As people remain tuned into the evolving story of a possible post-tsunami meltdown at multiple nuclear power plants in Japan, some are turning their attention toward Vermont’s lone nuclear power plant.
It was just last week that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave Vermont Yankee a new, 20-year license to operate.VY’s boiling-water reactor design is identical to those in Japan.
Could Vermont Yankee withstand an 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami?
Well, it’s unlikely either event would occur in Vermont. The fault line that runs underneath Vermont Yankee isn’t nearly as active. The last quake that shook Vermont Yankee was last June. It measured 5.0 on the Richter Scale. VY is designed to survive a 6.5 quake, according to plant officials.
A tsnunami is also unlikely — but a major flood or hurricane isn’t. In 1938 a major hurricane struck New England. It was strong enough to topple power lines and block roads in and around Brattleboro, which is just a few miles from the Vernon reactor.
The event at Fukushima Daiichi is called a station blackout (SBO), which means no power onsite or coming from offsite. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the ability of reactors in the United States to sustain an SBO varies. Most reactors can last only four hours. Vermont Yankee, however, is designed to last eight hours on its batteries. So were the reactors at Fukushami Daiichi.
The national radio and TV program “Democracy Now” today featured interviews with Gov. Peter Shumlin and nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen, among others, who talked about the impact that the possible meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors might have on the U.S. attitude toward nuclear power.
Shumlin has been a consistent critic of Vermont Yankee and a skeptic of fellow Democrat, Pres. Barack Obama’s support for construction of new nuclear power plants as part of a so-called “Nuclear Renaissance.”
Shumlin told “Democracy Now” that, despite last week’s ruling by the NRC that Vermont Yankee deserves to run for another 20 years, the state’s decision last year to shut down the plant as scheduled in 2012 would stand. Oddly enough, the reactor in Japan were built around the same time as Vermont Yankee. In fact, one of the failing reactors was slated to go offline later this month — for good.
Vermont’s governor said his heart goes out to all the Japanese people who are suffering from the effects of these multiple disasters. But, when it comes to pushing for more nuclear power in the United States, Shumlin thinks the unfolding events in Japan present a lesson in caution.
“I think it asks all of us to reexamine our policy of irrational exuberance when it comes to extending the lives of aging nuclear plants that were designed to shut down after 40 years,” said Shumlin.
Asked if he opposes Pres. Obama’s effort to build new nuclear power plants, Shumlin said he spoke to the president about the topic just a few weeks ago during a meeting with the nation’s governors.
“I said, mister president if you want to convince us that new nuclear has a future in America you have to help us deal with old nuclear in a rational way,” said Shumlin, noting there is no federal repository for high-level nuclear waste as had been promised decades ago.
The long-term, onsite storage of nuclear waste is also raising concern in Japan. Damage to reactor spent fuel pools, and onsite dry cask storage, could trigger additional radioactive releases.
For now, the focus remains on how much radiation will be released into the environment and its impact on Japan and the world. Gundersen said if the Japanese reactors trigger multiple meltdowns, the resulting event would be like “Chernobyl on steroids.”
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission continues to try to allay fears that a similar event could happen in the United States at one of the country’s 104 nuclear reactors.
Gundersen said people should take the NRC’s lack of concern with a grain of salt. That’s because 23 of those 104 reactors have the same containment system as the ones in Japan — they are Mark 1 design built by General Electric.
According to a report posted on CorpWatch, documents obtained by Public Citizen under the Freedom of Information Act found that GE-designed nuclear reactors around the world “have a design flaw that make it virtually certain (90 percent) that in the event of a meltdown, radiation would be released directly into the environment and into surrounding communities, leaving the public without any protection. The NRC acknowledges that the reactor containment structure in GE-built nuclear power plants does not work, but they licensed the reactors anyway.”
“If you still trust the NRC you’re the kind of person who’s giving Bernie Madoff money while he’s in prison,” quipped Gundersen.
Entergy, meanwhile, downplayed the news of the Japanese catastrophe — noting that the nuclear power industry could learn some important lessons on improving safety as a result.
In a statement to the media, Entergy said it was “closely monitoring the situation in coordination with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and industry peers.” The company, working through NEI, has offered support and assistance to the Japanese nuclear industry.
Entergy’s nuclear plants were designed and built to withstand the effects of natural disasters, including earthquakes and catastrophic flooding, the company said in a statement. “The NRC requires that safety-significant structures, systems and components be designed to take into account the most severe natural phenomena historically reported for each site and surrounding area.”
“”There will be lessons learned from this tragic event. Incorporating those lessons into operating experience is a hallmark of the global nuclear industry. It is worth noting that the natural environment surrounding the nuclear plants in Japan is very different from the environment surrounding Entergy’s nuclear plants,” said Entergy in a release. “The company understands and appreciates that these forces, natural and man-made, require constant vigilance and preparation for the unexpected.”
