is on Vermont Yankee to prove to the NRC and the Health Dept. that the plant is safe. Entergy has to prove to THEIR standards that the plant is safe, and until that happens, it’s premature to talk about relicensing.” Previously, Dubie had said he would want proof the plant poses a risk before the state shut down the facility.

Democrat Shumlin said Friday, “Brian has consistently defended the stockholders of Entergy Louisiana and has failed to use good Vermont common sense. How many leaks and lies does Brian Dubie have to live through before he will stand up for the people of Vermont?” Entergy Louisiana owns Vermont Yankee.

The state Health Department announced Friday that Vermont Yankee had reported that the well tested positive for tritium. The well, near the source of the tritium leak, had not been used for drinking water since Feb. 22, when it was taken out of service because of the leak, Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said.

The sample showed 1,040 picocuries per liter of tritium in the well, an amount well below the 30,000 picocuries-per-liter threshold for reporting tritium in a monitoring well. Smith said Vermont Yankee reported it anyway in light of public attention to the tritium leak. Sheehan, of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Vermont Yankee initially received test results Oct. 2 indicating there was a reading of 1,380 picocuries per liter of tritium in the well. The sample was sent for further testing and was confirmed at 1,040 picocuries per liter, he said.

Sheehan said further study would be needed to determine where the tritium has migrated and at what quantity. The nearest active drinking-water wells are in the opposite direction from the flow of groundwater at the plant, he said. Testing of two on-site drinking-water wells and those across the road at Vernon Elementary School and at the Hinsdale, N.H., Town Hall was negative for tritium, Smith said.

Read more: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20101008/NEWS03/101008015/Tritium-found-in-well-water-at-Vt.-Yankee-nuclear-plant#ixzz11tBocBhG

When Peter Shumlin this week leaped on comments by Brian Dubie about Vermont Yankee, Dubie got a taste of the kind of treatment he is going to get in the General Election.

Shumlin is one of the five Democrats running in the Aug. 24 primary for governor, and it is far from certain that he will be the one to take on Dubie in the General Election. But he took the opportunity to blast comments by Dubie that seemed to cast a positive light on a report about the prospects for Vermont Yankee’s future.

Dubie’s comments came in an interview on Vermont Public Radio. He was discussing a report from the Public Oversight Panel last week about the continued operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant beyond the expiration of its license in 2012. Dubie said that if the owners of Yankee, Entergy Vermont, were to embrace a culture of safety and make necessary investments then the Public Oversight Panel saw no reason that Vermont Yankee couldn’t operate beyond 2012.

Shumlin saw his chance, and he turned what could have been passing comments on the radio into an issue about Dubie’s attitude toward Vermont Yankee.

In fact, Dubie’s characterization of the panel’s report on Vermont Yankee put a positive spin on a highly negative report. The panel, which was created by the Legislature, found serious problems at Yankee, raising doubts about the plant’s continued operation.

These problems include a corporate culture that does not encourage scrupulous attention to the truth, as well as the failure to devote adequate resources to the physical systems. These problems are “systemic,” according to the panel’s report. Vermont Yankee cannot operate reliably for another 20 years unless Entergy corrects this corporate culture and spends enough money on the plant, the report said.

The main thrust of the panel’s report was a warning: Things cannot go on like this. The report called what had happened at Yankee an “organization-wide breakdown” in attention to detail and in attention to the truth.

Dubie did not deny these findings. His spokesman said that Dubie believes safety is paramount and that the company’s actions were indefensible. Rather, Dubie was saying that if reality were different, there would be no reason why Yankee could not continue to operate. If the corporate culture could be corrected and we could receive adequate assurances of safety, then there would be no reason not to extend the plant’s license.

An election campaign is when statements such as Dubie’s inevitably come under minute parsing, with all shadings analyzed and all possible meanings teased out. In one sense, Dubie was merely stating the obvious: If everything were fine at Yankee, then everything would be fine.

