| Fellow Vermonters
The tide is turning against Entergy Nuclear and Vermont Yankee. From Halifax in the south, to Holland in the north, with 32 other towns in between, voters passed a resolution calling for the shutdown of Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor in 2012, and holding Entergy financially responsible for the decommissioning fund.
Vermont town meetings have made it clear that we don't trust Entergy Nuclear very much at all. Increasingly, even Vermonters who have in the past supported the reactor's operation are joining the ranks of those who say that VY should retire on time in 2012, and no later.
The debates that took place at this year's town meetings on the Replace VY resolution were remarkable not only for the nonpartisan, cross-ideological groups who voted together to pass the resolutions, but also for the breadth and depth of the questions that were discussed. The folks who brought this resolution to their towns for debate knew that they had the facts on their side. So while there were speeches about the health risks and catastrophic accident risks of twenty extra years of VY operation, there were also speeches about rates, replacement power, creating green jobs for Vermonters, the realities of the proposed Yucca mountain nuclear waste disposal site, the unprecedented upcoming vote on continued operation in the legislature, and the importance of efficiency.
In town after town, when these reasoned arguments were presented, many who entered thinking that they would vote against the resolution voted yes instead, having been moved by the discussion.
Entergy Nuclear seems to hold a special place in the hearts of Vermonters. The third point of the resolution calls for Entergy to cover the full cost of decommissioning, as it promised to do when it bought the plant. It hasn't escaped our notice that Entergy could easily spare the $650 million needed to (barely) meet its obligations by tapping into a fraction of the several billion dollars that are its profits in any given year.
This notion of holding Entergy accountable was so appealing that of the four towns that voted down points one and two, and the three towns that voted to table them, three of them took the time to embrace point three and pass it on its own merits. In Bolton, while the call for shutdown in 2012 lost 27-24, the vote to hold Entergy to pay the decommissioning costs was a unanimous YES.
This town meeting vote marks the beginning, not the end of our campaign. The legislature will be most likely be considering this issue for another year. We want to make sure that they continue to hear from informed constituents. We may well launch another town meeting campaign next year to put more towns on record. We will want to continue to hold forums and debates to get more Vermonters acquainted with the facts. And most importantly, “we” includes every one of us. Every Vermonter has a stake in our energy future, and no one should hesitate to contribute any ideas about how to achieve that goal.
Thanks,
Dan Dewalt, on behalf of the
www.replaceVY.org campaign.
BACKGROUND: The Vermont
Legislature will soon be voting (probably during their current session,
January through June of '09) on whether to allow the "Vermont
Yankee" (VY) nuclear reactor to be re-licensed for another
20 years beyond the expiration of its original 40-year license,
which expires in March of 2012. Vermont is the only state in the
U.S. whose legislature has granted itself the authority to approve
or reject the re-licensing of a nuclear reactor. So what happens
here will be precedent-setting for the nation. When the vote comes
up, it is likely to be very close, which is why it's very important
that as many voices of opposition be raised as possible—especially
the voices of people living "in the shadow" of the reactor
who are most affected, most at risk, most in harm's way.
1. WE DON'T NEED VY'S ELECTRICTY.
•When VY is decommissioned, our lights won't even flicker
or dim. We won't even notice. VY's total electrical output comprises
only two percent of New England's electrical grid, which has ample
"base load" capacity (VY being a base-load reactor). The
VY reactor already shuts down on a routine basis for weeks at a
time for refueling (3-4 weeks' down-time every 18 months) as well
as for inspections and repairs following "minor" accidents,
with no adverse impact on our electrical supply. While most Western
Massachusetts towns (via WMECO and National Grid) get around 25%
of their electricity from VY, our utilities can easily contract
with other suppliers, including HydroQuebec, to replace VY's contribution
(and that's assuming no reduction in electrical demand – see
#10 below).
2.. ENERGY CONSERVATION & EFFICIENCY MEASURES, COUPLED
WITH SAFE, RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, ARE THE ANSWER.
- We can replace VY's power with lower-cost energy conservation
and efficiency measures coupled with wind and solar power and
other safe, renewable sources of energy such as bio-fuels, microalgae,
and wave energy.
- Every $1 spent on conservation/efficiency saves $7 in generation
costs and provides many more jobs for local workers.