This article appears in Mar 16-22, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Oddly enough the NRC actually calculates the odds that a nuclear power plant is hit by a severe enough natural disaster to cause severe damage. VY ranks #70 of 104 (#70. Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vt.: 1 in 123,457 chance each year.) I think that 1 in 123,457 pretty much makes that word likely pointless.
“A tsnunami is also unlikely — but a major flood or hurricane isn’t. In 1938 a major hurricane struck New England. “So an event that happens every 100+ years is now considered a likely event? Good Grief…. why is the chicken little attitude so prevalent these days? Heck, Ice Ages happen every so often too, start stocking up on heating fuel and food everyone!!! Make sure to build that underground bunker, although in Vermont it’s unlikely you could get building permits for it, but heck there is an impending crisis somewhere.
L., I understand that Totten made it sound like Vermont Yankee could melt down if someone crashed their car into a utility pole, because their only backup (that he mentions) is “batteries.” He wants VY to be shut down. It’s not rocket science. The reality is that VY has backup diesel generators that kick in the second primary power goes down, and that primary power is supplied from a dedicated line from the Vernon power station. “Toppled power lines” – as in a utility pole fell over – and “blocked roads” – as in a tree fell across the road – are irrelevant in this discussion.In Japan, the primary power went down, the diesel generators were destroyed, the fuel that would be used if they could get replacement generators in was washed away, and the infrastructure to get new generators in was taken out. You know how? By a 30 FOOT WALL OF WATER. That’s what Gundersen and Shumlin want you to believe can happen here.
Way to turn this tragedy into a political issue Shay. Thanks.
“The national radio and TV program “Democracy Now” today featured interviews with Gov. Peter Shumlin and nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen, among others, who talked about the impact that the possible meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors might have on the U.S. attitude toward nuclear power.”Did “Predictably Paranoid Now” interview any non-nuclear-haters?
One more thing…Dear Seven Days editors,Can you please write about how we can help Japan…the list of reliable organizations to donate (Red Cross website, Red Cross Text 2 Help, etc…) on your next issue? or next several issues if possible…Also, American Airlines is giving bonus miles for those who donated through Red Cross.I know VT people are very caring, they just need information available in front of their eyes to make action.Thank you in advance.
Jimmy, I’m moderate on this issue, but I think Gundersen has a point. Of course we’re not going to experience a tsunami, and it’s highly unlikely that we’d ever experience an earthquake of any significant magnitude. That’s not the issue. The question is, could we experience a natural disaster capable of knocking out power for more than a few days, and also causing enough infrastructure impacts to prevent its immediate restoration? (Because that’s what’s causing the problems in Japan. The earthquake didn’t really affect the plants–it was the tsunamis that cut out power and caused the cooling issues.) And the answer is, sure. Shay mentioned the hurricane of 1938; there have been others that affected Vermont. And Vermont regularly experiences significant power losses from ice storms and heavy snow. We do need to consider what possible major natural disasters could cause power loss issues at Vermont Yankee. Tim’s Black Swan reference is apropos–Japan IS having major issues, ergo we obviously need to rethink plant designs, tolerances, and emergency plans.IMO, VT Yankee should be shut down anyway. It’s falling apart at the seams. I’m definitely open to a new plant in its place, as I’ve read that designs are much more failsafe these days and we need *some* kind of way to generate baseload power. But we’ll still need to think about these issues.
Yes, it is very crucial to discuss U.S. nuclear power plant issues. However, please do not forget there are tons of people who need help in Japan RIGHT NOW. We are learning a lot from them, and there is something we can do for them. Each one of us can help even though we are 6000 miles away. We have food, clean water, and warm bed. They do not. Please make donations through reliable organizations. Thank you so much.Text REDCROSS to 90999 to Give $10Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_nolnav_text2help
Thank God the unbiased Arnie Gundersen has chimed in.”But, when it comes to pushing for more nuclear power in the United States, Shumlin thinks the unfolding events in Japan present a lesson in caution.”…because we’re going to get a bigger earthquake than we’ve ever had here, and another unrelated (unless you think earthquakes cause hurricanes) simultaneous natural disaster that knocks out all power to the point where it can’t be restored?This guy is lucky that he gets zero pushback from the local media when he says idiotic things like this.
From Wikipedia: Black SwansThe Black Swan Theory or Theory of Black Swan Events is a metaphor that encapsulates the concept that The event is a surprise (to the observer) and has a major impact. After the fact, the event is rationalized by hindsight.The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain:The disproportionate role of high-impact, hard to predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance and technology The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities) The psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs Unlike the earlier philosophical “black swan problem”, the “Black Swan Theory” (capitalized) refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory