View source for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant

{{short description|Closed nuclear power plant in Vermont, US}}
{{Redirect|Vermont Yankee|the U.S. Supreme Court decision|Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2016}}
{{Infobox power station
| name = Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant
| status = No longer operating as of December 29, 2014
| image = Vermont Yankee Unit 1.jpg
| image_caption = 
| operator = [[Entergy]]
| location = [[Vernon, VT]]
| coordinates = {{coord|42|46|44|N|72|30|47|W|type:landmark_region:US-VT|display=inline,title}}
| np_reactor_supplier = [[General Electric]]
| np_reactor_type = [[Boiling water reactor|BWR-4]]/[[Containment building#Boiling water reactors|Mark I containment]]
| ps_cooling_source = [[Connecticut River]]
| ps_electrical_capacity = 620 [[Megawatt|MW]]
| ps_annual_generation = 5,060 [[GWh]] (2014)
| commissioned = November 30, 1972
| website = [http://www.safecleanreliable.com/ www.safecleanreliable.com]
}}
'''Vermont Yankee''' was an electricity generating [[nuclear power plant]], located in the town of [[Vernon, Vermont]], in the northeastern United States. It generated 620&nbsp;[[megawatts]] (MWe) of electricity at full power. The plant was a [[boiling water reactor]] (BWR), designed by [[General Electric]]. It operated from 1972 until December 29, 2014, when its owner [[Entergy]] shut down the plant. In 2008, the plant provided 71.8% of all electricity generated within Vermont, amounting to 35% of Vermont's electricity consumption. The plant is on the [[Connecticut River]], upstream of the Vernon, Vermont Hydroelectric Dam and used the reservoir pool for its cooling water.

In March 2012, the plant's initial 40-year operating license was scheduled to expire; in March 2011, the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission|Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)]] extended its license for another 20 years. Vermont Yankee's continued operations were complicated by the [[Vermont]] state legislature's enactment of a law providing the state legislature authority to determine the continued operation of the plant, in addition to the federal government. Entergy requested a new state certificate of public good (CPG),<ref>
{{cite web |url=http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012120411061 |title=Entergy: No need to plan for VY closing |publisher=Burlingtonfreepress.com |date=December 4, 2012 }}{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
</ref> but the Vermont legislature voted in February 2010 against renewed permission to operate. In January 2012, Entergy won a court case, invalidating the state's veto power on continued operations. In August 2013, Entergy announced that due to economic factors Vermont Yankee would cease operations in the fourth quarter of 2014. The plant was shut down at 12:12 pm EST on December 29, 2014.

Since the 1970s, there have been many [[anti-nuclear]] protests about Vermont Yankee, including large protests after the [[Fukushima nuclear disaster]] in March 2011, and on the date of the original operating license expiry in March 2012. The plant's initial operating license from the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] was the subject of a lawsuit that produced the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 1978 decision ''[[Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.]]'', in which the Supreme Court set forth a significant doctrine in American [[administrative law]].

== Design and function ==
[[File:Vermont Electricity Generation Sources Pie Chart.svg|thumb|Electricity generation sources for Vermont]]
Vermont Yankee was a BWR-4 [[Boiling water reactor]] that used a [[Containment building#Boiling water reactors|Mark I containment structure]].  It provided 71.8% of all electricity generated in Vermont in 2008<ref name="eia.doe.gov">[http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/state_profiles/vermont/vt.html Vermont Nuclear Profile] ''Energy Information Administration'', September 2010.</ref>
and met 35% of the overall electricity requirements of the state.<ref>{{cite web 
 |title=US Nuclear Plants; Vermont Yankee 
 |publisher=Energy Information Administration 
 |date=March 18, 2005 
 |url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/vermontyankee.html 
 |access-date=March 15, 2007 
 |url-status=dead 
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010208080135/http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/vermontyankee.html 
 |archive-date=February 8, 2001 
 |df=mdy-all 
 }}</ref>

It was originally designed and constructed for 500 MW electrical output.  In 2006, it was upgraded to 620 MW electrical output. The reactor produces 1912 MW of heat which is converted to electricity at 32% efficiency.<ref name=watts>Richard Watts, Paul Hines, Jonathan Dowds, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VSS-500Y5GT-2/2/8086ecc8cd9128f09cb35dbc339981bb "The Debate over Re-Licensing the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant"], ''The Electricity Journal'', Volume 23, Issue 4, May 2010, Pages 59–67, {{ISSN|1040-6190}}, {{doi|10.1016/j.tej.2010.04.005}}.</ref> In comparison, the average residential power demand for all of Vermont in 2012 was 239&nbsp;MW.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=October 6, 2014|title=2012 Average Monthly Bill- Residential|author=U.S. Energy Information Administration|url=http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/xls/table5_a.xls}}  From EIA: 309019 customers * 565 kWh / month*customer.  To find average: * 12 months/1 year * 1 year/366 days (2012 was leap year) * 1 day / 24 hours =~ 238518 kW</ref> The nearby [[Northfield Mountain (hydroelectricity facility)|Northfield Mountain hydroelectricity facility]] was built to balance the supply from Yankee.<ref name=wbur>{{Cite web |url=http://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2016/12/02/northfield-mountain-hydroelectric-station |title=New England's Largest Battery Is Hidden Inside A Mass. Mountain |last=Gellerman |first=Bruce  |date=December 2, 2016 |publisher=[[WBUR-FM]] |website=www.wbur.org |language=en |access-date=2017-12-13 |quote=When this facility was built, it was actually the largest pumped storage facility in the world. Vermont Yankee being a nuclear power plant generates power 24/7, or what they call base load," Bakas says. "So as a result of that at night they had all this excess power on the grid. So somebody needed to take it. So this plant was conceived and built to take that off-peak power and utilize it through pumping water during off-peak periods.}}</ref>

