Yankee seeks to uprate the plant's output

Vermont Business Magazine, Aug 01, 2003 by Kelley, Kevin

Is Vermont Yankee like a rickety old car that might be given a powerful new engine? Or does the state's only nuclear power plant more closely resemble a perfectly serviceable 30-year-old house whose owner seeks to renovate?

It is partly through such dueling metaphors that supporters and opponents make their respective cases regarding a proposed boost in Vermont Yankee's power output.

The old car/powerful engine analogy is put forward by State Senator Mark MacDonald. The Orange County Democrat opposes the move to increase the plant's generating capacity nearly 20 percent - from 540 to 650 megawatts. MacDonald suggests that Vermont Yankee, which went online in 1972, is too decrepit to handle the strains that the added power production would impose on its systems.

The sturdy house comparison comes from Yankee spokesman Brian Cosgrove. He argues that the plant may occasionally need repairs but remains fundamentally sound. It can safely accommodate the proposed "uprate," Cosgrove says, using the nuclear industry's term for an increase in the megawatts produced by an existing plant.

The two sides in the debate have difficulty agreeing even on terminology. MacDonald won't speak of an "uprate" on the grounds that the word masks what's actually involved. He prefers to call it "super-sizing."

The Vermont Public Service Board must sort through the conflicting claims as it decides whether to approve an initiative that will cost an estimated $60 million. The board is expected to issue a ruling sometime this fall. But even if Entergy Nuclear Corp, the plant's owner, does receive clearance from Vermont regulators, the proposal must still undergo a yearlong technical and safety review by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Entergy is seeking the power boost at Yankee because "demand for electricity is always growing," Cosgrove says. The company would have no trouble finding markets for the plant's added output, and it stands to make more money as a result.

Cosgrove notes that the increase would occur at an in-state power source - which should be seen as a good thing for Vermont." A 110-megawatt increase represents the equivalent of the electrical power used by 110,000 homes, he points out.

Vermonters' electricity costs could drop as well, Cosgrove says, since the 110 extra megawatts would be added to the region's power supply, thus easing demand pressures.

Such a claim is "self-serving nonsense," in MacDonald's view. He describes Mississippi-based Entergy as "an out-of-state company that's seeking to sell power out of state."

Ray Shadis, a staff adviser for the Brattleboro-based New England Coalition, says that a key question before the Public Service Board is "whether the additional power can be transmitted where it's needed, or is it simply going to go to New York? The chances are good that it will go to New York, which means that the uprate won't be at all beneficial to Vermont."

Cosgrove says the destination of added power from Yankee can't be predicted. But Vermont utilities will have the option of using it if they wish, he says.

A 110-megawatt increase would represent only about a 0.5 percent addition to the regional power supply. Opponents of the Yankee plan scoff at the size of that supplement, but former Vermont Public Service Commissioner Richard Sedano doesn't dismiss it as insignificant.

"The region can use incremental additions of this kind," says Sedano, who describes himself as open-minded on the issue of nuclear power generally and the Vermont Yankee proposal specifically.

The power boost could actually have the effect of raising, not lowering, electricity prices in Vermont, says current Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien. He notes that uprates have caused operational problems at some plants, resulting in temporary shutdowns that force utilities to buy power from more expensive sources.

Power boosts have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 92 of the 103 atomic energy units now operating in the United States. But only eight have involved increases of more than 10 percent in generating capacity. Vermont Yankee's proposed uprate of almost 20 percent is one of the largest applications to come before the NRC.

The fundamental concern for Vermonters, according to antinuclear activist Shadis, is that the rise in output "will make that plant a great deal more dangerous than it already is." Along with added power comes the potential for an accidental or terrorismrelated release of greater amounts of radiation, Shadis says.

NRC experts and the plant's own staff will ensure that Vermont Yankee remains safe, Cosgrove responds. He says that nuclear energy represents "a nongreenhouse gas-producing source of electricity" that has proven reliable, safe and cost-effective for Vermont. Price caps put in place following Entergy's purchase of the plant last year have so far saved Vermonters $10 million in comparison to what power purchases on the spot market would have cost, Cosgrove says.

He adds that the 20 percent power boost would result in only a small increase in the amount of radiation released from the plant under normal conditions. The NRC allows a maximum yearly release of 25 millirems of radiation as measured at a plant's boundary, while Vermont imposes a 20-millirem state standard. Vermont Yankee currently operates at a roughly 15-millirem level, according to Cosgrove. The uprate would raise the annual radiation dosage by a few millirems, but not put it in excess of the state maximum, the Yankee spokesman says.