Entergy's fallacies
Toolbox
By JARRED COBB - Published: July 2, 2009
In his op-ed "Decommissioning is on track," Entergy Nuclear's Jay Thayer argues for Vermont Yankee's license renewal as a means to address the escalating decommissioning costs. Mr. Thayer is trying to persuade Vermonters that a license renewal is necessary for successful decommissioning because it will give Entergy 20 more years to raise sufficient funds to be able to safely close the plant.
Mr. Thayer's reasoning is both circular and self-serving — why should Vermont allow its nuclear power plant to continue operation for another 20 years just to raise enough money to shut it down? Requesting a license renewal on this basis defies logic. If Entergy is delinquent in its fiscal responsibility to the people of Vermont today, why should we expect another two decades would change its corporate character?
Mr. Thayer cites the lack of a federal repository for high-level radioactive waste as the main cause of today's rising decommissioning costs. But this is a red herring. Yankee Rowe, Haddam Neck and Maine Yankee have all been decommissioned without a federal repository. He attempts to divert his company's responsibility for the deficiency in Vermont Yankee's decommissioning fund by blaming national politics, always an easy target. What Mr. Thayer fails to acknowledge is that it was Entergy's decision where to invest the decommissioning funds. Vermonters should not be held hostage due to Entergy's financial incapacity and poor investment decision.
Further, he calls upon Vermonters to trust in "well-established procedures" and "close regulatory supervision" to prevent leaks, fires, and theft of used nuclear material at closed nuclear facilities. How I wish I could believe him, but Entergy's dismal record on compliance with safety regulations stands as potent testimony against him.
At a recent discussion in Waitsfield on the impacts of keeping Yankee open, nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen described several serious security risks specific to the plant. These include the storage of used nuclear fuel in the plant parking lot, 40-year-old structural defects, and a weak roof making it an easy target for terrorists. Taking into account the numerous leaks of 2009 and the cooling tower collapse of 2007, can Vermonters trust in Entergy to keep them safe or their money secure? Clearly, the answer is no. Vermont Yankee is on its last legs. Our legislators cannot let it stand another 20 years in hopes that by 2032 we will finally have enough money to shut it down.
Mr. Thayer concludes by saying that re-licensing Yankee will "provide a foundation for Vermont to have abundant, clean and affordable electricity." Is it abundant when, as happened in the past few days, the plant needs to be powered down to 26 percent capacity to fix leaks?
Nuclear pollution is invisible, and even the NRC acknowledges that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation. Can one call something clean when it is linked to cancer, birth defects, and leukemia? Lastly, Vermont Yankee is only affordable if one ignores the long-term economic costs of repairs and maintenance, environmental impacts, and potential billions of dollars that could be spent cleaning up an accident.
At this crossroads, misinformation and argumentative fallacies must not mislead Vermonters. Entergy asks us to place blind faith in their promises and reassurances, but its record is abysmal.
The foundation of our state's energy future lies not in the crumbling antique that is Vermont Yankee, but in local, renewable energy sources that will create jobs and make for a safer, cleaner Vermont. Please join us in calling upon our legislators to shut down Vermont Yankee.
Jarred Cobb is Northeast field organizer of Greenpeace USA, based in Burlington.
11