The reactor core held up to 368 fuel assemblies and 89 control rods.<ref name=license>[http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0527/ML052720265.pdf Facility Operating License &ndash; Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-271], License No. DPR-28 Amendment No. 5, 208, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 31, 2002</ref>  The spent fuel pool is licensed to contain up to 3353 spent fuel assemblies.<ref name=license/>

== Ownership and operational license==
In 1978, the Vermont Yankee reactor was the subject of ''[[Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.]]'', an important [[United States Supreme Court]] [[administrative law]] case which ruled that courts cannot impose procedures upon the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission|NRC]] as this exceeds their power of [[judicial review]].

On July 31, 2002, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (EVY) purchased the plant from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (VYNPC) for $180&nbsp;million. Entergy received the reactor complex, nuclear fuel, inventories, and related real estate, as well as the liability to decommission the plant and related decommissioning trust funds of approximately $310&nbsp;million. The acquisition included a 10-year [[power purchase agreement]] (PPA) under which three of the former owners committed to purchase a portion of the electricity produced by the reactor at a cost of approximately 4.5&nbsp;cents per kilowatt hour.<ref name=vbm>{{cite news| title = Vermont Yankee finally sold to Entergy| work = Vermont Business Magazine| date = September 1, 2002| url = http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3675/is_200209/ai_n9100993| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050409130219/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3675/is_200209/ai_n9100993| url-status = dead| archive-date = April 9, 2005| access-date = March 26, 2009| first=Robert| last=Smith}}</ref>

On May 6, 2006, Vermont Yankee achieved its power of 1,912&nbsp;MWth (120% of its original licensed thermal power of 1,593&nbsp;MW-thermal) because of an NRC approved Extended Power Uprate. The power increase was carried out in steps to allow collection of data on the reactor's steam dryer at various power levels, in accordance with the NRC imposed power ascension test plan.{{citation needed|date=December 2014}}

As of 2008, Vermont Yankee employed about 600 people including those in the corporate office on Old Ferry Road in [[Brattleboro, Vermont]].<ref name="bfp080701">{{cite news | author = Cosgrove, Brian, a spokesman for Entergy |title = Entergy is vital to future of state | work = [[The Burlington Free Press]] | date = July 1, 2008}}</ref>

== Cooling water ==
Vermont Yankee used the [[Connecticut River]] as its source of cooling water for its two major water systems: the circulating water system and the service water system. The circulating water system removed heat from the power generation process of the plant by cooling the plant's main condenser.  The service water system cooled both safety and non-safety related auxiliary components in the nuclear facility and the turbine facility of the plant, and absorbed decay heat from the reactor's cooling systems in emergencies or in times when the reactor was shut down.{{citation needed|date=December 2014}}