- In a recent report to the Vermont Department of Public Service,
the state agency called Efficiency Vermont, which is already responsible
for the fact that Vermont's demand for electricity has not increased
over the last five years, stated that additional conservation
and efficiency measures could reduce the state's electrical demand
by at least 15%. With no equivalent state agency, Massachusetts
has an even larger potential for reducing electrical consumption
by means of energy conservation and efficiency. In addition, Massachusetts,
like Vermont, has tremendous potential for creating new generating
capacity based on safe, renewable sources.
- The shutting down of Entergy's VY reactor without its being
re-licensed will provide additional incentive for individuals,
municipalities, businesses, and utilities to "go green,"
whereas giving VY 20 more years will do just the opposite.
3. NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT "CARBON FREE" AND DOES
CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING.
- The VY reactor itself produces relatively little CO2 emissions,
but when the total nuclear fuel cycle is taken into account --
the mining, milling, processing, and enrichment of uranium; the
manufacture of all the buildings and machinery that go into a
reactor and related facilities; the extensive transportation of
reactor fuel and components; and the lengthy and complex decommissioning/decontamination
process -- it's clear that every nuclear reactor is, in effect,
responsible for putting a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere.
True, the average size coal-fired power plant is responsible for
even more CO2 emissions, but we should not be fooled by nuclear
industry propaganda saying that nuclear power is "clean,"
"carbon-free," and thus the answer to global warming.
For the health and well-being of the planet, our energy supply
must be carbon-free and nuclear-free.
4. LOCAL WORKERS WILL STILL HAVE LOCAL JOBS—ULTIMATELY
MORE JOBS.
- Decommissioning VY and decontaminating the site -- returning
it to a "green field" -- will provide local jobs for
a large proportion of the current VY workforce for a least a decade
(decontamination of the Yankee Rowe site in Rowe, MA, following
decommissioning, took fifteen years), and the burgeoning renewable
energy industry offers additional "green" job opportunities
for local workers.
- Renewable energy creates more jobs than nuclear energy. VY employs
roughly 600 workers and produces roughly 600 megawatt of electricity
– i.e., one job/year per megawatt. According to a report
from the Renewable Energy Power Project, wind power creates 4.8
jobs/year per megawatt and solar power creates 35.5 jobs/year
per megawatt. The report states that solar and wind installation
and maintenance alone create more jobs than operating a nuclear
reactor: 7.9 jobs/year for solar and 1.6 job/years for wind. It
also states that biomass power would create 1.4 jobs/year per
megawatt, helping local farmers and forest-land owners in the
process.
5."VERMONT YANKEE" EMITS DANGEROUS LOW-LEVEL
RADIATION DAILY.
- An exhaustive study done by the National Academy of Science
(the BEIR VII report) concluded that any amount of ionizing radiation
is dangerous to humans.
- VY has released over 400,000 curies of air-borne radioactive
pollution over the last 37 years.
- Low-level radiation from VY has exceeded the allowable limit
of 20 millirems of radiation per year at the reactor's "fence
line" three times since 1998.
- Statistics released by the Radiation and Public Health Project
show that the death rate from cancer in Windham County, Vermont
(the county surrounding VY), has risen from one percent below
the state average to 10% above over the last 20 years, and that
death rates for infants, children, and young adults – those
most susceptible to radiation exposure, range from 13% to 37%
higher than the rest of the state. While these findings have been
challenged, they raise serious questions and warrant swift analysis
of the implications, something which has yet to be undertaken.
6."VERMONT YANKEE" EMITS DANGEROUS LOW-LEVEL
RADIATION DAILY.
- An exhaustive study done by the National Academy of Science
(the BEIR VII report) concluded that any amount of ionizing radiation
is dangerous to humans.
- VY has released over 400,000 curies of air-borne radioactive
pollution over the last 37 years.
- Low-level radiation from VY has exceeded the allowable limit
of 20 millirems of radiation per year at the reactor's "fence
line" three times since 1998.
- Statistics released by the Radiation and Public Health Project
show that the death rate from cancer in Windham County, Vermont
(the county surrounding VY), has risen from one percent below
the state average to 10% above over the last 20 years, and that
death rates for infants, children, and young adults – those
most susceptible to radiation exposure, range from 13% to 37%
higher than the rest of the state. While these findings have been
challenged, they raise serious questions and warrant swift analysis
of the implications, something which has yet to be undertaken
7. AGING TECHNOLOGY MEANS INEVITABLE BREAKDOWNS/ACCIDENTS.
- In March of 2012, the Entergy Nuclear corporation's "Vermont
Yankee (VY)" nuclear reactor in Vernon, VT, will be 40 years,
the period for which it was originally licensed. Its obsolete
design would never be approved today. It is currently being run
at 120% of its original design capacity.
- No machine or technology is "fail safe," despite the
claims of their owners and manufacturers. This includes cars (yours
and mine), levees (New Orleans), bridges (Minneapolis), ships
(Titanic), and nuclear reactors.
- Four of New England's other nuclear reactors have already been
permanently closed for safety-related reasons before they reached
the end of their 40-year licenses (Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee,
Millstone 1 [CT], and Connecticut Yankee)
8. VY'S HISTORY OF "MINOR" BREAKDOWNS AND ACCIDENTS
- There have been many "minor" accidents at VY due to
age, the 20% power increase, and cost-cutting measures resulting
in deferred maintenance. A partial list includes: radioactive
fuel rods "lost" for 3 months (September '04); transformer
fire (June '05); cracks discovered in the steam dryer (November
'05); "hot" shipment that left VY four times more radioactive
than allowable federal limits (August '06); cooling tower collapse
and automatic shutdown of reactor due to stuck valve (August '07);
malfunctioning crane drops cask of high-level spent fuel four
inches onto concrete floor of spent fuel area (May '08); discovery
of inadequate "fix" of previous year's cooling tower
collapse (July '08); more cooling tower leaks discovered (September
'08); excess radiation exposure forces temporary evacuation of
12 workers (August '08); excess radiation exposure forces temporary
evacuation of 25 workers (October '08); discovery of inadequate
cooling tower support brackets (October '08); new cracks found
in reactor's steam dryer (November '08); ASLB finding of inadequate
testing of critical spray nozzles for metal fatigue (November
'08); temporary breakdown of emergency phone system (December
'08); temporary breakdown of emergency radio alert system (December
'08); two back-to-back leaks within two days of radioactive water
inside the plant, with the latter occurring in a "safety-sensitive"
area, causing emergency repairs and a 60% reduction of power (January
'09).
- An August '07 statement issued by the Utility Workers Union
of America, Local 369, the union representing VY workers, pointed
to "serious issues of public safety" at the reactor
and "actions required to mitigate the degrading conditions"
that threaten its margin of safety.
9. A MAJOR ACCIDENT AT VY SPELLS CATASTROPHE.
- If your car has a major accident or breakdown, it's one thing.
If it happens to a nuclear reactor, it's an entirely different
matter.
- All the high-level nuclear waste—in the form of spent
fuel rods—produced by VY during its 37 years of operation
is currently stored in a tin-covered pool built into a concrete
deck over the reactor 70 feet above ground. The pool was designed
to hold only five years' worth of spent fuel rods. It is now triple-racked
with 37 years' worth of fuel rods which together contain more
than 8 times the radiation released in the Chernobyl accident.
In 2008, workers started loading these rods into concrete-and-steel
"dry cask" containers that sit near the reactor on the
banks of the Connecticut River (a 500-year flood plain).
- A major accident or successful terrorist attack igniting the
fuel pool could make much of New England uninhabitable for hundreds
of years. According to a 2001 staff study by the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission [NRC], a major loss of water from the spent
fuel pool would cause a fire that could potentially cause 25,000
fatalities in a radius of 500 miles, presuming 95% evacuation
(!?).
10. EFFECTIVE EVACUATION WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
- There has never been an actual test of the evacuation plans
for VY that exist on paper—that is, a test in which people
leave, or are transported out of, the "Emergency Planning
Zone (EPZ)," which, in any event, only covers the area within
10 miles of the VY reactor. Of course, in the event of a major
accident, radiation would spread far beyond 10 miles (the entire
area within 20 miles of the Chernobyl reactor has long been declared
a "dead zone") and these hypothetical plans would prove
to be hopelessly inadequate. Many people, even within the 10-mile
zone, wouldn't hear the sirens or know what to do if they did
hear them; frightened parents would be trying, contrary to instructions,
to retrieve their children from schools; bus drivers and emergency
workers may or may not abandon their own families in order to
rescue school children and nursing home residents; house-bound
people would be stranded; roads would be gridlocked by fleeing
vehicles; panic and confusion would be rampant.
- Apparently recognizing the inevitable failure of evacuation
plans if ever put into practice, the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has begun putting more emphasis on what it calls
"Shelter-In-Place"—i.e., don't go outside, close
all windows and doors, turn off fans, block air vents, and (if
you're within the 10-mile EPZ) listen to your "emergency
alert system" radio for further instructions.
11. NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT.
- If VY's license is renewed, we will have to live with the risks
of an accident or sabotage as well as increased levels of high-level
radioactive waste for at least another 20 years. There is no insurance
policy which covers our homes and property in the event of an
accident at VY. We would be forced to leave our homes and livelihood
with little hope of ever returning.
- The federal Price Anderson Act limits the liability of corporations
in the event of a nuclear accident. It was enacted because corporations
refused to build reactors if they had to be fully liable in the
event of major accident.
12. AS LONG AS HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE REMAINS A HUGE,
UNSOLVED PROBLEM, WE SHOULDN'T CREATE MORE OF IT.
- There is no permanent solution that has yet been found for the
storage of high-level radioactive waste. For environmental as
well as political reasons, the federal government's Yucca Mountain
storage facility in Nevada is dead in the water, leaving the waste
from this country's 104 nuclear power reactors to be stored on-site
indefinitely.
- Over one million pounds of high-level nuclear waste now sits
on the banks of the Connecticut River near the VY reactor that
produced it. This equates to over 35 million curies of cesium,
a toxic alkali metal, most of which resides in VY's spent fuel
pool, which was built to handle six years' worth of spend fuel
and now contains 37 years' worth. (Some of this waste has recently
begun to be moved into "dry cask" storage on the ground
at some distance from the reactor. Annual high-level solid waste
is expected to increase by as much as 18% according to an NRC
environmental impact assessment.
- Electric ratepayers and taxpayers will likely end up paying
for the cost of long-term radioactive waste storage.
13. WE CAN'T COUNT ON THE ENTERGY CORPORATION TO SAFEGUARD
OUR HEALTH AND WELL-BEING.
- Entergy Nuclear is a huge, highly profitable, Louisiana-based
energy corporation that bought the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor
in 2002. In recent years Entergy has also bought
up five other older reactors in the Northeast, all at bargain-basement
prices: Pilgrim (Plymouth, MA), Indian Point 2 and 3 (Westchester,
NY), and Fitzpatrick (Oswego, NY). Entergy now wants to "spin
off" their old Northeast reactors to a highly debt-leveraged
LLC (limited liability corporation) called Enexus Energy Corp,
thus raising additional doubts as to the future safety, reliability,
and economic benefits of these reactors.
- Entergy, which also owns and operates nuclear, gas-fired, and
coal-fired power plants in various southern states, has a long
history of cost-cutting at the expense of safety and reliability
(e.g., replacing permanent employees with "contract workers").
In 1997, the Texas Public Utility Commission fined Entergy $9
million for "poor electric reliability," noting in their
report that "…evidence revealed a lack of effective
and prudent maintenance policies, uneven spending in the area
of operations and maintenance, cuts in experienced personnel,
and consequent deterioration in the quality of service" (underlining
added). In 2005, Entergy agreed to pay the state of Louisiana
between $85 million and $95 million to settle a dozen rate cases,
some dating back to 1993, in part due to equipment failures caused
by lack of needed improvements to its nuclear reactors.
- In December 2008, Mississippi attorney general John Hood filed
a lawsuit accusing Entergy of "dishonest practices worthy
of Enron," according to the "Jackson (MS) Free Press."
Among other things, Hood's suit alleges that Entergy took out
huge loans for its northern nuclear power plants that imperil
its local division, Entergy Mississippi. Hood's suit also purports
that Entergy ripped off $71 million in federal tax refunds intended
to reimburse it for repairs to its Katrina ravaged power grids
and that Entergy has "transform(ed) Mississippi into a dumping
ground for high cost electricity."
- In short, Entergy's mode of operation is similar to that of
most giant corporations (Enron, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc., etc.,
etc.): profit-maximization trumps the public interest.
- Nor can we count on the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to protect us, even though their mandate is to do just that.
Bernie Sanders, a U.S. Senator from Vermont, has testified before
Congress that he regards the NRC as a "wholly-owned subsidiary"
of the nuclear industry. Of the dozens of nuclear reactor re-licensing
applications the NRC has reviewed, they have approved every one.
14. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER TO RE-LICENSE ENTERGY'S VY REACTOR,
NOT THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER PER SE.
- The immediate issue is not about nuclear power in general (though
there are plenty of reasons why it makes no sense – from
an economic, environmental, public health, and national security
standpoint -- to build more nuclear reactors. The immediate issue
is about the safety and reliability of one old, dirty, accident-prone
nuclear reactor in Vernon, Vermont—a reactor whose distant
corporate owner has a record that clearly demonstrates that it
cannot be trusted to run the reactor safely (if, indeed, any nuclear
reactor can be run safely…or safely enough).
|