BRATTLEBORO — Dozens of Vermont Yankee employees and citizens came forward March 27 to go on the record in support of the nuclear power plant, its parent company's corporate citizenship, and the effect it has on the engine of Windham County's economy.
Although a number of the 59 people testifying to the Windham Regional Commission spoke against the renewal of Vermont Yankee's license beyond its 2012 expiration to 2032, a clear majority of those testifying - many employees of the nuclear power plant - came to support Vermont Yankee and its parent company, Entergy.
Windham Regional Commission Executive Director James Matteau pointed out that the public testimony would help the area planning agency draft an official response to the Vermont Public Service Board in response to the power plant's application.
“We have no vote or decisionmaking power,” Matteau emphasized.
Norm Rademacher, the plant's engineering director, testified that Vermont Yankee brings $1 billion into the Vermont economy, “a figure that does not include New Hampshire or Massachusetts.” The plant generated more than $7 million in taxes, he noted.
Phil Steckler III, representing the Brattleboro Development Credit Corporation, pointed out the number of jobs at the plant - 450 to 500 - and their relatively high rate of pay, in excess of $75,000 per year. The plant also hires 150 contractors, he said.
If offered the prospect of such a business moving to Vermont, “the town and the state would be doing everything it can to solicit that company,” Steckler said.
A number of citizens spoke on behalf of Entergy's corporate largesse of $370,000 per year to area nonprofits from the Northfield, Mass. ambulance to the United Way of Windham County.
“Nearly 20 percent of United Way's budget comes from employees of Entergy,” said Bob Soucy of Marlboro. “What are we going to do to replace those funds in this community?”
“I am a citizen of the world,” said Marcia Stechler of Brattleboro. “I see a growing global demand for energy resources and interconnected technologies.”
While Stechler said she would “applaud and encourage renewable, efficient, readily available, and affordable” energy alternatives, “for the interim and foreseeable future, nuclear is the greenest energy available.”
Vermont Yankee employee Vedrana Wren called Entergy “a progressive employer” and said that “every single employee is empowered and required to be honest and forthcoming with safety.”
Several of those speaking cited the low cost of electricity for consumers and businesses as a reason for their support of the relicensing, with Jeff Hecstrom of Newton Business calling Entergy “a good Vermont citizen that generates baseload electrical power.”
Vermont Yankee employee Joan Dreyfuss called the plant's output “safe, clean, reliable power that's absolutely vital to the New England grid.”
Dreyfuss called the current technology “a global and national renaissance of nuclear power,” emphasizing that Entergy employees “really do care about what they're doing,” as her colleagues nodded in affirmation. “I wouldn't work in the plant if it wasn't safe,” said Carol Ann Wheaton, a sentiment echoed by several of her colleagues through the meeting.
"From my perspective, what are alternatives?" asked Dan Yates, pointing out the "not in my backyard" attitudes that plague alternative energy sources like wind power. "The reality is, it's also an issue of economics," he said.
Steven Moriarty of Greenfield, Mass., pointed out that young people are seeking greener forms of energy, and he observed that the younger generations seem more receptive to nuclear power.
“I took my son to one of these meetings,” Moriarty said. “He said, 'Dad, there aren't many young people speaking.' I looked around and realized I've been looking at these same faces for 10, 20, 30 years.”
In opposition
“When you consider recommissioning for 20 more years, I hope you consider children now and to come,” Jane Newton of Londonderry testified, calling the nuclear industry “one of the most heavily subsidized businesses.”
Peter Newton of Windham said there is “not really a very good reason, other than we need [electricity], and that's not good enough.”
John Chattis testified to a “dangerousness of a magnitude beyond comprehension” and the “visciousness of nuclear toxicity” that “warps God's plan”
“I don't feel the state Department of Public Service has been truly objective in their approach to this matter,” said Clay Turnbull of Townshend.
Gary Sax spoke to a number of issues, including the safety concerns.
“With all the monitoring equipment, how the hell did that cooling tower fall down last year?” he asked.
Claire Chang pointed out that Entergy has eliminated approximately 30 jobs in the past five years and mentioned that decommissioning Connecticut Yankee in Haddam Neck, Conn., a process begun in 1998, cost $1.3 billion.
With several citizens testifying that the account for decommissioning Vermont Yankee is not adequately funded, Chang asked, “Are we going to pay for it?”
“I don't know to date that a health study has ever been done,” said Sally Shaw, who said she finds it “unconscionable” to extend the Vermont Yankee license 20 years beyond the facility's engineered lifespan.
Alicia Moyer of West Townshend pointed out the "paradoxes inherent in [Entergy's] gifts."
Noting that she worked with a nonprofit that had just received a donation of pajamas and books, and "without being snide or looking a gift horse in the mouth," Moyer wondered if the money could have been better spent to create a better sense of security than pajamas could provide.
Next steps
At press time, the Vermont DPS were set to hold public hearings in Rutland and Brattleboro April 1 and 2.
The Windham Regional Commission's energy committee will meet April 3 to review a draft letter to the state Public Service Board.
Meanwhile, in a separate issue, Entergy is looking to transfer ownership of Vermont Yankee to a new legal subsidiary, SpinCo. The Public Service Board will hold a public hearing in Vernon on Tuesday, April 8.