But Dubie’s words suggested an eagerness to look on the bright side when it comes to Yankee. He claimed the report suggested that if a long list of mistakes were corrected, then perhaps the plant could carry on. But the emphasis of the report was on the list of mistakes and the fact that they hadn’t been corrected and doubt that the plant could carry on.

Dubie can expect more close parsing of his words as the election season continues. He is not as politically shrewd and verbally agile as Gov. James Douglas, and his Democratic opponent can be expected to pick up on any effort to spin a story to his liking.

Vermont Yankee may be a difficult issue for Dubie. Those who believe Vermont Yankee has been an important source of electric power and of well-paying jobs have been undercut by Yankee’s record of misstatements and mistakes. All five Democratic candidates believe the plant should be closed in 2012, and Dubie may lose credibility if he continues to look beyond the warning signs about Yankee to an unjustified rosy scenario.

Shumlin has made Yankee an important issue in his political career. But his Democratic primary opponents — Matt Dunne, Douglas Racine, Deborah Markowitz and Susan Bartlett — are also ready to see Vermont Yankee shut down in 2012. They, too, could be expected to take Dubie to task for looking past warnings about Entergy’s failures.

“Brian (Dubie) made comments on VPR last week that I am really concerned about… and I don’t think… they don’t reflect what we need from the next governor,” said Peter Shumlin, Democrat running for governor of Vermont.

Shumlin disagrees with Republican candidate Brian Dubie’s assessment of a new report about Vermont Yankee. The Public Oversight panel found last week the nuclear plant has a corporate culture problem and does not consistently spend enough on safety.

“What Brian indicated was that he trusts Entergy Louisiana, that he thinks they can change and that he thinks the report indicates that the problems are minor and can be overcome. That isn’t what the report says,” Shumlin said.

“I stand by what I said,” Dubie said. “I quoted the report.”

Republican Brian Dubie has stayed out of the spotlight. He does not have a primary race. Dubie supports Yankee and says if it’s proven safe it should keep operating and he thinks the report supports that.

“I’m not here to defend Entergy,” Dubie said. “What I’m here to say is we need to look at safety and we need to look at the importance of jobs, and when I give a pink slip to a fellow Vermonter I’m going to make sure all the questions are answered.”

All five Democrats for governor want Yankee to close in 2012. But Shumlin is the first to attack Dubie, trying to set the tone that he’s a frontrunner… already looking to the November election. But Shumlin needs to win the Democratic primary first on August 24. He admits it’s a tossup.

“It’s a wide open race,” he said.

Shumlin also said Tuesday that if Yankee closes in 2012, he would tax the plant to store its nuclear waste in Vernon. Brian Dubie’s campaign says it will have to study the issue but that Dubie supports having Entergy pay for clean up and maintenance of the site.

Kristin Carlson – WCAX News

http://www.wcax.com/global/video.asp?clipId=4979452&topVideoCatNo=63459&autoStart=true

BURLINGTON – Senate President Peter Shumlin opened up an attack on Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie Tuesday, accusing the Republican candidate for governor of going too easy on Vermont Yankee executives and misrepresenting a state report on the plant’s future.

Shumlin, a Windham County Democrat running for governor, said Dubie places too much trust in executives with Entergy Nuclear Vermont, the company that owns the nuclear power plant, after accusations this year that they misled regulators.

He also accused the Republican candidate of misrepresenting a report on Vermont Yankee by the Public Oversight Panel to paint a rosier picture of the plant’s chances to continue operation after 2012, when its current license expires.

“I’ve lost faith in Entergy Louisiana’s ability to tell us the truth,” said Shumlin, who led a vote in the Vermont Senate in February to reject the plant’s relicensing. “I don’t trust their word anymore. But it seems that Brian Dubie does.”

Corry Bliss, Dubie’s campaign manager, responded that Shumlin “has his facts wrong” and the lieutenant governor has always believed that “safety must come first at Vermont Yankee.”

“He has never wavered in this belief or in the belief that Entergy’s actions are indefensible,” Bliss said. “The evidence clearly shows Entergy misled the public and lost the public’s trust. Rebuilding that trust, if at all possible, will be a slow and carefully scrutinized process.”

