A Response to Mr. Cosgrove.
Is this the same Brian Cosgrove, director of public affairs at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee who on March 10, 2002 wrote in the Metro West Daily News near Framingham, Ma. , that many of the people who oppose the nuclear station in Vermont are trust-funded and many of them own llama farms?
Are you really the same man who claims in your Jan 7, 2005 Vermont Guardian article that the nuclear “… discussion… should be based on fact, not innuendo, and accurate information, not misinformation”?
In your article you write that our comment should be “fair”. Meanwhile nowhere in your 2000 word article do you mention the 500 tons of lethal nuclear waste 6 stories above ground in the temporary storage pool built above the reactor.
Nowhere do you mention that the station is more than 32 years old now and you seek the largest legal amount of uprate possible. Nowhere do you mention that the profit from the potential station uprate will go to Louisiana not to Vermont.
Throughout your piece you use words like “important”, “excellent”, “robust “, and the ubiquitous “safe and reliable”. You make no mention of the fact that you at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee create a waste product that will need to be protected for longer than humans have lived on earth. This ain’t cheap. The risk of radiological contamination in the event of an accident could destroy not just Vermont’s beautiful landscape, it would certainly wipe out any remnants of a thriving tourism or ski economy in the state.
You speak of the “45 different components and operator actions” etc that the independent assessment provided. Those 45 areas make up only 1% of the safety related components related to the proposed uprate. Opponents of the proposed uprate request that a “fair assessment” regard more than 1%.
You write, “the goal of the uprate is to make the plant more efficient and to allow it to generate more power.” No Sir. The goal of the uprate is to increase the profitability of the nuclear station to make more money for the shareholders of the out–of-state corporation.
Your paragraph about your contract with Vermont Electric Coop is misleading. In order for ENVY to be granted permission from the state regulatory body, a pre-requisite is that you have in place a firm commitment for a power contract in state for that uprate power. So you got a small contract at below market rates fulfill that requirement. Yes – as you wrote – you hope to be a member in good standing (in this VT community) for years to come. I think it will only happen if you continue to buy your way in. Vermont is not for sale.
During the Public Service Board proceedings for this proposed uprate on October 17, 2003, Mr. Lamont of the Department of Public Service said, “If VY was shut down tomorrow we would have excess generating capacity” in the state. Yes, as you wrote, “Vermonters deserve accurate information.”
Unfortunately, the public is unable to look to the nuclear station’s public affairs office for such information.
In 1967 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, comprised of local utility companies, received a license to operate a nuclear station in Vernon VT. Today, as the same nuclear station has been sold to Entergy Nuclear, the terms of the original license no longer hold to the out of state owners and the station should be shut at the earliest possible time.
Just a few more points (sans embellishment) :
The longer the nuclear station runs the more likelihood there is of a breakdown.
Increased power output inherently relates to increased risk of a breakdown.
The more time passes between November 2004 and any actual uprate, the less benefit there is to the state of VT to be earned as the result of the power sold out of state from the uprate.
gfv