To all supporters of VY - and to all the rest that might like some food for thought.
Please consider that the Price Anderson Act states: Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents, which is available in the insurance market (as of 2005, $300 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s).
The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors (not insurers) were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.
The Act makes a number of far reaching changes to typical civil court procedures:
* Jurisdiction is automatically transferred to federal courts no matter where the accident occurred.
* All claims from the same incident are consolidated into one Federal court, which is responsible for prioritizing payouts and sharing funds equitably should there be a shortfall.
* Companies are expressly forbidden to defend any action for damages on the grounds that an incident was not their fault.
* An open-ended time limit is applied, which allows claimants three years to file a claim starting from the time they discover damage.
* Individuals are not allowed to claim punitive damages against companies. (The act makes no provision for punishing companies responsible for an incident, but nuclear licensing regulations specify fines for breaches of safety regulations and criminal charges apply unaffected.)
Price-Anderson has been criticized by many groups due to a portion of the Act that indemnifies Department of Energy and private contractors from nuclear incidents even in cases of gross negligence and willful misconduct (although criminal penalties would still apply). No other government agency provides this level of taxpayer indemnification to non-government personnel.
What this means is that we Vermonters would have zero recourse to seek any damages and would be required to rely soley on the Government for recompensation of our unique and irreplacable lands, livelyhood and lifestyle. Our homes, and infact our lives are all at risk because Entergy wants to wring out more money from a plant that is clearly reaching the end of it’s design life time. A plant that has already shown signs of failure.
Unrelated to the Act is the fact that insurance companies will not cover private home owner or business loss due to nuclear accident or radiation damage. In other words, we the people CANNOT get insurance for any type of damage relating to the Nuclear Power Industry.
I cannot tell you how reassuring it is to know this... Perhaps the insurance companies know something about risk that the Government is not willing to admit.
I can tell you that this is not a green slight of hand, it is a reality of the Governments un-dying support of Nuclear Power and the realistic approach of the insurance industry.
Please consider that there have been numerous groups in opposition to nuclear power, perhaps you have heard of a few of these; Abalone Alliance, Beyond Nuclear, Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Citizens for Safe Power, Clamshell Alliance, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Greenpeace USA, Heart of America Northwest, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Long Island Safe Energy Coalition, MUSE - Musicians United for Safe Energy, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, No Nukes group, Nuclear Free Great Lakes Campaign, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Pilgrim Watch, Public Citizen Energy Program, Redwood Alliance, Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Three Mile Island Alert, UNPLUG Salem, Political parties, Trojan Alliance, Mobilization For Survival, Nuke Watch, SEED Coalition (Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition), Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Free Vermont, and more.
All of these groups are made up of hundreds if not thousands of concerned citizens, all of them are grassroots funded, all fighting against one thing. Can all of these people be wrong? Why would all these separate group’s fight against nuclear power? Is it really that bad?
It appears that there is a good bit of misinformation about the harmful effects of radiation. I am not an expert on how much radiation is harmful, but consider this;
A single 200 megawatt reactor, after one year of operation, contains more radioactive cesium, strontium, and iodine than the amounts produced in all the nuclear weapons tests ever conducted. These high-level wastes then have to be perfectly separated from the environment, not just for 600 years, but for over 1,000,000 years -- far longer than any political entity or country has existed in the whole of human history. That is really a long time!
Long-term management of high-level radioactive waste is an extremely difficult problem, and any attempts to minimize it are in vain. In fact it has never been done.
And what about accidents? Is VY really safe?
We have seen the results of decayed wood supports for the cooling towers, we have seen cracks in the pipes, and corrosion that causes valves to fail, we have seen fires at the plant, in addition to our local safety failures, it seems that this is quite common at other plants. The heat, vibration and pressure cause failures. These failures are planned for with “safety measures” that theoretically should prevent the release of radiation, but still it happens. It is not really a matter of if, but how much radiation are we willing to expose ourselves to.