Vermont Yankee’s future in the state is expected to become a political issue in the fall after the primaries, when Democrats have selected a nominee who will face Dubie in the November general election.

The company, which employs hundreds of Vermonters, saw its credibility whacked this year when it was revealed that executives misled regulators and lawmakers about the existence of underground pipes — infrastructure that was leaking tritium and other radioactive materials into the ground.

Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell is now investigating whether the company intentionally misled the state. He said last week that his office has received more than 2 million pages of documents and will soon begin interviewing Entergy executives.

“I wouldn’t say we are drowning in paperwork, but we are swamped,” Sorrell said last week. “This may take some time.”

Shumlin’s criticism of Dubie centers on an interview that the Republican gave to Vermont Public Radio last week, shortly after the release of a report by the state’s nuclear consultants that painted a dire picture of Entergy and its chances to operate beyond 2012.

When asked about the report on VPR last week, Dubie said its conclusion was that “if there is a culture of safety that management would embrace — absolutely I totally agree with that — and if investments are made that, if investments continue to be made in Vermont Yankee, the legislative-appointed Public Oversight committee saw no reason that Vermont Yankee couldn’t operate past 2012.”

Shumlin said Dubie’s statement on the radio show appears to come more from Entergy’s press release about the report rather than the report itself.

“The report stated that there were serious problems with Entergy Louisiana’s corporate culture,” Shumlin said. “These are problems that can’t be fix in one week or one month or even one year. They are systemic problems.”

Arnie Gundersen, one of the nuclear consultants on the Public Oversight Panel who worked on the report, agreed Tuesday that Dubie gave the wrong impression of the report’s conclusions. He said the report expressed strong doubts that the company could make the necessary corporate and infrastructure changes necessary to operate after 2012.

“The lieutenant governor’s quotes are based not on the history of Vermont Yankee, but his wishes for improvement,” Gundersen said. “You don’t make decisions based on wishes, you make them based on history.”

He also took issue with another statement from Dubie: That the report was the product of the Legislature and that Gov. James Douglas’ administration had no input.

Douglas’ first appointee to the panel died before the process was complete, but another member, Fred Sears, was appointed to the panel by the other members — with the blessing of Douglas, he said.

When asked about Gundersen’s comments, the Dubie campaign stood by their original statement issued after Shumlin’s press conference, held at his campaign’s offices in Burlington early Tuesday afternoon.

“I don’t see the difference between the report and LG Dubie’s comments,” Bliss wrote in an e-mail.

Vermont Yankee, which began operating in 1972, is scheduled to close in March 2012 unless it wins approval for a 20-year license extension. The Vermont Senate voted against continued operation in a 26-4 vote in February.

Dubie, in his role as lieutenant governor, presided over the Senate debate. Shumlin, as Senate president, led the charge against the bill, which would have allowed the Vermont Public Service Board to issue a decision on the plant’s continued operation.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100728/NEWS02/707289945/0/NEWS&template=printart

Will we stake out a bold new energy agenda that creates thousands of good Vermont jobs in the fields of renewable energy and efficiency? Or will we stay tethered to an aging nuclear reactor — operated by a debt-ridden Wall Street business scheme — that could leave us paying high energy and cleanup costs far into the future?

For me the choice is clear. We must say “yes” to biomass, cow power and wind power in communities that want it. We must say “yes” to solar, small hydro and energy efficiency. We must make the kinds of investments that will help our small business owners create jobs for Vermont-based engineers, contractors, architects, plumbers, electricians, loggers, truckers, farmers and building supply companies.

For Vermont to reap the benefits of the high-paying jobs that the new economy can offer, we must have the courage to say “no” to relicensing Vermont Yankee for another 20 years. There are three main reasons why relicensing Vermont Yankee is not in the best interests of Vermonters.

