Editor’s note: This commentary is by George Clain, president of the IBEW Local 300.
As Entergy scrambles to find and fix the source of tritium contamination at Vermont Yankee, another major, substantive issue is being all but ignored: the plant’s economic impact to Vermont. The Legislature should carefully evaluate both matters as it weighs in on the plant’s future.
Regarding tritium, with more than 180 workers at Vermont Yankee, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 300 takes a backseat to no one in demanding that the plant be operated safely. If we had any doubt about the plant’s safety, our workers would not be there. Many of our members live close to the plant as well, a testament to their confidence in its safe operation.
While there are no indications that the tritium poses a health or safety threat, Entergy management must be held to the highest standards to address this problem as soon as possible. This especially includes its breached trust with Vermonters.
It’s disappointing that some of Vermont Yankee’s political opponents are trying to seize on the emotionalism about the current crisis to close the plant.
What is also disappointing, however, is that some of Vermont Yankee’s political opponents are trying to seize on the emotionalism about the current crisis to close the plant. Even if the tritium problem were completely fixed tomorrow they would still want the plant closed, despite the massive, long-term economic damage this would do to Vermont’s economy.
And massive economic damage it would be in terms of lost jobs, disposable income, and tax revenues. The IBEW recently retained Vermont economist Richard Heaps to dispassionately and scientifically evaluate these impacts, using 2009 data.
The study found that the total number of jobs created in Vermont by Vermont Yankee is 1,288. This includes 670 jobs at the plant and an additional 618 that are created in Vermont as a direct result of the plant’s operation. The jobs are in many sectors including construction, retail, trade, and professional services.
These 1,288 jobs have an annual payroll of $93.3 million, and as a result Vermonters’ disposable income was $78.5 million higher in 2009 than it otherwise would have been.
These jobs would be all but impossible to replace, and the consequences of losing them would be especially stark in southern Vermont. Heaps’ report notes, “Job growth in Windham County has lagged that of the state in nine of the last ten years. Only in 1999 did Windham County post a job gain. Windham County has lost jobs every year since 1999.”
The jobs and income are also important for providing taxes for government services. Vermont Yankee and the economic activity which is facilitated throughout the state as a result of the plant’s operation resulted in $7.67 million in General Funds taxes in 2009 and $4.94 million in Education Fund taxes, which covers the cost of educating 352 students.
When assessing Vermont Yankee’s future, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the sole body with the legal authority and in-house expertise to determine if the plant is safe to be operated. While state legislators are deciding about Vermont’s energy future they have a duty to study and evaluate the economic importance of Vermont Yankee. To do otherwise would be to violate the trust that Vermonters’ place in elected officials to make informed, dispassionate decisions.
Vermonters deserve prompt action from Entergy and they deserve calm, informative deliberations by the Legislature. There is too much at stake for either party to do otherwise.
Permalink |
Mr. Clain,
Sir I believe it is time for you to stop running defense for this reactor. I know it employs many of your members, and thus you are obliged, but recently the republican Senator from Rutland spoke out against the reactor and will vote that Entergy re-license not be passed to the PSB. You and I both know that Rutland is the home to CVPS, the largest electrical supplier in the state. IBEW workers have been frequently spurned by Entergy thus it comes down to last minute negotiations during contract renewals. This is manipulative on Entergy’s part ( and has led to some spectacular up close photos that have been used against Entergy. )
When you speak of safety, can you explain to me why the COB building well was closed to protect from tritium crossover from the shallow highly polluted sampling well to the deeper drinking water well.
I am one member of the public who has learned not to trust what Entergy says. I have little doubt they may speak to the skilled IBEW workers differently than they do to the public. I did not ask Entergy managers to tell “miscommunications” to the state Public Service Board, the Department of Public Service, the oversight panels, or the public. Entergy management chose to not tell the truth.
Regarding the loss of jobs that your Mr. Heaps and his organization found. Who paid for the study? IBEW… What answer does IBEW like? The answer that fits your needs.
Currently the chief blocker for Entergy in the state has been the soon to be ex- Governor Douglas. His DEPT has not provided any or any adequate future planning to VT for energy because of his love dare I say lust for Entergy VY.
Please tell us how bad it will be…. without Entergy VY.
Then can you remind us of the safety of leaking radionuclides into public land and water.
Then can you inform us of the safe way to remove something from property when that something sticks around 250 years?
Permalink |
George,
Here’s the thing.
The VY site is not going away, only that aging reactor, to be mothballed, dismantled and disposed of over an extended period of time.
If Entergy or Vermont or whomever is in control of a generating plant site in central New England, with all associated transmission, rail and other infrastructure already existing, cannot figure out an alternative use for that site then that is somebody else’s fault beyond the Vermont legislature.
The biggest difference between now and the 60s when they pushed the nuclear plant on the community is the community’s ability to manage what may happen, meaning that there may be a need to build another school complex away from that site in order to get a new use permitted.
But, to think that the site will go dormant, with a loss of all those jobs, given the lack of generation-siting capacity in New England is just plain folly.
The time is now to begin the VY Redevelopment Authority, with jobs-maximization the foundation issue.
We can do better than that aging monstrosity, even if its fifth-generation nuclear.
The only thing more important than those jobs is our health and safety.
Shall we begin?
Joe