== Electricity production ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Generation ('''[[Kilowatt-hour|MWh]]''') of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant'''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Electricity Data Browser |url=https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/3751/?freq=M&pin= |access-date=2023-01-08 |website=www.eia.gov}}</ref>
!Year
!Jan
!Feb
!Mar
!Apr
!May
!Jun
!Jul
!Aug
!Sep
!Oct
!Nov
!Dec
!Annual (Total)
|-
!2001
|<small>391,996</small>
|<small>355,360</small>
|<small>357,555</small>
|<small>328,187</small>
|<small>129,478</small>
|<small>372,189</small>
|<small>379,097</small>
|<small>371,824</small>
|<small>365,191</small>
|<small>384,957</small>
|<small>378,276</small>
|<small>357,010</small>
!4,171,120
|-
!2002
|<small>392,352</small>
|<small>343,305</small>
|<small>349,713</small>
|<small>338,459</small>
|<small>209,953</small>
|<small>372,559</small>
|<small>372,809</small>
|<small>365,720</small>
|<small>349,961</small>
|<small>93,192</small>
|<small>380,204</small>
|<small>394,389</small>
!3,962,616
|-
!2003
|<small>394,170</small>
|<small>343,479</small>
|<small>393,094</small>
|<small>380,067</small>
|<small>387,278</small>
|<small>368,768</small>
|<small>370,028</small>
|<small>377,983</small>
|<small>308,413</small>
|<small>353,639</small>
|<small>378,082</small>
|<small>389,151</small>
!4,444,152
|-
!2004
|<small>392,688</small>
|<small>366,832</small>
|<small>391,126</small>
|<small>36,007</small>
|<small>319,916</small>
|<small>209,343</small>
|<small>287,777</small>
|<small>367,658</small>
|<small>360,891</small>
|<small>376,536</small>
|<small>368,682</small>
|<small>380,564</small>
!3,858,020
|-
!2005
|<small>365,760</small>
|<small>344,961</small>
|<small>380,316</small>
|<small>327,910</small>
|<small>378,106</small>
|<small>358,865</small>
|<small>326,287</small>
|<small>360,452</small>
|<small>352,417</small>
|<small>265,384</small>
|<small>227,835</small>
|<small>383,254</small>
!4,071,547
|-
!2006
|<small>383,337</small>
|<small>343,081</small>
|<small>400,542</small>
|<small>420,472</small>
|<small>440,374</small>
|<small>445,119</small>
|<small>455,681</small>
|<small>441,760</small>
|<small>432,747</small>
|<small>462,863</small>
|<small>415,434</small>
|<small>465,113</small>
!5,106,523
|-
!2007
|<small>463,654</small>
|<small>414,710</small>
|<small>458,386</small>
|<small>412,847</small>
|<small>171,302</small>
|<small>337,130</small>
|<small>449,454</small>
|<small>346,130</small>
|<small>302,751</small>
|<small>432,845</small>
|<small>450,832</small>
|<small>463,687</small>
!4,703,728
|-
!2008
|<small>466,966</small>
|<small>435,128</small>
|<small>457,370</small>
|<small>421,705</small>
|<small>454,881</small>
|<small>426,840</small>
|<small>353,682</small>
|<small>450,462</small>
|<small>416,093</small>
|<small>254,854</small>
|<small>296,627</small>
|<small>460,445</small>
!4,895,053
|-
!2009
|<small>449,448</small>
|<small>419,364</small>
|<small>466,954</small>
|<small>452,122</small>
|<small>456,763</small>
|<small>414,275</small>
|<small>453,608</small>
|<small>444,490</small>
|<small>439,241</small>
|<small>463,967</small>
|<small>433,515</small>
|<small>466,861</small>
!5,360,608
|-
!2010
|<small>456,042</small>
|<small>420,181</small>
|<small>462,455</small>
|<small>340,785</small>
|<small>34,419</small>
|<small>435,183</small>
|<small>444,665</small>
|<small>444,971</small>
|<small>429,442</small>
|<small>464,870</small>
|<small>382,329</small>
|<small>467,131</small>
!4,782,473
|-
!2011
|<small>466,848</small>
|<small>417,284</small>
|<small>465,773</small>
|<small>449,890</small>
|<small>450,521</small>
|<small>441,959</small>
|<small>438,847</small>
|<small>438,452</small>
|<small>381,453</small>
|<small>94,610</small>
|<small>396,824</small>
|<small>464,894</small>
!4,907,355
|-
!2012
|<small>443,053</small>
|<small>411,053</small>
|<small>395,624</small>
|<small>378,059</small>
|<small>436,234</small>
|<small>325,610</small>
|<small>424,496</small>
|<small>427,807</small>
|<small>424,508</small>
|<small>438,158</small>
|<small>427,969</small>
|<small>456,767</small>
!4,989,338
|-
!2013
|<small>448,263</small>
|<small>386,804</small>
|<small>110,854</small>
|<small>355,626</small>
|<small>457,416</small>
|<small>438,579</small>
|<small>445,367</small>
|<small>441,562</small>
|<small>394,036</small>
|<small>455,128</small>
|<small>448,496</small>
|<small>464,196</small>
!4,846,327
|-
!2014
|<small>455,960</small>
|<small>402,047</small>
|<small>462,717</small>
|<small>436,190</small>
|<small>460,551</small>
|<small>425,399</small>
|<small>445,611</small>
|<small>445,824</small>
|<small>420,652</small>
|<small>412,030</small>
|<small>372,080</small>
|<small>321,521</small>
!5,060,582
|-
!2015
| --
| --
| --
| --
| --
| --
| --
| --
| --
| --
| --
| --
!0
|}

== Closure/extension planning ==
Entergy Vermont Yankee applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license extension of 20 years on January 27, 2006.<ref>{{cite web
  | title = Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station – License Renewal Application
  | publisher = Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  | date = February 27, 2007
  | url = https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/vermont-yankee.html
  | access-date = March 15, 2007 }}</ref> In early 2010, the Vermont State Senate voted 26–4 to block the [[Vermont Public Service Board]] (PSB) from considering continued operation of Vermont Yankee.<ref>{{cite web
| title = Senate votes to close Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in 2012
| work = Burlington Free Press
| date = February 24, 2010
| url = http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100224/NEWS02/100224050/Senate-votes-to-close-Vermont-Yankee-nuclear-plant-in-2012
| access-date = June 2, 2011
| url-status = dead
| archive-url = https://archive.today/20130119022457/http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100224/NEWS02/100224050/Senate-votes-to-close-Vermont-Yankee-nuclear-plant-in-2012
| archive-date = January 19, 2013
| df = mdy-all
}}</ref>

On March 10, 2011, the NRC voted to conclude proceedings regarding renewal of the operating license for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station near Brattleboro, Vermont, for an additional 20 years.<ref>{{cite web
 | url= http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1106/ML110691224.pdf
 | title= NRC Will Renew Vermont Yankee Operating License for an Additional 20 Years
 |date= March 10, 2011 |publisher= NRC
 | access-date= March 21, 2011 }}</ref> On March 21, 2011, the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] issued their renewal of the operating license for the Vermont Yankee plant for an additional 20&nbsp;years.;<ref name="NRC_renewal">[http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0921/ML092110054.pdf NRC license renewal letter] March 22, 2011</ref> the renewed license will expire March 21, 2032.

