To citizens of Vermont and the Connecticut River Valley:
As the future of Vermont's only atomic energy generator is being discussed by legislators it is worth considering the larger context of nuclear power -- and the wastes it generates. Vermont is distinct in this regard in that we have the highest per capita amount of nuclear waste of any state.
All of this waste has been stored "temporarily" at the Vernon Vermont reactor site on the banks of the Connecticut River since the plant first opened in 1972. Despite no "permanent" location appropriate to the permanent nature of nuclear fission's multi-thousand-year atomic wastes, nuclear wastes from spent fuel rods to contaminated fuel assemblies continue to be produced every day, adding up to about 30 tons of high level (read: is lethal for 1,000 to 24,000 years depending on type) per reactor per year. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently said that the only location identified in the nation for storing these wastes, Yucca Mountain, is "off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] is saying that the dry cask storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue." Source: www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/
Unfortunately former blue ribbon panels haven't reduced the horrific affects of nuclear waste. And the world continues to produce it largely unabated, with a recent upsurge in interest due to the false idea that nuclear energy is "carbon neutral" (and for lack of another real plan for self-renewing, non-toxic sources of energy).
The situation is summed up well by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management of the United States:
"Since the mid-1940s, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste have accumulated throughout the country.... These storage sites are located in a mixture of urban, suburban, and rural environments -- most are located near large bodies of water. In the United States today, over 161 million people reside within 75 miles of temporarily stored nuclear waste. Current storage methods shield any harmful radiation and are presently safe. However, modern above ground storage structures are designed for temporary storage only, and will not withstand rain, wind, and other environmental factors for the tens of thousands of years during which the waste will be hazardous."
Source: www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0338.shtml
When energy costs eventually become twice or more what they are today (barring major investment in self-renewing energy sources), some states will have more nuclear waste sites to deal with, some will have less. Vermont already has one. Re-license Yankee or not? Put another way: Should Vermont continue making more radioactive waste? Radiation already needs to be contained in Vernon, Vermont, for 10 to 100-plus generations, even if the plant were closed tomorrow.
What is in the best interest of the people of Vermont and those yet to have a say in the matter? What can the Public Service Board say when the arguments against a nuclear reactor in Vermont range from incompetence in management to a decrepit facility to the need for serious renewable energy investments to the overt unaccountability of Entergy and its parent companies (who will not be stuck with the clean-up bill, if you could clean up an atomic reactor site)? How and why is the PSB defending Entergy when the arguments against Yankee are so many and diverse?
Yankee was a big mistake, possibly the most significant single, most enduring mistake modern Vermont has made. What's more enduring than uranium-234, neptunium-237, plutonium-238 and americium-241? The nuclear legacy is perhaps the only legacy carrying with it so many directly negative effects on Vermonters 10 generations from today, 20, 30, 50, certainly even 100 generations from today. These effects range from, at best, perfect vigilance in containing radioactive wastes to, at worst, a radioactive waste zone partly to completely uninhabitable -- a decaying toxic infrastructure leaking high-level waste into the groundwater and the Connecticut River for centuries. Actually, there's one thing worse: terrorism or malicious use of the nuclear reactor or its materials in Vernon. Either way, what will our grandchildren or their great-great grandchildren think of us? If they are inheritors of a toxic legacy and a non-renewing energy economy, will they forgive us, their predecessors? After all, we were just trying to save a few cents on the kilowatt hour. And, we had no other plan. Or, did we?
Falk lives in Moretown.
