burlingtonfreepress.com

Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen


9.07.2007

 

Safety in numbers

It appears now that the fallout, no pun intended, from the Vermont Yankee problems of the last few weeks has now reached Washington D.C.

In the hours before Rep. Peter Welch announced he was introducing legislation giving governors in states with aging nuke plants in their midst the power to instigate independent safety assessments, he was able to find four co-sponsors for the bill -- two each from New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

It's a fact that wouldn't have happened if the VY problems hadn't happened. When Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the identical bill six months earlier, he couldn't get a single co-sponsor, according to Ray Shadis of the nuke watchdog group New England Coalition. Sanders downplayed the lack of sponsors for his bill, saying co-sponsors aren't so critical to have when you need to get things done in the Senate. Not sure Sen. Patrick Leahy would agree, but maybe it's all perception.

It remains to be seen if the bills Welch and Sanders are boosting will ever become law.
These assessments are an anathema to the NRC and the nuke industry, as you could see in the comments from the NRC and Entergy spokesmen in today's story. Both said the assessments aren't necessary because the NRC's scrutiny of nuke plants encompasses the same work. Critics, of course, will argue that if that's true, then how come that VY cooling towerwork collapsed so unexpectedly.

Another reason the industry will fight the Welch/Sanders legislation is because of what happened at Maine Yankee a decade ago. MY was the subject of the only independent safety assessment ever conducted, and while it wasn't the sole reason why the joint subsequently was shut down, the problems it uncovered were nails in MY's coffin.

Sanders, by the way, is the godfather to the Welch's initiative. He said on the phone that he brought up the idea of Welch introducting a companion bill in the House during a conversation with Welch over the Labor Day weekend. Voila. Three days later we have a bill in the House with four co-sponsors.

Quick work by Welch. And smart politics by Sanders.

-- Sam Hemingway

Comments:
Sure sounds like another Vermont-delegation stroke of genius. Sanders, Welch, and four loonies from Maine and N.H.! Boy, if only those other 99 Senators and 431 Reps were as smart as OUR guys!
 
What's the problem with an independent safety assessment?

Isn't that just common sense?
 
This is a homeland security issue.

We need an independent assessment to know for certain that our nuclear plants are safe and secure.

Yes, it is just common sense.
 
The people in Windham County who want VY to shut down are the same crowd that wants to impeach Bush and Cheney. Some of them might even earn enough from their trust funds that they don't have to worry about coming up with the money to pay the higher electric bills that would result from the shutdown of VY.
 
It isn't about shutting VY down, it's about doing an independent safety assessment.

What's wrong with that?
 
IF VY is safe, they have no reason to oppose an independent assessment.
 
There's nothing wrong with an independent safety assessment. But everyone who wants an independent safety assessment has already made up their mind that they want VY shut down. When the independent safety assessment shows that VY is safe, they will argue that the assessment wasn't "independent" enough. In other words, they will not be happy til they get an assessment that comes out the way they want it.
 
If you're in favor of VY, you should WANT an independent assessment.

You say it's safe, this will be the proof that it really is.
 
I have no problem with an independent safety assessment (on top of the internal and NRC and other assessments that are regularly done). But if it comes out clean, you will reject it.
 
you don't speak for my views. you have no idea how I'll react to anything.

If you have no problem with an independent safety assessment, there is no conflict.

We should all want this. There is no down side.
 
Notice you didn't say I was wrong. I was right: if an independent assessment comes out clean, you will reject it. You don't really want an independent assissment. You want an assessment that validates your already-made-up mind that VY should be shut down.
 
Again, you can't speak for me or my views.

You are wrong. I want an independent assessment. If we get one, I will accept it. (I wonder, if it does not come out clean, will you accept it?)


My mind isn't made up about VY.

But when they try to squash independent assessments, I start to wonder why.
 
Sure, I will accept the recommendations of an independent assessment. Let's find a panel that doesn't consist of nuclear energy critics and people who are committed to shutting it down.

I'm reminded of what happened after the report of the 9/11 panel. The people who were already committed to the position that 9/11 was all a big conspiracy attacked the commission report as a coverup.

You can't win. People ask for an independent commission. But then when it doesn't say what they want to hear, they reject the results.
 
Can you tell me what I want for breakfast?

You seem to be an expert on what I think.
 
I will accept an independent commission report that says Yankee's unsafe. Will you accept a report that says it's perfectly safe? Or, will you then quibble with the makeup of the commission, etc., etc.
 
Dude, I've said it three times ... I want an independent assessment. If we get one, I will accept it.

Unfortunately, VY seems to have something to hide ... and they are working to squash the independent assessment.
 
Just as you would oppose having to take the SATs a second or third time, or an independent review of your tax returns, or an independent appraisal of the value of your house for tax purposes -- after the town already did one. Why would you agree to yet another test, review, or appraisal? You wouldn't. You'd scream bloody murder. It's human nature. Don't blame somebody else for not wanting to have another test when they've already taken one and were told they "passed."
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010