On April 14, 2011, Entergy, the owner of Vermont Yankee, sued the state of Vermont to stay open despite the Senate's blocking vote.<ref>{{cite news| title=Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant Owner Entergy Sues State To Stay Open |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/vermont-yankee-nuclear-sues-state_n_850437.html |access-date=May 16, 2011 |work=Huffington Post |date=April 18, 2011}}</ref><ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/19/as_radiation_continues_to_leak_from  Democracy Now news] April 19, 2011</ref>

On August 14, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled, upholding a lower court's decision that allowed the Vermont Yankee plant to keep running despite a seven-year effort by the Vermont Legislature to close it, finding that states are "pre-empted" from regulating safety by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which made safety a federal responsibility.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/business/energy-environment/appeals-court-blocks-attempt-by-vermont-to-close-a-nuclear-plant.html | work=The New York Times | first=Matthew L. | last=Wald | title=Appeals Court Blocks Attempt by Vermont to Close a Nuclear Plant | date=August 14, 2013}}</ref>

On August 28, 2013, Entergy announced that due to economic factors, notably the lower cost of electricity provided by competing natural [[gas-fired power plant]]s, it would cease operations and schedule the plant's decommissioning in the fourth quarter of 2014.<ref>
{{cite press release|url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/entergy-to-close-decommission-vermont-yankee-221304391.html |title=Entergy to Close, Decommission Vermont Yankee |publisher=PR Newswire }}</ref> Vermont Yankee was shut down at 12:12 pm EST on December 29, 2014.<ref name=closure>StarTribune.com, Wilson Ring [http://www.startribune.com/business/287030041.html Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant ends operations after 42 years of producing electricity] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141229231838/http://www.startribune.com/business/287030041.html |date=December 29, 2014 }}, December 29, 2014</ref> All fuel in the reactor was transferred to the spent fuel pool by January 12, 2015. By August 2018, all  VY's remaining spent nuclear fuel was relocated from the spent fuel pool into  dry fuel storage casks.<ref>Power Magazine, Aaron Larson [http://www.powermag.com/vermont-yankee-nuclear-power-plant-shuts-down-for-the-last-time/ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Shuts Down for the Last Time], December 29, 2014</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = Vermont Yankee Moves Last Of Its Spent Nuclear Fuel Into On-Site Storage Casks| access-date = April 4, 2024| url = https://www.vermontpublic.org/vpr-news/2018-08-03/vermont-yankee-moves-last-of-its-spent-nuclear-fuel-into-on-site-storage-casks | website = Vermont Public | date=August 3, 2018 | last = Dillon | first = John}}  </ref>

In December 2014, Entergy submitted the Post Shutdown Decommissioning Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  This report estimated that the total cost for decommissioning the reactor would be $1.24 billion.  The same document reported that only $665 million had been collected in the 42 years of operations of this plant for this purpose.  Entergy hopes to raise some of the shortfall funds through "external financing".<ref>Brattleboro Reformer Newspaper, Robert Audette [http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_27171602/vermont-yankee-decommissioning-plan-submitted-nrc/] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150607092109/http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_27171602/vermont-yankee-decommissioning-plan-submitted-nrc |date=June 7, 2015 }}, December 19, 2014</ref>

On September 28, 2016, Entergy began auctioning off more than 1,000 lots of goods in Brattleboro, Vt.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/09/27/20m-worth-items-vermont-yankee-up-auction/91155868/|title=$20M worth of items from Vermont Yankee up for auction|access-date=2016-09-28}}</ref>

Two cooling towers were demolished in July 2019.<ref>[https://vtdigger.org/2019/07/11/vermont-yankee-cooling-towers-coming-down-marking-the-end-of-an-era/ VTDigger: "Cooling towers coming down, marking the ‘end of an era’" 11 July 2019]</ref>

==Controversy and operations==

===2007===
Cooling for the plant's steam condenser was provided by circulating water through it, drawn from the adjacent Connecticut river. This water did not come in contact with the nuclear reactor and was not radioactive.  The cooling towers were used to cool water returning from the condenser before it was discharged back into the river at times when it was too warm to comply with the environmental discharge permit. In 2007 the fourth cell of the west cooling tower collapsed, spilling some of the non-radioactive, cooling water.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/congress-docs/correspondence/2007/kennedy-10-31-2007.pdf |title=Letter to Senator Kennedy |author=Dale E. Klein |publisher=Nuclear Regulatory Commission |date=October 31, 2007 |access-date=March 10, 2012}}</ref> The collapse was an "industrial safety event," which did not threaten the integrity of the reactor or release any radiation into the environment. The NRC stated that the remaining cooling tower had enough capacity to allow the plant to operate at full output, however, until September 16, 2007, the reactor was kept at 50%&nbsp;power.

The cause of the collapse was found to be corrosion in steel bolts and rotting of lumber. Entergy asserted that future inspections would be much more stringent in order to prevent further problems.