To someone who dies of leukemia, it doesn't much matter whether it was caused by a large or small dose of radiation. It turns out that extremely small doses of radiation can have a devastating effect over the long term. Moreover, there is reliable evidence indicating that infants and children are far more susceptible to damage from radiation than an adult, and fetuses are more sensitive still, presumably because of the much more rapid division and growth of their cells.
In the vicinity of a nuclear plant, there is no way of preventing these young people from accumulating radiation internally. Yet, we have a school not more than 500 yards from VY. Are we insane?
It has been shown that a single diagnostic x-ray to the abdomen of a pregnant woman can increase the chance of the unborn child developing childhood cancer or leukemia by 50 percent.
X-rays can be avoided; food cannot. Thus the question of nuclear power is an ethical question of great scope, and the people who are going to take the risks should be asked whether they are willing to be a human sacrifice to pay for more electricity or lower taxes.
In its famous Brookhaven Report of 1957, the Atomic Energy Commission indicated what the results of a single major accident at a relatively small reactor 40 miles from a city might be:
· 3,000 to 4,000 deaths immediately from radiation poisoning,
· 50,000 deaths later on from radiation-induced injuries
· Up to 150,000 square miles of land contaminated, not to mention
· Contamination of water supplies and
· Evacuation of half a million people.
The Report goes on to say that the probability of such an accident occurring is so low as to be almost inconceivable. This is a very unscientific statement, as the probability of most major accidents is so low as to be almost zero. No doubt the probability of the Titanic sinking on its maiden voyage was very small.
Another problem, often overlooked, is the mountains of radioactive uranium tailings, which have been shown to be potentially dangerous sources of radioactive contamination. In the U.S. there is now 30 million tons of this sand-like stuff, generally lying in uncovered heaps, being washed into water systems by wind and rain. The water in the San Miguel River in Colorado was found to contain 30 times the "acceptable" level of radiation, while algae and alfalfa were much more heavily loaded, as a result of uranium tailings being washed into the river.
There is also the matter of thermal pollution, which is again a complex biological question, not to be dismissed lightly. Do we really know the effects of increased water temperatures for the Connecticut River? What is the value of the lost Salmon runs, the missing Shad and other fish that are in documented decline? What is the value of a healthy watershed free from increased temperature?
Please also consider that a majority of the money that Entergy makes from VY goes right out of Vermont into the corporate pockets of the parent company. Entergy Arkansas. This money could be useful in our community for re-insulating our homes, for installing solar heating systems that reduce our dependence on imported oil. This money just bleeds out of Vermont, leaving a void that makes it harder than ever to get on with the work of building a sustainable future.
Please consider that replacement of VY power by homegrown Renewable Energy will create jobs, while providing real homeland security. More jobs, plus local control of our power generation and distributed energy production is the key to a sustainable future here in Vermont.
Please consider that the poison waste from VY will never be removed from the banks of the Connecticut River where it shall be stored. This waste will be the legacy that we hand down throughout the generations to our children’s children’s great-great-grand children. Protection from decay, and securing the casks will cost un-imaginable amounts of money long after Entergy leaves the area. Why do they call the storage vessels casks anyway?
Please consider that there is not enough money in the decommission fund to functionality cleanup the site as it is, even if the license was not renewed. It is not clear that there would be enough money to cover the increased waste and invisible pollution of the continued operation of the plant beyond the current term. It does not seem reasonable to me to hold us all hostage by the forced extension of the license in order to “cover the cost of the eventual cleanup”.
I recently had the pleasure of dining with a worker at the plant, we had a pleasant conversation about all kinds of ways to make energy and things that could go wrong, at the end of my meal he said quite honestly “Don’t worry I do my best to protect you”. I thanked him as I left. The sad thing here is that I wish his best was not what was needed. I wish that I did not need protection from a plant 20 miles away from where I live. I wish that his best was put to good use with something that could not possibly harm all life in this area, rendering the entire North East unusable in the event of a major accident or attack. I do not want to rely on another single human or far away company to protect me.
I want a sane energy future, without pollution, without fallout, without on site storage.
-Daniel Hoviss of Putney Vermont
802 387 4141