BRATTLEBORO — I think it is important for readers to put “Fact Check for Bernie” [Editorial, April 18] in context.
By and large, this editorial is purely based on semantics and quite frankly, the writer appears to be desperately searching for flaws in the Senator's speech given on April 14 in Brattleboro.
Let me first say that as one of the organizers of the rally, I was proud to be Bernie Sanders' constituent that day. He spoke not just for me, but our state, our neighbors in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, for citizens across the country, and for our environment, which has no voice.
While we have come to rely on Bernie's impassioned, truth-to-power speeches, let us remember that (sadly) this is not the norm in U.S. Politics.
Let us look at the editorial critique point by point.
First, the issue of SAFESTOR vs. DECON and jobs. There are, in fact, tasks that can be done immediately when a reactor is shuttered. Local groups have for the most part advocated for a “slow and thorough” site cleanup, leaving the most radioactive components to sit for a period of time before decommissioning.
It is important to note that nuclear facility decommissioning and clean-up is an extremely complicated and time-consuming process. Since no planning has gone into the clean-up of Vermont Yankee by Entergy, community groups and citizens will need to play a role in framing how clean-up should move forward (as was the case at Maine Yankee in Maine).
Second, while it is true that operating and decommissioning a nuclear facility are two different skill sets and some tasks will need to be contracted, the idea (shared by Senator Sanders, citizen groups, citizens, and other legislators) is that Entergy should have been spending the last several years retraining current employees to transition into decommissioning jobs.
Again, the use of reactor employees to take on the task of decommissioning is what actually happened at Maine Yankee. There should be a just transition plan for current VY employees. This should be the case regardless of when it closes.
For these first two points, I would encourage the writer and readers to connect with groups such as New England Coalition and Citizens Awareness Network, both of whom have experience with the issues surrounding decommissioning.
Thirdly, the writer completely took the idea of a “contract” with Vermonters out of context.
What Senator Sanders, citizens, and other legislators have argued for years is that we were told that this facility would operate for 40 years (1972-2012), and then retire. Done. There was not an overwhelming majority in favor of the facility's original construction 40 years ago.
Entergy changed those plans despite intense local opposition to continued operation and a slight majority of opposition statewide. Vermont passed a law that, in my opinion, very clearly laid out that a reactor cannot operate in the state without legislative approval in addition to a new Certificate of Public Good.
This was originally agreed upon by Entergy in the years 2006 to 2010, until the company realized it made a poor political calculation. It has since sued the state.
Finally, the comment “Wall Street and the insurance companies are smart” is actually spot on. What proof does the writer have otherwise? Instead of investing in a very public, highly risky proposition to invest in and insure the nuclear industry, these corporate criminals found exceptionally complicated, enormously profitable ventures to pursue that were until 2008, by and large, completely unknown to the general public.
Moral? Absolutely not. Smart? As much as I personally would not like to assign a positive attribute to these criminals, I would say “very much so,” as they saw the writing on the wall long ago.
That is why in the U.S. as well as most other countries, the nuclear industry is not really operating without a very expensive, rusty set of training wheels. The only reason we still have nuclear power is because governments stepped in decades ago to deal with the cost of construction, waste research, and insurance.
I hope these clarify some of the questions/concerns the writer had with the senator's speech.
In the national context, we are fortunate enough to have a representative like Senator Sanders carry our voices and vision as dutifully as he does.
This should be the rule rather than the exception and it is in within this context that we should think carefully how we critique our elected officials.