===2008===
The cooling tower collapse caused Vermont's then governor, [[Jim Douglas]], to question the reliability of the power station:<ref name=gov>[http://governor.vermont.gov/tools/index.php?topic=GovPressReleases&id=2861&v=Article Governor Urges NRC to Approve Independent Safety Assessment] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101110193705/http://governor.vermont.gov/tools/index.php?topic=GovPressReleases&id=2861&v=Article |date=November 10, 2010 }}</ref>  In March 2008, a State Senate committee recommended that the Legislature appoint a panel to oversee an independent review of the plant's reliability. The panel gave Vermont Yankee a generally positive review. "What this report suggests to me is there is not a cause or reason to seek the closure of the plant because of operational or safety concerns," said Public Service Commissioner, David O'Brien.<ref>{{cite news | url= http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10025481&nav=4QcS | title= Oversight Panel Gives Yankee Go-Ahead | date= March 17, 2009 | first= Bianca | last= Slota | publisher= WCAX News | access-date= March 18, 2009 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111124050839/http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10025481&nav=4QcS | archive-date= November 24, 2011 | url-status= dead | df= mdy-all }}</ref>

The [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] performed a tri-annual inspection July–August 2008. It found three "minor faults." An Associated Press report said that it had won "high marks."<ref>{{cite news | author = Gram, Dave |title = Vt. Yankee passes review | work = The Burlington Free Press | date = September 27, 2008}}</ref>

===2009===
In May 2009, the vice-president of operations at Vermont Yankee told the PSB during the reliability review that he did not believe there was any radioactively contaminated underground piping at the plant, but that he would check and respond to the panel.<ref name="argus-timeline" />
In October 2009, [[Arnold Gundersen]], a member of a special oversight panel convened by the [[Vermont General Assembly]], confirmed that radioactive contamination had been detected in underground pipes. An Entergy spokesperson told [[Vermont Public Radio]] (VPR) that the earlier testimony was a "miscommunication."<ref name="argus-timeline">{{cite web | url= http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100202/NEWS01/2020361/1002/NEWS01 | title= Backtracking and in trouble: A detailed timeline on who said what on Vt. Yankee | first= Daniel | last= Barlow | date= February 2, 2010 | work= Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus | access-date= April 7, 2010 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150425044216/http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100202/NEWS01/2020361/1002/NEWS01 | archive-date= April 25, 2015 | url-status= dead | df= mdy-all }}</ref> On June 4, 2010, VPR reported that, because they had provided misleading information, Entergy Nuclear would be liable for legal expenses incurred by certain parties.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/88208/|title=Groups That Challenged Vermont Yankee To Be Reimbursed|publisher=[[Vermont Public Radio]]|date=June 7, 2010|access-date=March 16, 2011}}</ref>

===2010===
In January 2010, the Vermont Department of Health reported that [[tritium]], a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, had been discovered in a sample of ground water taken from a monitoring well the previous November.<ref name=VTDOH2>{{cite web|url=http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/tritium.aspx |title=Investigation into Tritium Contamination at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station |date=July 18, 2016 |publisher=Healthvermont.gov }}</ref>  The level of the isotope was initially below the acceptable limit for drinking water set by the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]].<ref>{{cite news | first=Dave | last=Gram | title=Vt. Yankee Well Tests Shows Radioactive Isotope | url=https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9507774 | agency=Associated Press | location=Montpelier, Vermont | date=January 7, 2010 | access-date=January 11, 2010}}</ref> By mid-January, however, the level had risen to 20,000 [[Curie (unit)|picocurie]]s per liter (pCi/L), the federal limit for drinking water. The head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Vermont's congressional delegation that the agency would devote more resources to addressing concerns about Vermont Yankee, and that he expected the source of the tritium leak would be located within the next several weeks.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100127/NEWS02/100126024/-1/TOPICS0202/Delegation-ask-NRC-for-assurances-on-Vermont-Yankee |title=Delegation ask NRC for assurances on Vermont Yankee |work=The Burlington Free Press |date=January 27, 2010 |access-date=January 27, 2010}} {{Dead link|date=September 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref>

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000&nbsp;pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37&nbsp;times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7&nbsp;million&nbsp;pCi/L.<ref>[http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100206/NEWS02/2060308/Vermont-Yankee-zeroes-in-on-possible-source-of-leak "Vermont Yankee zeroes in on possible source of leak"]. ''Burlington Free Press'', February 6, 2010 {{dead link|date=September 2012}}</ref> On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.  The pipes were repaired, stopping the leak.<ref name=VTDOH2/>

Samples taken from the river and other drinking water sources by the Vermont Department of Health showed no detectable levels of tritium.<ref name=VTDOH1>[http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/laboratory_testing.aspx laboratory_testing]. Healthvermont.gov. Retrieved on April 12, 2014.</ref> The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services made a similar statement after several tests of the river.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/lab/documents/spring2010.pdf |title=Final 6-4-10.pub }}</ref>

During the search for the source of the tritium leak, other radionuclides were found in the soil at the site. Levels of [[cesium-137]] were found to be three to ten times higher than background levels. Silt in a pipe tunnel contained 2,600 picocuries/kg, but contamination outside the pipe tunnel was limited to a small volume, about {{convert|150|ft3}} of soil. According to the Vermont State Department of Health, there was no health risk from the cesium, as the quantities were small and it had not migrated.<ref name=VTDOH1/>