First, the corporate spin-off from our current well-financed owner, Entergy, to the debt-ridden shell corporation, Enexus, is fiscally irresponsible and extremely unwise. Second, the decommissioning fund shortfall of almost $600 million leaves Vermont ratepayers on the hook to clean up the plant and its nuclear waste. Third, the price offered by Enexus (6.1 cents) for only 115MW, is a nearly 50 percent increase over our current price (4.2 cents), and would force Vermonters to pay more for less power.

Supporters of relicensing ask the following question: how will our state replace the 280 MW — 34 percent of all electric power usage — that is currently supplied by Vermont Yankee when the plant closes as scheduled in 2012?

The answer is clear when you consider what our region has to offer. The New England ISO’s (Independent System Operator) 2008 forecast demonstrates that the region will have nearly twice the capacity necessary to meet the demand of the six New England states now and in years to come. There is a diverse menu of options available, including natural gas, hydro, wind, solar, biomass and accelerated energy efficiency.

Vermont Yankee delivers just 2 percent of New England’s power. Natural gas, hydroelectric power and other renewable energy sources offer reliable, well-priced options with none of the liabilities and risks associated with an aging nuclear reactor. Vermont must take full advantage of these regional options in the short term, while aggressively developing local sources of renewable power that will ensure a stable and sustainable energy supply into the future.

Vermont Yankee is a 38-year-old nuclear reactor. Its parent company, Entergy, proposes to issue $4.7 billion in junk bonds and debt to spin Vermont Yankee and five other aging plants off to Enexus, pocketing $3.5 billion for shareholders while they wave goodbye to their Vermont commitment. After Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill, FairPoint and the rest, an objective observer would be justified in asking: When will we ever learn?

As a business owner, I urge us all to consider: If this spin-off is approved and Vermont Yankee is relicensed, we’ll be trading Entergy, an investment-grade company, for Enexus, a debt-ridden shell company with low-grade bond ratings. Enexus is more likely to default on its obligations or go bankrupt than Entergy. All of Vermont Yankee’s physical assets and contracts will be pledged as collateral for Enexus’ secured loans, whereas currently they are owned by Entergy, free and clear.

House Speaker Shap Smith and I are committed to a fair and open process as legislators decide whether or not to reauthorize Vermont Yankee to operate for an additional 20 years. I have asked my committees of jurisdiction to take testimony on the Enexus offer so that senators can draw their own conclusions. We welcome your thoughts as we consider this important decision.

It is my judgment that relicensing Vermont Yankee is not in the best interests of Vermont ratepayers. Now is the time to refocus our efforts on developing sustainable local sources of energy for our children, while at the same time bringing much-needed new economy jobs to our state.

This Op-Ed appeared in the Burlington Free Press

MONTPELIER — The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant’s future as a provider of a third of the state’s electricity could be in jeopardy if the plant’s owner spins it off to a newly created company, the head of the state Senate said Wednesday.

The comments from Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, a Democrat who represents Vermont Yankee’s home county of Windham, came as lawmakers prepare to debate early next year whether the aging reactor should get a 20-year extension on a license currently set to expire in 2012.

Plant owner Entergy Nuclear’s plan to spin off Vermont Yankee and five other reactors into a newly created company could make it a “tough sell” to get the Legislature — the only one in the country that has given itself the power to vote up or down on a nuclear license extension — to approve the continuance.

“I just got to tell you that it’s my judgment, based upon what I’ve heard about this proposed spinoff, that should it go ahead, it makes the possibility of this legislative chamber voting to continue to operate more difficult,” Shumlin said.

Shumlin criticized the Department of Public Service for reversing itself and deciding to support Entergy’s plan to create a new company that would own Vermont Yankee, three reactors in New York and one each in Massachusetts and Michigan.

Shumlin said Entergy currently owns the reactors debt free — Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim in Massachusetts, two at the Indian Point plant in New York’s Hudson River Valley, the Fitzpatrick plant in Oswego, N.Y., and the Palisades plant in Michigan.

By contrast, he said, the arrangement under a newly created company, called Enexus, would leave that firm owing $3.5 billion in junk bond debt and up to an additional $1.2 billion in short-term operating debt.

