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!
John Greenberg says “and the risks — and catastrophic accident is only one of them — vastly outweigh them.”Great achievements do not come safely. You want to end global warming, stop atmospheric CO2 from rising, resurrect a failing economy, provide the marvels of modern medicine…. those are lofty goals and they certainly will not be recognized one wind tower at a time…A fitting quote of how we got here and while we can not progress…”This nation was built by men who took risks – pioneers who were not afraid of the wilderness, business men who were not afraid of failure, scientists who were not afraid of the truth, thinkers who were not afraid of progress, dreamers who were not afraid of action. ~Brooks Atkinson”
“There was nothing to discuss in what you said besides a gratuitous ad hominem attack.”Really? Everything I said – most of which were straight facts – was just so wrong that it doesn’t bear discussing? Well, isn’t that convenient. I was quite specific in explaining why the risks facing VY relative to what happened in Japan were apples and oranges. That doesn’t exactly constitute a “gratuitous ad hominem attack.”And seriously, I’m fascinated to know – if I gave you my full name, what would you do with that information, exactly? How would it change anything?
“Jimmy” 1)No I don’t want any of the above, nor did anything I said suggest that I did. I want you to have the guts to show your identity in public — just like I do, rather than bullying from behind a mask. 2) There was nothing to discuss in what you said besides a gratuitous ad hominem attack. 3) Finally, yes, I think Gundersen WOULD dispute that assertion, but that’s not for me to say.JCarter has put his finger on the nub of the disagreement, when he writes: “the risks are low, the benefits high.” I believe just the reverse is true: the benefits are virtually non-existent and the risks — and catastrophic accident is only one of them — vastly outweigh them.
John, do you want my address, phone number and ssn as well? What are you going to do, come to my house and piss on my flowers? Give me a break. If you want to address something I said then go ahead, otherwise cram it.BTW, do you really think Gundersen would dispute the assertion that he’s biased?
I don’t think it equates to a Shay Totten level of Bolshevism (that’s sarcasm) to pause at this juncture and ask Vermont Yankee what their worst case scenarios look like and compare them to what current scientists think the potential worst case are?What is the earthquake threat? What is the flood ?Mudlside? Forest fire? Zombies?
Greenberg, #2.) Yes the risks are low, the benefits high.
Three comments:1) To “Jimmy.” Before you make ad bominem attacks against ANYONE — in this case Arnie Gundersen — have the decency to give your full, real name. This is just cowardly. Better still, present real counter arguments, and take a pass on attacking individuals.2) To JCarter, who asks “Does a natural disaster caused a nuclear disaster every week? Or just once?” How many times do you need it to happen? I’m pretty sure the folks in Japan now think once is enough.If your point is that the probability of events of this magnitude is low, it’s well taken: they’re not common. The question for policy makers — in this case, happily, that’s US — is whether the benefits from VY outweigh the costs of taking that chance, however improbable.3) Finally, we should all pause to give enormous thanks to the heroic workers at Fukushima, who’ve put their lives on the line to try to keep this disaster from getting even worse than it already is. Like the NY firefighters at the Twin Towers, there aren’t a lot of us who would run INTO these kinds of disasters.
We had three meltdowns last week, four if you count the burning waste storage pond. Nobody foresaw that, and that is my point.I am not anti-nucler power. In particular the design of the so-called pebble bed units strikes me as particularly attractive. None have been built largely because anti-nuke hysterics have, by their activism, virtually insured that the only reactors in operation are 1950’s designs. The Vernon reactor is about as technically sophisticated, comparatively speaking, as a circa 1970 automobile.History is full of technological disasters that the experts never saw coming, the Titannic, the Hindenburg, the Challenger. In hindsight they all seem obvious and we reassure ourselves by telling ourselves that we are much smarter now. There’s a pattern here.
Tim the odds a severe natural disaster hits a the nuclear plant in NY is 1 in 10,000. Does a natural disaster caused a nuclear disaster every week? Or just once?
“The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities) “To put it another way, the odds of winning the lottery are small (say one in four million), yet people win lotteries every week.This isn’t a polemic against Vermont Yankee, it’s more like a reminder that Murphy’s Law is more than just a cliche.