December 2, 2012

Board slaps down Vermont Yankee

Regulators say that by breaking its promises to the state, the plant risks permit rejection.

The Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt. - In a sternly worded ruling, Vermont regulators told the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant they will not overlook the fact that the plant is still operating and generating nuclear waste despite failing to fulfill promises to shut down if it didn't secure new state permits by last spring.

The Public Service Board, in a decision last week, essentially rejected a request from plant owner Entergy Corp. to be excused from promises it made to shut down by March 21 if it hadn't secured new permits from the state to operate and produce highly radioactive spent fuel. Entergy wanted the board to modify its orders from 2002 and 2006 that were based on the company promises.

The board warned Vermont Yankee that failure to fulfill the promises would be "relevant considerations" when the board finally decides on whether to permit the plant to operate to 2032.

The state has been trying to shut Vermont Yankee down, and is in a legal battle with Entergy that is pending before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Last year, Vermont Yankee got permission from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate past its scheduled March 21 license expiration date, for 20 years.

Meanwhile, Entergy is trying to get the Public Service Board to grant Vermont Yankee a new state certificate of public good. The New Orleans-based corporation noted Friday that the board denied the company's request to amend its orders. "We had asked for amendments so that our operation would conform to these (state) orders," Entergy said in a statement.

Entergy essentially argued in pleadings to the board that meddling by the Vermont Legislature and slow action by the board prevented the company from having a new state certificate by March 21.

But the board said much of the delay in resolving Vermont Yankee's future was Entergy's fault. The board said Entergy waited five years before challenging state laws and that the company also made misleading statements in 2009.


Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)