Entergy spokesman Robert Williams did not dispute the numbers Shumlin offered. But he said the spinoff deal had been strengthened since the Department of Public Service expressed skepticism about it in July.

“Under Enexus, we’ll be able to remain as part of a fleet of nuclear plants,” Williams said. “And there’s clear value in doing that. What’s more, the plant will have more financial support readily available during our operations than we have presently and also more financial support available during decommissioning.”

Stephen Wark, the department’s deputy commissioner, said the agency decided to support the spinoff after Entergy agreed to provide a $100 million revolving loan fund dedicated to Vermont Yankee for any needed repairs.

The Public Service Board makes the final decision on the deal. It is expected to rule in November. The spinoff proposal also is pending before New York regulators, where a decision is expected this winter.

Shumlin said the Enexus deal would mean Vermont would be trading a financially sound business partner — New Orleans-based Entergy — for a much shakier one. He called for legislative hearings on the deal, but acknowledged that the Legislature has little direct say over whether the transaction should go ahead.

Several other questions are swirling around Vermont Yankee as lawmakers prepare to debate its future.

One concerns the plant’s decommissioning fund and whether it will be adequate to remove Vermont Yankee’s radioactive shell and waste when the plant stops operating. The fund currently has less than half the estimated cost of nearly $1 billion to do the job.

Gov. Jim Douglas twice has vetoed legislation that would have required Entergy to shore up the decommissioning fund.

Also pending is the question of cost of electricity from Vermont Yankee post-2012, if the license extension is approved. Shumlin reiterated that lawmakers need an answer to that question before they vote on the request.

Wark said the Public Service Board could better provide those details. He said he was glad Shumlin was calling for hearings before the 2010 legislative session gets under way.

“It should leave them plenty of time to take up this question (on the plant’s relicensing),” Wark said. “The clock is ticking and Vermonters deserve an answer.”

Wednesday, 10/21/09
Bob Kinzel

Montpelier, Vt.

Senate President Peter Shumlin says the owner of Vermont Yankee, the Entergy Corporation, is taking actions that make it less likely the Legislature will vote to extend the plant’s license beyond 2012.

At issue is a proposal to reorganize the ownership of Vermont Yankee and 5 other plants.

VPR’s Bob Kinzel reports.

(Kinzel) It appears that a complicated debate in the upcoming Legislative session over the future of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant just got even more complicated.

That’s because Senate President Peter Shumlin doesn’t like Entergy’s proposal to spin off 6 of its older nuclear power plants to a new corporation that will be financed initially with more than $4.5 billion dollars of debt.

The Public Service Department originally opposed the re-organization but recently it changed its position and now it supports the plan.

Shumlin says the proposal could ultimately leave Vermont taxpayers with an enormous financial burden if there are future problems at Vermont Yankee, because the new corporation doesn’t have sufficient assets:

(Shumlin) “It makes a positive vote much more difficult if we are partnering with a junk bond rated business in Mississippi that owes 4.5 billion dollars to someone and has no assets versus a partnership with Entergy Louisiana that has lots of assets, lots of profit and is not going bankrupt.”

(Kinzel) Shumlin also says he’ll oppose the re-licensing of Vermont Yankee if Entergy doesn’t put enough money in the plant’s decommissioning fund.

(Shumlin) “Let’s be really clear whatever deal that they propose together has to include enough money to meet the promise that was made to Vermonters on decommissioning as soon as the plant cools off and is ready to be taken away whenever that day is.”

(Kinzel) Steve Wark is the deputy commissioner at the Public Service Department. He says there are several reasons why his department now supports the reorganization plan:

(Wark) “One of the most significant factors was that they had reduced their debt and so we were pleased with that but the 100 million dollar revolving loan fund dedicated specifically for Vermont Yankee reliability issues a replenishing fund that allows the ongoing development and maintenance of the facility so we think this puts Vermont in a much better position than we currently are and we’re comfortable with those aspects of the deal.”

(Kinzel) The Vermont Yankee reorganization plan is being reviewed by the state Public Service Board.

For VPR News I’m Bob Kinzel in Montpelier.

Source: VPR