Since cesium-137 is a fission product, it is an indicator of a nuclear fuel leak, but the consensus was that the cesium-137 probably leaked from defective fuel assemblies during or prior to 2001, when the last leak of that type was reported by Vermont Yankee. (Problems with fuel rods were common in the 1970s and 1980s.)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100403/NEWS02/4030365/1003/NEWS02 |title="Plant tests pointing to failed fuel rods," Rutland Herald, April 5, 2010 |publisher=Rutlandherald.com |access-date=April 4, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100408145139/http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100403/NEWS02/4030365/1003/NEWS02 |archive-date=April 8, 2010 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

On May 20, 2010, the NRC released a report on Vermont Yankee:

{{blockquote|Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC determined that Entergy-Vermont Yankee (ENVY) appropriately evaluated the contaminated ground water with respect to off-site effluent release limits and the resulting radiological impact to public health and safety; and that ENVY complied with all applicable regulatory requirements and standards pertaining to radiological effluent monitoring, dose assessment, and radiological evaluation. No violations of NRC requirements or findings of significance were identified.<ref>{{cite news | title=Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station - Ground Water Monitoring Inspection Report 05000271/2010006 | url=http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&ID=101410085 | access-date=May 28, 2010 }}{{Dead link|date=September 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>}}

In early November 2010, a water leak<ref>{{cite news
| url = http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_16552067
| title = VY closed to fix leak
| author = Josh Stilts
| publisher = [[Brattleboro Reformer]]
| date = October 8, 2010
| access-date = October 8, 2010
| archive-date = November 10, 2010
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101110205106/http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_16552067
| url-status = dead
}}</ref> caused by a faulty weld caused a "conservative" four-day shutdown while the pipe involved was repaired. A company spokesman said that "if plant managers had known on Sunday night what they knew on Monday, they might have tried to fix the leak while the plant kept running."<ref name=NYT03>Wald, Matthew L., [http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/vermont-yankee-reactor-restarts/?hp "Vermont Yankee Reactor Restarts"] ''The New York Times'' Green blog, November 11, 2010. Retrieved November 11, 2010.</ref>

In 2010, Vermont Electric Power Company constructed a new substation, designated as the Vernon Substation, on the Vermont Yankee site to serve as the site's new main transmission facility and to connect a new 345 kV transmission line to Central Vermont as part of its Southern Loop project. The aging Entergy-owned Vermont Yankee substation could not handle the additional line or any additional transformers and VELCO desired to have a utility owned and controlled substation for what is probably the state's most important interconnection point. Additionally, the local 115 kV system was relying exclusively on Entergy's single 345 kV to 115 kV transformer. The construction of the Vernon substation included a second 345 kV to 115 kV transformer to supplement the existing Entergy owned transformer. The additional transformer also provided redundancy for Vermont Yankee's source of offsite power. The four transmission lines that formerly connected directly to the Vermont Yankee substation now connect to the Vernon substation, and three tie-lines, one at 115 kV and two at 345 kV, connect the Vermont Yankee substation to the Vernon substation. Each 345 kV tie line is capable of carrying the full power output of the plant.

===2011===
During the week of January 17, 2011, tritium was detected at a level of 9,200 [[Curie (unit)|picocuries]] per liter (below the federally required reporting level) in an area 150–200 feet north of the location where it was detected a year earlier.  According to the State's radiological health chief at the [[Vermont Health Department]], Bill Irwin, and Vermont Yankee spokesman, Larry Smith, the source of the leak was not yet known.  Irwin and Governor [[Peter Shumlin]] expressed concern about the discovery.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/89815/ |title=Radioactive Tritium Found In New Well At Vermont Yankee|publisher=[[Vermont Public Radio]]|date=January 21, 2011|access-date=March 16, 2011}}</ref>

===2012===
On January 19, 2012, Judge J. Garvan Murtha of United States District Court in Brattleboro ruled that the state of Vermont could not force Vermont Yankee to close down, as the legislation that attempted to do so was based on radiological safety arguments that are the exclusive concern of the NRC. The judge also held that the state cannot force the plant's owner, Entergy, to sell electricity from the reactor to in-state utilities at reduced rates as a condition of continued operation.<ref name=NYT04>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/science/earth/vermont-cant-shut-down-nuclear-plant-judge-rules.html |title=Judge Rules Vermont Can't Shut Nuclear Plant |work=New York Times|date=January 19, 2012|access-date=January 24, 2013|first=Matthew L.|last=Wald}}</ref>

===2013===
On June 7, 2013, Vermont's Public Service Board issued Entergy a Certificate of Public Good to install an outdoor diesel generator to replace a tie line from the nearby hydroelectric station as its station blackout power source. The outdoor generator would only operate if the plant's main emergency diesel generators located inside the turbine building were to fail. The outdoor generator is a self-contained unit that does not require cooling water from the plant's cooling water systems. The new generator would power instrumentation in the control room and would be capable of providing emergency AC power to one train of each of the plant's emergency cooling systems.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_23411941/psb-approves-generator-at-vermont-yankee|title=PSB approves generator at Vermont Yankee|publisher=[[Brattleboro Reformer]]|date=June 7, 2013|access-date=July 1, 2013|archive-date=October 19, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019172619/http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_23411941/psb-approves-generator-at-vermont-yankee|url-status=dead}}</ref>  On August 27, 2013, Entergy announced in a press release that it would close Vermont Yankee by the end of 2014.  Among the reasons cited for the closure were ongoing low energy prices resulting from increased shale gas production, and the high operating costs of the plant.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.entergy.com/News_Room/newsrelease.aspx?NR_ID=2769 |title=Entergy to Close, Decommission Vermont Yankee |date=August 27, 2013 |access-date=August 27, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130928065220/http://www.entergy.com/News_Room/newsrelease.aspx?NR_ID=2769 |archive-date=September 28, 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

