Editor’s note: This commentary is by George Clain, of Barre, who is a former president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local at Vermont Yankee.
[R]ecently a fellow resident of Barre penned an opinion piece headlined “Nuclear proponents not to be trusted.” I had thought that the “Hate Yankee” movement had pretty much shut down with the plant, but this piece has proven me wrong. I hope the information shared below is helpful to the author and all Vermonters about the real safety record and ongoing financial obligations of Vermont Yankee.
First, Vermont Yankee’s present operational stance, and historical record, show that the plant is environmentally benign, thanks to great workers and federal oversight. Whatever any other energy company may be accused of, Vermont Yankee operated 42 years without an incident that actually impacted the environment. Even the much-discussed tritium leak of 2010 showed no adverse public health impacts, according to the state’s own public health chief, Dr. William Irwin.
During its operational years, Vermont Yankee converted fuel (some of it derived from Russian warheads) into billions of kilowatt hours of emissions-free power. It is hard to decide which gigantic contribution to the world’s environmental well-being has been more beneficial – the reduction of potentially rogue nuclear warheads, or the reduction of potentially harmful emissions. Perhaps the author needs to remember that during the 1960s and 1970s, air pollution and nuclear proliferation were deemed perhaps the most dangerous pending environmental disasters to the United States and the globe. Vermont has truly “led the way” to reduce both – and as an added bonus provided extremely low-cost power (which I am sure you took advantage of in your business), millions in taxes and other revenues annually, and of course hundreds of the best paying jobs in Vermont.
Do these critics not realize that their anti-nuclear brethren in other states – like Massachusetts – are begging the authorities and plant owners to use dry cask storage, rather than keeping spent fuel in the “fuel pool?”
Â
The workers at Vermont Yankee deserve a better legacy than “not to be trusted.” But that is water over the dam – we need to look to the future now, and especially to the $1.2 billion construction project otherwise known as the Vermont Yankee decommissioning.
Incredibly, the plant continues to be criticized for self-funding the removal of spent fuel into dry cask storage. Do these critics not realize that their anti-nuclear brethren in other states – like Massachusetts – are begging the authorities and plant owners to use dry cask storage, rather than keeping spent fuel in the “fuel pool?” Here in Vermont, the company not only has taken that extra step without any prompting, it is borrowing the money to do so, rather than drawing on the decommissioning trust fund. But even this above-and-beyond decision is criticized because Entergy hopes to recoup the money from the federal government, by lawsuit if necessary. Yet they have every right to do so, because the government has yet to obey the law Congress passed in the 1980s promising the industry, ratepayers and concerned citizens a national repository.
The spent fuel storage buck was passed to Vermont Yankee, which has done well to safely, promptly start the storage process. But really, by law that’s the feds’ job. I only assume you took full advantage of any emissions you created in your construction business and, therefore, may I suggest that you conserve oxygen and get mad at the feds instead.