第 2 页 共 11 页第 2 页 共 11 页第 2 页 共 11 页第 2 页 共 11 页第 2 页 共 11 页第 2 页 共 11 页第 2 页 共 11 页第 2 页 共 11 页第 2 页 共 11 页第 2 页 共 11 页
had long promised it would not challenge the
constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal
court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning
move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the
corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,
an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state
approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission
from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the
state went a step further, requiring that any extension of
the plant’s license be subject to Vermont
legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went
along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those
commitments, or it simply didn’t foresee what would
happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial
collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an
underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions
about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and
Entergy’s managementespecially after the company
made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by
Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4
评论0
最新资源