==Protests and politics==
{{See also|Anti-nuclear protests in the United States}}

In 1971, Esther Poneck led the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution in opposing construction of Vermont Yankee. In the 1970s and 1980s there were many [[anti-nuclear]] protests at Vermont Yankee which attempted to block access to the plant.<ref name="google276">David C. Brody, James R. Acker, Wayne A. Logan (2001). [https://books.google.com/books?id=2ipUSeStAzQC&dq=vermont+yankee+protests&pg=PA276  Criminal law] Jones & Bartlett Publishers, p. 276.</ref> More recent protests include:
*January 2006: 100 anti-nuclear supporters demonstrated at the front door of Entergy Nuclear, and eleven people were arrested for trespassing.<ref name="timesargus1">{{cite web |url=http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060117/NEWS/601170340 |title=Eleven arrested in latest protest over Vermont Yankee |publisher=Timesargus.com |date=January 17, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303230742/http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060117%2FNEWS%2F601170340 |archive-date=March 3, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
*April 2009: About 150 activists marched from Montpelier's City Hall to the State House to urge lawmakers to back development of renewable energy sources such as [[wind power]] and [[solar power]]; the marchers had gathered 12,000 signatures in support of closing Vermont Yankee.<ref>{{cite web |last=Barlow |first=Daniel |url=http://vermonttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/BT/20090430/NEWS/904300299 |title=Activists stage anti-nuclear rally |publisher=Vermonttoday.com |date=April 30, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120223010052/http://vermonttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2FBT%2F20090430%2FNEWS%2F904300299 |archive-date=February 23, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
*January 2010: A coalition of anti-nuclear activists participated in a 126-mile walk from Brattleboro to Montpelier in an effort to block the re-licensing of Vermont Yankee. About 175 people took part in the March, some joining for the day and some for longer stretches.<ref>[http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/BT/20100114/NEWS01/1140347/0/BENNETT Anti-nuclear protesters reach capitol]{{dead link|date=September 2018|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} ''Rutland Herald'', January 14, 2010.</ref>

In February 2010, the [[Vermont Senate]] voted 26 to 4 against allowing the PSB to consider re-certifying the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant after 2012, citing radioactive [[tritium]] leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems.<ref name=NYT01>Wald, Matthew L., [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25nuke.html Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant] ''[[The New York Times]]'', February 24, 2010.</ref> Some businesses in Vermont were concerned there was an absence of a clear plan to replace the electricity generated by the plant. A spokesman for IBM, the largest private employer in the state, and the state's largest consumer of electricity, said "we have to be smarter than this".<ref name="wptz.com">[http://www.wptz.com/news/22638659/detail.html Entergy Makes Last Ditch Effort To Save Vermont Yankee] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719011653/http://www.wptz.com/news/22638659/detail.html |date=July 19, 2011 }} ''WPTZ.com'', February 22, 2010.</ref> Larry Reilly, president of Central Vermont Public Service Corp., Vermont's largest utility, stated in 2011 that he was untroubled by the prospect of closure: "There's plenty of power out there"."<ref name="Herald April 21, 2011">M. D. Drysdale, "New Leadership for Vt.'s Biggest Utility: CVPS's Reilly Not Worried About Vermont Yankee," The Herald of Randolph, April 21, 2011.</ref>  Analysis by researchers at the University of Vermont estimated that an increase of "slightly more than 3 percent" in the retail price of electricity in Vermont would result from closing Vermont Yankee.<ref name=watts />

Ex-Governor [[Peter Shumlin]] was a prominent opponent of the Vermont Yankee. Two days after Shumlin was elected governor in November 2010, Entergy sought offers to purchase the plant.<ref name=NYT02>Wald, Matthew L., [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/business/energy-environment/05nuke.html?_r=1&src=busln Vermont Nuclear Plant Up for Sale] ''The New York Times'', November 4, 2010.</ref> The company withdrew the plant from consideration for sale in late March 2011.<ref name=NotForSale>{{cite web|url=http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110330/NEWS02/110330038/Entergy-No-sale-Vermont-Yankee|title=Entergy: No sale of Vermont Yankee|publisher=Burlington Free Press|date=March 30, 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130118130630/http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110330/NEWS02/110330038/Entergy-No-sale-Vermont-Yankee|archive-date=January 18, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In March 2011, 600 people gathered for a weekend protest outside the Vermont Yankee plant, in the wake of the [[Fukushima I nuclear accidents]].<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite web |url=http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=14288307 |title=Vermont Yankee: Countdown to closure |date=March 21, 2011 |work=WCAX |access-date=March 3, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120309154836/http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=14288307 |archive-date=March 9, 2012 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On March 22, 2011, the day after the NRC issued Vermont Yankee's license extension, Vermont's congressional delegation, Senator [[Patrick Leahy]] (D), Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] (I), and Representative [[Peter Welch]] (D), issued a joint statement decrying the NRC's action and noting the similarity of Vermont Yankee to units then in partial meltdown at the [[Fukushima Daiichi]] power station, Japan.<ref name="Forbes - VT statement">[https://blogs.forbes.com/oshadavidson/2011/03/22/nrc-vermont-yankee-nuclear-power-plant-good-to-go-for-20-more-years/ NRC: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant ‘Good to Go’ for 20 More Years] ''Forbes.com'', March 22, 2011.</ref>

In March 2012, more than 130 protesters were arrested at the corporate headquarters of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, on the first day of the plant's operation after the expiration of its original 40-year license.<ref name="businessweek1">{{cite web |url=http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TLUAG01.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019172619/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TLUAG01.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 19, 2015 |title=130 arrested in Vermont Yankee protest |author=Wilson Ring |date=March 22, 2012 |work=BusinessWeek }}</ref>

In March 2013, more than 500 people, carrying banners and chanting "shut it down", marched through downtown Brattleboro in protest against Vermont Yankee.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/03/22/hundreds_expected_to_march_against_vt_nuke_plant/ |title=Hundreds march in protest of Vermont Yankee plant  |author=Wilson Ring |date=March 31, 2013|work=Boston.com|publisher = Associated Press}}</ref>

==Seismic risk==
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Vermont Yankee was 8.1{{e|-06}} per year, or a chance of one incident occurring on average every 123,000 years, according to an NRC study published in August 2010, based upon a 2008 [[USGS]] survey.<ref>[[Bill Dedman]], [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42103936 "What are the odds? US nuke plants ranked by quake risk"], NBC News News, March 17, 2011 Retrieved April 19, 2011.</ref><ref>Sheron, B. W. (September 2, 2010). [http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%20risk%20estimates.pdf "Safety assessment results...."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525170632/http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%20risk%20estimates.pdf |date=May 25, 2017 }} MSNBC. p. D-6, Table D-1, "weakest link model" column.</ref>

==Surrounding population==
The [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] defines two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants: a plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of {{convert|10|mi}}, concerned primarily with exposure to, and inhalation of, airborne radioactive contamination, and an ingestion pathway zone of about {{convert|50|mi}}, concerned primarily with ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html |title=NRC: Backgrounder on Emergency Preparedness at Nuclear Power Plants |publisher=Nrc.gov |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061002131207/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html |archive-date=October 2, 2006 }}</ref>

The 2010 U.S. population within {{convert|10|mi}} of Vermont Yankee was 35,284, an increase of 1.4 percent in a decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data. The 2010 U.S. population within {{convert|50|mi}} was 1,533,472, an increase of 2.9 percent since 2000. Cities within 50 miles include [[Brattleboro, Vermont|Brattleboro]] (6 miles to city center); [[Keene, New Hampshire|Keene]], [[New Hampshire|N.H.]], (16 miles to city center); [[Fitchburg, Massachusetts|Fitchburg]], [[Massachusetts|Mass]]., (38 miles to city center), [[Greenfield, Massachusetts|Greenfield]], Mass., and [[Northampton, Massachusetts|Northampton]], Mass.<ref>[[Bill Dedman]], [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42555888 "Nuclear neighbors: Population rises near US reactors"], NBC News, April 14, 2011 Accessed May 1, 2011.</ref>

From April 2016, due to the continuing decommissioning process, the emergency planning zone was reduced to the site boundaries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://digital.vpr.net/post/vermont-yankees-10-mile-emergency-planning-zone-set-expire#stream/0 |title=Vermont Yankee's 10-Mile Emergency Planning Zone Set To Expire |date=April 18, 2016 |publisher=VPR News | access-date=October 10, 2017 }}</ref>

==See also==
{{stack|{{Portal|Energy|Nuclear technology}}}}
* [[Energy in Vermont]]
* [[Nuclear power in the United States]]
* [[New England Coalition]]
* [[Environmental impact of nuclear power]]
* In his novel ''[[11/22/63]],'' author [[Stephen King]] referred to a major disaster at Vermont Yankee in an alternative universe.

==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==See also==
* [[Lelan Sillin, Jr.]]

==External links==
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20010208080135/http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/vermontyankee.html Department of Energy Page]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20101204163235/http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/Vermont%20Yankee.htm Joint Fiscal Committee]
*[http://www.necnp.org New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution]
*[http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/24/in_historic_vote_vermont_poised_to In Historic Vote, Vermont Poised to Shut Down Lone Nuclear Reactor] – video by ''[[Democracy Now!]]''

{{U.S. Nuclear Plants}}
{{U.S. anti-nuclear}}

[[Category:Energy infrastructure completed in 1972]]
[[Category:Buildings and structures in Vernon, Vermont]]
[[Category:Nuclear power plants in Vermont]]
[[Category:Entergy]]
<!--[[Category:2014 disestablishments in the United States]]-->
[[Category:Energy infrastructure closed in the 2010s]]
[[Category:1972 establishments in Vermont]]
[[Category:Anti-nuclear protests in the United States]]
[[Category:Former nuclear power stations in the United States]]
[[Category:2014 disestablishments in Vermont]]