On the Roof? Video about Vermont Yankee retirement

WCAX interviewed Howard Shaffer and Arnie Gundersen about Vermont Yankee's retirement.  Gundersen apparently does not know where the fuel pool is: he says that the fuel is stored "on the roof."  Really?  Last I looked, it was under the roof.

Shaffer is reasonable as usual.

Just a quick post to share this. I hope the video comes through.  If not, please follow the link.

http://www.wcax.com/story/27886195/vermont-yankees-long-road-to-retirement

  WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

Emotion and Vermont Yankee: Rod Adams Guest Post

Rod Adams

Late last month, I wrote about my sorrow at Vermont Yankee closing in a post We are not Spock: Emotion and Nuclear Power, published at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  In this post, I wrote that nuclear opponents appealed to emotions: "I am so afraid!"

In contrast, in my support of nuclear energy, I think I was channeling Spock: "Support of nuclear energy is logical."  I should not have been merely "Spock." I wrote about my need to be fully human, to be emotional, about nuclear energy.  I acknowledged my deep sorrow about Vermont Yankee closing.

This post at ANS gathered a wonderful comment stream.  I will be using some of these comments as "guest posts" over the next few weeks. These comments truly expand and enhance the original post, and the ideas in the comments should not be buried in the comment list.

Here's the first of those guest posts: this one by Rod Adams. Adams hosts a widely-read nuclear blog along with podcasts.  For years, he has been a very effective advocate for nuclear power.  In his comment at the ANS blog, Adams looked into the long-term roots of sorrow about Vermont Yankee, including the many years of harassment of Vermont Yankee by the state of Vermont.

At his own blog, Atomic Insights, Adams wrote a post in response to my post: Nuclear Professionals can, and should get emotional.  Adams blog is excellent and widely read: this particular post has around 70 comments!  In the post, Adams talks about his own deeply-held feelings about nuclear energy, and how we need to give ourselves permission to reveal our emotions. We need to reveal both our passion for nuclear power, and our sorrow when a plant closes.

Without further ado or further referrals to Rod's blog, I present the comments that Rod Adams made about sorrow and Vermont Yankee. He made these comments on my "not-Spock" post at ANS Nuclear Cafe.

------------
Meredith:

You are not alone in your sorrow. It is not just the loss of a single mature nuclear power plant, but the implications for our incredibly rich democracy. We inherited an amazing place from our forebears, but we are on a risky course of self-destruction.

You mentioned that Entergy made it’s decision based on “economics”, but the financial attributes that drove that decision are almost entirely fabricated. Sure, VY cost a lot to operate. Who can forget the description of the massive effort to find a leak of nearly pure water because it had a few milligrams of tritium in it, the armies of lawyers who were billing Entergy for months during a sustained effort to defend the company’s private property interests in a facility that most certainly was doing the public a lot of good, and the requirement for Entergy to pay all of the costs of its professional opponents in the form of the Public Oversight Panel chaired by Peter Bradford and employing Arnie Gundersen as its engineering advisor?

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/july/arnie-gundersen-and-peter-bradford-vermont-yankee-public-oversight-panel

Sure, other power sources beside VY were selected for long term purchase contracts by the Canadian company that owns most of the monopoly electric utilities and a substantial portion of the Canadian gas that will be burned in the replacement power plants. If I am not mistaken, that is the same company with divisions that will be compensated for building the necessary transmission lines to carry the new power supplies.

http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2013/09/vermont_yankee_nuclear_shutdown_makes_ne.html

Shumlin and his co-conspirators are deeply involved in companies that supply industrial wind farms and have worked hard to ensure they are compensated for those monstrosities by fees placed on everyone else.

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/09/07/vt-man-with-shumlin-ties-at-center-of-controversy/

This is a sorrow-making situation that cannot be addressed with rational arguments. It is time for us to get emotional about the huge costs that are being imposed for no good reason other than to take from the poor and give to the rich. We need to resist the modern Sheriff of Nottingham (Shumlin) and his henchmen (Bradford, Cooper, Gundersen, etc.).

I think it’s time for a new blog – Yes Nuclear Energy.

Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

The Carnival, The Rise of FUD, and a Scandal

Carnival: The 158th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is well worth reading.  It contains a link to my Black Start diesel post.  Atomic Power Review blog hosted the Carnival, and Will Davis, the blogger at that site, made a great comment on the actions of the intervenors:

Atomic Power Review Note:  Regarding the Yes Vermont Yankee post linked and described above...  Just how many times in this post-Fukushima world would one EVER expect to find any group, anywhere, that could possibly justify campaigning AGAINST adding a back up diesel generator at a nuclear plant site?

In Vermont, sometimes it is possible to get so used to intervenor actions that we forget how absurd they can be.

The Golden Dome
AKA Vermont State House
AKA Golden Bubble

Shaffer Post on Gundersen Testimony: While I was out of town in North Carolina, Howard Shaffer posted about Arnie Gundersen's visit to the Vermont legislature at ANS Nuclear Cafe. 

Shaffer's post has the accurate title: Love Feast Under the Golden Dome.  Shaffer's title is accurate, but Gundersen's statements are not accurate.  Shaffer quotes and refutes his statements.  Gundersen is a very skillful purveyor of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).  A post well worth reading.

Shumlin Scandal:  I almost never post anything about Vermont politics unless it has something to do with energy.  I need to make an exception.  

Governor Peter Shumlin was involved in a questionable land deal, where he bought land from a very poor neighbor, and he paid approximately one-fourth of the listed value of the land. The neighbor was facing a tax sale, but would undoubtedly have received far more money from such a sale than he received from Shumlin.  However, he seemed to have been panicked at the thought of the tax sale, and closed with Shumlin the day before the sale was scheduled.

To many people in Vermont, Shumlin's actions seem unethical or perhaps even illegal.  As I say, this isn't about energy, so I usually wouldn't bother with this sort of thing.  But I suspect the national press is going to pick up on this, and I want to be sure my readers are informed.  I also want to avoid getting ten thousand emails asking me: "Meredith, did you see this?!" 

Two articles from Vermont Digger are linked below.  More articles are being posted daily, all over Vermont.

Shumlin Land Deal Draws More Questions by Andrew Stein.

Governor Responds to Reporters on Land Deal...One at a Time by Andrew Stein.

Used Fuel: Shaffer Statement at the Vermont Legislature

As I noted in my post Cheerful Wednesday, Howard Shaffer was invited to speak to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Thursday, April 25.  Robert Alvarez and Arnie Gundersen also spoke to the same committee.  (My "Cheerful Wednesday" post has many links about the Alvarez talk.) This post mostly consists of Howard's prepared remarks. But I will start with the quote from Vermont Public Radio that ended their description of Gundersen's talk.

Vermont Public Radio

Howard Shaffer

On Friday, John Dillon of Vermont Public Radio  broadcasted a report: Engineer Says State Could Face Expensive Clean-up If Vermont Yankee Closes.  The report quotes both Gundersen and Shaffer. I link to the transcript, above.

From the VPR report:

A pro-Yankee nuclear engineer said lawmakers should not be overly worried that the state will be left footing the bill if Entergy closes the plant.

Howard Shaffer is from Enfield, N.H. and worked for years in the nuclear industry. He said the federal government would not allow Entergy to walk away.

“The issue of will there be enough money is a serious one, but I also think it will be found that the federal government laws override state laws that allow somebody to go bankrupt and run away from their responsibility,” he said. “That’s Congress’ intent. And they’re going to find the original owners and make them pay.”

Shaffer's Statement

VERMONT  LEGISLATURE

House Natural Resources and Energy Committee

Storage of Used (Spent) Reactor Fuel at the 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Howard Shaffer   PE (nuclear)   VT, NH, MA 

Thank you Chairman Klein and Committee Members for allowing me to come before you today.  My purpose is to provide what I can from my experience on this important matter.  My view is positive.

Virtually my entire career has been in nuclear power. My resume is attached.

Background

Missing from the nuclear debate has been clarity about the overall design philosophy of US nuclear generating facilities.  From the beginning, every aspect of the program -- hardware, training, management and regulation-has been designed, not on the belief that accidents MIGHT happen, but on the certainty that accidents WILL happen. Experience with human performance proves that there will be mistakes.  If the benefits were to be enjoyed, then all possible means to first, prevent accidents, and second to deal with the consequences of accidents had to be developed and put in place.

A key part of the design process is asking “What if..?”  scenarios for all imaginable events that could happen.  The design and licensing process continues and asks “How could this happen” and “How long does this take to happen?” and “What are the odds that it will happen?”  Fast-breaking events require controls that respond instantly and automatically, while longer-term events include actions by trained nuclear operators.  For example, the Design Basis pipe break initiates a series of automatic programmed shutdown responses for the first ten minutes.  At that point, the nuclear operations team takes over the process.  The operators are the first responders.  At Fukushima, the operators worked diligently until the accident was under control.  It took more than a day before there was any release, and the order to evacuate residents in the vicinity came hours before that.

Used (spent) fuel storage

One-third of the nuclear fuel in the Vermont Yankee reactor is replaced every 18 months. The fuel that is removed from the reactor and stored on-site continues to be a valuable resource because only about 10% of the energy contained in the fuel has been used and 90% of that energy can be reclaimed through recycling and used to create more electricity.

The solid ceramic fuel pellets in the fuel bundles that have been removed from the reactor as spent fuel

and stored in dry casks, are air cooled by natural circulation through the cask. The pellets have been stored in water for more than five years and are generating very little heat.   With the shielding in the 100-ton storage casks, the used fuel is very secure.  Even if a cask was broken open and the pellets scattered on the ground, they would just lie there, continuing to be air cooled.  Radiation dose to the offsite public would be insignificant.

Used fuel in the pool is also very secure.  The reactor building and radioactive waste storage facilities are designed for the maximum Design Basis earthquake and 360 mph winds from a tornado with 300 mph winds advancing at 60 mph. The fuel pool and the entire cooling system are in those buildings.  The system is powered by two redundant emergency backup diesel generators when normal power is lost.  There also are backup water supplies to the spent fuel storage pool.  Post 9-11 and based on hypothetical spent pool fire studies, the fuel is stored in the pool in a checker-board pattern, with the fuel most recently removed from the reactor, which generates the most heat,  surrounded by older fuel(which has been cooling in the pool for up to 35 years) that will absorb heat.

There was an event this February at Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts, a plant like Vermont Yankee. This event illustrates the design margin.  During storm Nemo all offsite power was lost for two days.  The reactor scrammed and emergency backup diesels started automatically, as designed.  The reactor was brought to cold shutdown by the Pilgrim reactor operations team in 10 hours, and fuel pool cooling, which can be suspended for a long time due to the large volume of water in the pool, was  restored after 21 hours!

Understanding the Nuclear Debate

I’ve struggled to understand how the debate over nuclear power got to be so politically polarized.  Starting with the famous book “Soft Energy Paths”--the author wants to do away with nuclear weapons (don’t we all?) and he concludes we must do away with all nuclear power generation--a source of 20 per cent of the US electricity supply--in order to do this.  This means finding and developing economically-viable technologies to replace the 24/7 base-load power generated by nuclear plants without massive increases in the use of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, it also has led in some quarters to doing as much as possible to discredit nuclear power.  Some supporters of nuclear power call this spreading FUD – Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

Using examples that increase fear of radiation is a common tactic.  For example the warning that an element has a “half-life of millions of years” implies that it will be harmful or dangerous that long.  The opposite is true.  The longer the half-life, the more slowly the radiation is given off and the lower the dose each year.

Implying that radiation comes only from the generation of electricity with nuclear power,  and nuclear weapons is also false.  Radiation is natural.  The Uranium in the granite in this statehouse building was radioactive millions of years ago, and will be radioactive in millions more.  This is a natural part of our environment, and we all get low doses of radiation continually.

The sun’s light, heat and other radiation comes from nuclear reactions.  We could even say  “Solar Power is Nuclear Power.”

Here is an example of a peaceful use of radioactive material.  (Hold up EXIT sign)

Thank you.

Tritium-containing Exit Sign

Shaffer to Testify: Cheerful Wednesday

Anti-Nuclear and Nuclear on the Committee Schedule

Last Thursday, anti-nuclear activist Robert Alvarez spoke to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee at the Vermont State House.  This Thursday (tomorrow), Arnie Gundersen will speak to them.

However, Howard Shaffer will also be speaking to the Committee tomorrow!  That's the cheerful news.

Well, it isn't perfect news, of course.  Alvarez spoke for an hour, and Gundersen is also scheduled for an hour or more. That's two hours.  Shaffer will have slightly more than an hour, according to the schedule. Still, Shaffer will be able to share some facts about spent fuel. His facts will counter the Alvarez scare stories.

Howard Shaffer

As of yesterday, it appeared that only Alvarez and Gundersen would be testifying to the legislative committee.  At that point, I was very annoyed, and I sent a letter to the editors of the local papers.

Today, I am very happy that Howard will testify.  However, everything in my letter remains true.

My Letter to the Editor: Why Alvarez? 


On April 18, Robert Alvarez spoke to the Vermont House Natural Resources and Energy Committee about spent fuel storage at Vermont Yankee.  I attended a large portion of that meeting and I also collected his handout.  The legislature is considering a tax on spent fuel.

Committee with Alvarez testifying

At the meeting, Alvarez spoke at length about the dangers of spent fuel. He advised that, for safety, much of the spent fuel should be taken out of the fuel pool and placed in dry casks.  He also spoke about taxing the fuel, and about decommissioning.

In other words, he gave the standard anti-nuclear talk.  Upon questioning, Alvarez admitted that the organization he works for is opposed to nuclear energy, and further admitted that he has no technical degree, though he has been a politically-appointed “policy advisor” in the Department of Energy.

My first reaction was to wonder why the Vermont legislature had invited Alvarez to testify.  My second reaction was to try to figure out what he was trying to say. Why did he talk about safety?  Has safety got something to do with taxation? The NRC regulates safety at nuclear plants. Hopefully, Vermont does not plan to spend more money trying to regulate nuclear safety and then losing court cases.  If the legislature was trying to figure out how to tax Vermont Yankee, it seems they need a tax expert, not someone who would tell them scary things about radiation in the spent fuel pool.

Why was our committee listening to these scare stories, with no engineer to testify in rebuttal?  Anti-nuclear activists claim the spent fuel pools burned at Fukushima, but they didn’t. The new NRC commissioner, Allison MacFarlane, visited Fukushima in December and walked all around the unit 4 plant.  She could not have done this if there had been fires and criticalities in the fuel pool.

And what does any of this have to do with taxation?

I would like our legislature to be more than a bully pulpit that gives anti-nuclear activists an opportunity to get press coverage.

Background about the Alvarez Appearance

My post about his appearance: Shaffer Knows about Spent Fuel, Alvarez Talks About It

Alvarez's statement: (It's the last pdf in the list) YesVY downloads

NEI blog post about his appearance: Vermont Yankee and the Ink on the Rubber Stamp

NEI  blog post follow-up, on his appearance: The Ink on the Rubber Stamp, Redux

Hurricanes and Nuclear Plants in the Main Stream Media

Hurricane Sandy

The Main Stream Press

In my post on Friday, Fear and Facts about Nuclear Plants and Hurricanes, I quoted nuclear opponents and nuclear supporters about the hurricane's probable effects on nuclear plants. I concluded that opponents and supporters were publishing only in friendly venues. Both sides were Preaching to the Choir.

The question then became: what did the main stream press think of this all? Basically, the main stream press wants a story: a new and dramatic narrative that will grab the readers' attention.  To put it bluntly, the nuclear power plants weren't a story.

You see, I would like to write a blog post that nuclear plants were treated better in the press because nuclear communicators were doing such a bang-up job.  But I have come to the conclusion it had very little to do with us.  There were thousands of stories as New York City was ravaged, people drowned in their houses in New Jersey, hospitals were evacuated. It quickly became clear that the nuclear plants weren't a story.

However, in one case, the industry fought back to opponent scaremongering. That's my kind of story.  So I'll start with that.

The Business Press: Fighting Back Against Scare-Mongering

A Bloomberg Business Week article was titled: Nuclear Power Industry Survives Sandy's Readiness Test.

 Kasia Klimasinska and Brian Wingfield quoted Gundersen as follows (note Gundersen's sequence of "ifs". I find Gundersen to be rather "iffy".) Gundersen said that if Oyster Creek was generating power, and the flood waters been just 6 inches deeper, it could have knocked out the pumps and triggered a disaster.

Now, what do you expect the plant owners would say about that?  I know what I expected: "Oyster Creek makes safe operation its highest priority (etc etc blah blah)."  To my surprise and happiness, Exelon actually said: “That is unequivocally false, Oyster Creek has numerous, redundant sources of reactor and spent-fuel pool cooling that would be fully operational regardless of the water levels mentioned,” Exelon’s Tillman said.

The Exelon comment was wonderful.  Every now and again, I get to root for my team, because they are actually playing!

More Business Press

A Forbes article was titled: Don't Politicize Sandy. Hurricane Normal Problem for Nukes.

Jim Conca wrote: Although those with real ideological issues against nuclear energy may have gotten bit excited, there is nothing so far to worry about with respect to the nuclear plants. There is no special issue or peculiar risk here for the nuclear plants in the path of Hurricane Sandy. 

He commented further: I truly respect Amy Goodman, but I wish she had asked a real nuclear expert to talk with her on Democracy Now! yesterday, not an anti-nuke activist like Arnie Gundersen who doesn’t really know the nuclear technical stuff, but only cares about politics. 

There's a website about small cap stocks. Small Cap Network. It's not  exactly the huge business press, but it has its audience. Their article was Nuclear Plants in the Path of Hurricane Sandy (And Anti-Nuclear Activists).

The article starts: Anti-nuclear activists and the media have apparently wasted no time to try and get people panicked about the 26 nuclear plants in the path of Hurricane Sandy.

The article ends: The Bottom Line. Don’t pay any attention to scary stories about nuclear plants being threatened by hurricanes like Hurricane Sandy. Instead, pay attention to what happens in the aftermath of the storm as Dominion Resources, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group and PPL Corporation and their nuclear plants face more scrutiny from regulators.... 

Main Stream Press: Following the Real Story

First, the New York Times story by Matt Wald:  Nuclear Plants Get Through the Storm with Little Trouble, which says pretty much what the title implies.

John Horgan at Scientific American asks Does Sandy Mean We Should Have Fewer Nuclear Plants or More?   He concludes that, due to global warming, we should definitely have more nuclear plants.

Meanwhile the mainstream press is following the real stories, not the scare stories.  For example, ProPublica asked Why Do Hospital Generators Keep Failing?  Three New York City area hospitals had to be evacuated when their generators (badly placed or badly maintained) failed.  Hundreds of critically ill patients had to be moved.

The real stories. Gas has been difficult-to-impossible to obtain, the port of New York was shut for an extended time, lines of ambulances were pulled into service to evacuate hospitals, people drowned in their homes in New Jersey and  Lower Manhattan.  These are the stories the newspapers are covering.

Nuclear opponents are probably gnashing their teeth that their carefully-contrived "what if" scenarios are being neglected. But the press is busy with the true, painful, sad stories of Hurricane Sandy.

The nuclear plants were okay, as pretty much everyone expected.

.

Fear and Facts about Nuclear Plants and Hurricanes

Hurricane Sandy from Wikipedia

The Fear 

As Hurricane Sandy approached landfall, there were plenty of things to fear.  In the media, some articles focused on the "26 nuclear plants in the path of the hurricane."

This number of plants came from Arnie Gundersen, as far as I can tell. On October 29, Russia Today (RT) headlined "Nuclear  plant alert as 26 facilities in Sandy's path."  RT quoted a Gundersen podcast as follows: “There’s 26 power plants in the East Coast that are in the area where sandy is like to hit, and hopefully as the storm track becomes better defined, the plants that are most subject to it — likely New Jersey and Pennsylvania — preventively shut down.."

Ever since Gundersen stated that a total of sixteen shad remain in the Connecticut River. I don't take Gundersen's numbers as accurate.  Whatever the number of plants, however, is it  dangerous that nuclear plants are in the path of a storm? Well, no.  But it is worth reporting about.

I am aware that nuclear plants have weathered innumerable hurricanes and typhoons. But still,  I don't blame the popular press for looking at "26 plants in the path of the Frankenstorm" as an item of news interest.  After all, Fukushima was caused by a once-in-a-thousand-years tsunami, and now the East Coast was being hit with a Frankenstorm, a perfect blend of hurricane and Nor'easter. Therefore, it was reasonable to report about the nuclear plants and their preparations for the hurricane.  For example, WAMC radio interviewed Vermont Yankee and NRC on storm preparation.

The Fear-Mongers

However, reporting on nuclear plants and their preparations is fairly dull stuff when you can get great soundbytes of impending doom. Here are some of Arnie Gundersen's comments, made on his own podcast, on Russia Today  (RT) and on Democracy Now.

 Gundersen at RT: “You’ll hear in the next two days, ‘we’ve shut down the plant,’” he says, “but what that means is they stopped the chain reaction. But what Fukushima taught us was that that doesn’t stop the decay heat...."As the plant operator, as the people running the plant, it’s a little bit of a nervous time to realize that you’re on your last fall-back,” he warns. 

Gundersen at Democracy Now, on October 29.  In this interview, Gundersen concentrated on the Oyster Creek plant, which was in the direct path of the hurricane. Oyster Creek temporarily declared an NRC-required "alert" because of high water at its intake structure.  The alert has long since been lifted.

Meanwhile, here's Gundersen about the plant: Oyster Creek is the same design, but even older than Fukushima Daiichi unit 1....there’s no backup power for the spent fuel pools. So, if Oyster Creek were to lose its offsite power — and, frankly, that’s really likely — there would be no way cool that nuclear fuel that’s in the fuel pool until they get the power reestablished. ... The most important lesson we can take out of the Fukushima Daiichi and climate change, and especially with Hurricane Sandy, is that we can’t expect to cool these fueling pools." 

I wanted to go word by word through these quotes, refuting them.  For one thing, the idea that we were taught about decay heat by Fukushima!  Well, maybe Gundersen just learned recently about decay heat -- if he forgot everything he learned in engineering school. Nuclear plant designers and engineers have always known about decay heat. Nuclear plants sized their diesels and other backup systems in accordance with requirements to handle decay heat.

Part of the logo of ANS Nuclear Cafe Blog

Spreading the Facts As You Might Expect Them to Be Spread

Luckily I didn't have to write a refutation.  William Davis, a man with real operating experience, went right through the accusations and refuted them all, at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) Nuclear Cafe blog, in his post Spent Fuel Pool at Oyster Creek. Among other things, Davis describes the diesel-powered emergency cooling arrangements for the spent fuel pools. A careful and well-referenced post, by someone who didn't forget what he learned in naval reactor school.

Another source of information: the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) issued a press release that is also up on their blog: Nuclear Energy Facilities Prove Resilience During Hurricane Sandy. The NEI blog post has a complete list of plants and how they performed during the hurricane (they did fine). It also links to a more comprehensive report on hurricanes and nuclear plants.

Two excellent posts, with lots of information for laymen and reporters.

Preaching to the Choir

Gundersen made a lot of incorrect statements. ANS and NEI made a lot of correct, well-referenced statements.  However, they can both be accused of the same thing: preaching to the choir.

Who watches Democracy Now and follows Russia Today? Not many nuclear supporters, I suspect.

Who follows the ANS and NEI blogs? Not many nuclear opponents, I suspect.

Okay, so both sides were preaching to the choir.  The hurricane is over, and the power plants did well (as expected). The next question is: how did the mainstream press react to this dis-information and information about nuclear plants and hurricanes?

I think they did very well at separating facts from fiction, but that is another blog post for another day (probably tomorrow).

The Main Stream Press--a teaser

Encouraging you to tune in tomorrow (or maybe the next day) for a post on the mainstream press:

An older post from Margaret Harding on the Optimist's Conundrum: why it is so hard to report good news.

Jim Conca at Forbes: Don't Politicize Sandy: Hurricane Normal Problem for Nukes.

The River, the Shad and the Water Permits

About the River

Just now, I published a blog post called The River and the Rhetoric--Who Speaks for the River.  This post was mostly about the Sage Alliance plans for a flotilla-based protest of Vermont Yankee, and about the Connecticut River Watershed Council, an anti-Vermont Yankee advocacy group.

I thought I needed another post about the river itself.  Let's start with the idea that the shad are disappearing.  Well, they are not.  It's a record year for shad on the Connecticut River, with one million returning to spawn.  I am sure you will enjoy the article in the Hartford Courant.

In contrast, during our debate at University of Vermont in February, 2011, Arnie Gundersen claimed that there were 16 shad in the Connecticut River.  I just couldn't resist including this clip of the debate, since there are actually a million shad in the river this year.



It's also worth noting that the decline or rise of the shad may be based on the status of the pumped storage plant downstream from us, in Massachusetts.  Massachusetts environmentalist Karl Meyer writes about the devastating effect of the Northfield Pumped Storage project on the fish in the river.  He wrote this in response to an earlier article by David Deen. David Deen is one of the main speakers at the Sage Alliance anti-Vermont Yankee flotilla.  Meyer's article is It's about the river AND the fish

Water Permits

It's also worth adding a reminder about the Vermont Yankee water quality permits, since the flotilla is focusing on this issue. The Vermont  Department of Public Service lost a recent lawsuit about water permits. The Department had sued the NRC, claiming that Vermont Yankee should not have been granted a license renewal because the plant water quality permit was out of date. They lost.  I blogged about the water permit lawsuit here.

San Onofre and Gundersen and Vermont Yankee

When I was in the nuclear power industry, I was a specialist in preventing corrosion in steam generators in pressurized water reactors.  Recently, replacement steam generators at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) showed unusual wear, and Arnie Gundersen wrote that this was because the replacement generators weren't just like the old steam generators. They even used a new alloy!

This assertion steamed me a bit (pardon the pun) because the whole point of the research we did at the steam generator project office at EPRI was to improve steam generators.  Replacement steam generators aren't supposed to be just like the old steam generators, they are supposed to be better.

Steam Generators

In April, Will Davis of Atomic Power Review asked me to write a guest post about steam generator research and improvements. I did, and the post got a lot of hits.

Writing the post for Atomic Power Review also meant I get some invitations and phone calls based on my steam generator knowledge. Recently, the NRC has issued various reports about the San Onofre steam generators, and I received an invitation to a conference call yesterday.

I was invited to a Southern California Edison conference call about the steam generators. This call was very informative, and Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat has written a clear, well-researched post about the NRC reports, San Onofre, and what we learned at the conference call.  It is going to take a lot of work to figure out the next steps at San Onofre, but nobody is in danger, and (I believe) SONGS will be back on line in a few months. Yurman's well-referenced post, A Long Hot Summer Ahead for SONGS does not underestimate the problems SONGS faces.  However, Yurman's post  is  a good antidote to overblown negative predictions.

Arnie Gundersen has been supported by Friends of the Earth to write reports on San Onofre.  It should surprise nobody that his reports put the worst possible spin on the San Onofre steam generator problems.

Gundersen and Vermont Yankee

On the conference call, someone from Southern California said that Gundersen supports continued operation of Vermont Yankee.

"What what what what what?" I sputtered.  Gundersen supporting VY was news to me! After all, I debated Gundersen about 18 months ago.  I took the "Keep Vermont Yankee Running" side of the debate, and Gundersen took the side of "Shut Vermont Yankee Down." Here's a link to a blog post with a video of the debate.  If you watch even a little of this debate, you would hardly think that Gundersen supports the continued operation of Vermont Yankee. What on earth were these people talking about?

Well, they were talking about what Gundersen said on a radio show in California.   To listen to his words, you have to go to this KPBS web page, then go to the KPBS Midday Edition, and then move the cursor to the 8 minute mark (more or less).  Alternatively, I will simply transcribe the section for you, below.

Interviewer: Arnie, I introduced you as a nuclear consultant, but just to be clear. Tell us, are you also an anti-nuclear activist?

Gundersen: No, you know, I have a bachelors and masters in nuclear and was a senior VP. Two..three years ago,  consulting for the state of Vermont, I signed a report saying that Vermont Yankee, our nuclear plant here in Vermont, could run for another twenty years. So, I don't know many nuclear activists who sign reports authorizing nuclear plants to continue to operate.

The Public Oversight Panel report

Gundersen is telling the truth here.  He did sign a report (Public Oversight Panel report, March 2009) that concluded that Vermont Yankee could continue to operate.  Actually, it said that operation of the plant is possible if the recommendations of the panel report were put in place by Entergy and carefully verified by strengthened government institutions, etc.  Read the report for yourself, especially page v, "Panel's Overall Conclusions."  It isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the plant or anybody who supervises it, including the NRC.

The Public Oversight Panel report was a joint effort. There were usually four people on the panel. My understanding of Gundersen's views on Vermont Yankee lead me to believe that he probably fought against  every positive word in that report.  However, I wasn't there when the report was written, so that statement is just my opinion. I formed that opinion by debating Gundersen and from other things he has said.

Gundersen's radio statement on California radio may have convinced some people that he is a nuclear consultant, not an anti-nuclear activist.  After all, he signed a report recommending continued operation of Vermont Yankee.

Maybe. I encourage people to read the report and draw their own conclusions. Personally,  I still see Gundersen as an anti-nuclear activist, and that remains my opinion.

I also don't know why Gundersen is making such a point of not being called "an anti-nuclear activist."  On this blog, my profile has always stated: "I am a pro-nuclear activist and a writer." I don't have any issue with stating that, being introduced as a pro-nuclear activist, or whatever.  Of course,  I also want people to know that I have an educational and career background in nuclear energy, and I understand why Gundersen makes the same point about himself.  But why does he object to being called an "anti-nuclear activist"?  Just wondering...

105th Carnival of Nuclear Energy at ANS Nuclear Cafe: The SFP 4 Debunking Issue

The 105th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers at ANS Nuclear Cafe could be called: the Spent Fuel Pool Debunking Issue.

End of World is Predicted

People such as Arnie Gundersen were disappointed that the world has not ended due to the melt-downs of Fukushima Daiichi.  Their predictions were wrong, but they will never admit that. Instead, they have made a set of new predictions: the world will end because of Spent Fuel Pool number 4 at Fukushima Daiichi.  As a matter of fact, Gundersen predicts that the spent fuel pool could "certainly destroy Japan as a functioning country" and he recommended that we all "move south of the equator if that ever happened."

When your doomsday predictions don't come true, make more!  Make them worse!

The Bloggers Strike Back 

Because of these predictions, I urge everyone to read the blogs in the 105th Carnival.  Groups of bloggers with nuclear expertise answer these doomsday assertions, with facts, videos, pictures, calculations.  We worked together and in tandem, and Dan put it all together beautifully at the Carnival.

The most comprehensive post was by William Davis.  He usually blogs at Atomic Power Review, but he wrote Spent Fuel at Fukushima Daiichi safer than asserted for ANS Nuclear Cafe.  That was actually a collaborative effort between Davis and a group of bloggers.  It was followed by more blogs on the subject: NEI Nuclear Notes on Setting  the Record Straight, Rod Adams at Atomic Insights on Debunking the Fukushima Spent Fuel Fable, Steve Skutnik at Neutron Economy on TEPCO's Triage at Unit 4.  This set of posts is honest and informative about the spent fuel pools: experts, expert opinions, reasoned arguments.

Most of these posts attracted huge comment streams.  Go to the Carnival, and read these posts. Read the comments, too! (Iillustration at right of Spent Fuel Support structures from TEPCO).

More than Fukushima


In the book and movie On The Beach, everyone moves to the Southern Hemisphere.  They die anyway of radiation poisoning.  In the first part of the Carnival, the bloggers debunk statements of people who spend too much time watching that movie.

However, the Fukushima fuel pool is not the only item of interest in the nuclear world.   The Carnival includes posts by Brian Wang at Next Big Future on reactor starts and restarts for 2012, and on uranium production worldwide.  The Carnival includes Howard Shaffer's guest post on attending an NRC meeting for Vermont Yankee, and Robert Hayes at the S and T blog about using radiation for food safety.

Come to the Carnival! Bloggers disprove and debunk the fuel pool scare stories. We don't have to move to Australia!  This blogger work is important.  Read it!

Shaffer and Gundersen Debate about Pilgrim Relicensing

The Ballot Initiative

Last night, Howard Shaffer and Arnie Gundersen debated whether the Pilgrim plant relicensing process should continue or the process should be frozen. The idea was to freeze relicensing until all Fukushima fixes were known and made. The non-binding ballot initiative in Plymouth township reads:

“FREEZE PILGRIM”Ballot Question MAY 12 TOWN ELECTION-PLYMOUTH We The People of Plymouth, Massachusetts, direct the Plymouth Board of Selectmen to call upon the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to immediately suspend all further action on the application of the Entergy Corporation for renewal of its license to operate the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station pending the full implementation of all safety improvements recommended by the NRC as a result of lessons learned from the failures of similarly designed reactors in Fukushima, Japan.

I watched the debate last night, and it was a frustrating experience because I could not see the debaters or hear them or see their slides. What I saw was an interactive stream with comments from the moderator, tweets from many people (including myself) and a fair number of advertisements for fast-food muffins.

The Debate

Japan: Many of the tweets were from Japan as shown in the screen shot above.

Cocktail Party: The NRC gave an informational "cocktail party" before the debate (no booze), but the NRC did not participate in the debate itself. Picture of the party here from the Wicked Local Facebook page.

However, the moderator said Entergy and the NRC were invited, Berger notes, but chose not to attend. I think that was an unfair statement. Of course, the NRC could not formally enter into a debate about an on-going license extension, but they were there on an informal basis, and I give them credit!

Gundersen view of the NRC. Gundersen did his usual comments about the NRC: NRC commissioners are vetted by trade organization of nuclear industry NRC and industry, Gundersen says, are too cozy

Note: All quotes are from the moderator's notes. I do not know if the quotes are verbatim.

Fishing boats: Gundersen: If Tim McVeigh had been in the Finnish boat that wandered close to the plant last year, we would have had a real problem.

Nuclear Matters Committee: The Town of Plymouth has a Nuclear Matters Committee (NMC), including educated people. Here's a quote from one of them:

Paul Smith (NMC): there are no lethal amounts of radiation leaking from Fukushima...

-The geology is in our favor

-We are not susceptible to dangerous tsunami

Gundersen's Samples: Gundersen said he took "samples" in Tokyo that were "troubling." Howard asked him to show the numbers. He didn't, of course. Here's are two Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) blog posts on the Gundersen claims. NEI asks questions of AP for reporting these claims. NEI find Gundersen's statement baffling.

Gundersen knows exact number of cancers that will be caused: Okay. I found this shocking, even though I have certainly seen Gundersen in action before.

Gundersen answers a question: When will start to see the cancers?

Gundersen: peer reviewed report of TMI lung cancers, within five year of three mile island, ten or 20% increase.

-In short term thyroiud and lung issues. Over next 25 years, other tissue damage

-new report says 30 years out, they are seeing other cancers from Three Mile Island

-In Fukushima, 1 in 20 young girls exposed to radiation in Fukushima will suffer from cancers related to the event.

Is there a bottom line?

As many have noted, it is hard to debate people who can just say anything that supports their position, whether it is true or not. On the other hand, I think the world-wide interest in this debate was completely legitimate, and I give credit to both men for taking part. There are very few forums in which both sides appear and are willing to answer questions. I congratulate the township of Plymouth for hosting this debate.

And of course, I congratulate Howard for his effective presentation, and his deep and abiding personal honesty.

Links

To see the same thing I saw, but faster (you can scroll through it, instead of waiting in real time), go to this Wicked Local (newspaper) webpage.

Before the forum, Howard Shaffer asked me to put his slides on the web in pdf format. You can see his slides here.

Howard also asked me to put the ANS Fukushima report on the web in a way that is easily accessible. Here's the ANS Fukushima report, and here's the ANS talking point summary.

As I understand it, the debate was also on local community access TV. When I get the link to it as an on-demand show, I will update this post.

This Thursday: Shaffer and Gundersen Panel about Pilgrim Plant

The Freeze Forum

On Thursday March 29 at 7 p.m., the newspaper Wicked Local of Plymouth Massachusetts will sponsor a forum on the relicensing of Pilgrim Nuclear plant. Howard Shaffer and Arnie Gundersen will be the panelists. The event is called the Freeze Pilgrim Forum because Shaffer and Gundersen will be debating: "Should Pilgrim's relicensing be frozen until all the Fukushima event corrections are completed?" This question is a local non-binding ballot initiative. As you might expect, Gundersen will debate in favor of freezing the relicensing and Shaffer for proceeding with relicensing.

Many of us can't get down to Plymouth MA to see the debate, but we can see it (and ask questions) on-line. It's going to be a multi-media event. The invitation:

FFMand has invited you to watch their event:

Live Blog: Freeze Pilgrim: the Debate

Date: Thursday March 29, 2012

Time: 7:00PM EDT

Please consider participating in our "live" reporting from the March 29th Freeze Pilgrim forum in Plymouth, and informing your members/colleagues and friends about this enhanced coverage. Our reporting will begin 15 minutes prior to the start of the question and answer period, and will continue until the forum's conclusion. This forum is an important prelude to Plymouth's non-binding ballot referendum on re-licensing Pilgrim. The "Cover-It-Live" event will include live updates on the Q&A, polls, mini-resumes, graphics, and the ability for participants to comment as events unfold.

Frank Mand, Old Colony Memorial/GateHouse Media NE (Fmand@wickedlocal.com)

Copy-paste this link in your browser:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/plymouth

The Pilgrim Plant

Pilgrim Station is a Mark 1 BWR. Like Vermont Yankee, it is owned by Entergy. Its forty-year license will expire on June 8, 2012. Pilgrim submitted its renewal application to NRC in January 2006. No other renewal has taken this long to complete. However, the plant can keep operating after June 8, because it applied for NRC renewal in an appropriate time frame, and so can continue to operate on its existing license.

According to this article about Pilgrim relicensing in the Patriot Ledger, the major slow-down for relicensing has been a long series of contentions filed by Mary Lampert of Duxbury. She has founded the group Pilgrim Watch to oppose the plant's operation.

The Debate

Once again, going back to Wicked Local, there have been two articles about the debate. On March 18, the article Nuclear Forum Off to a Shaky Start described how Entergy and the NRC said they would not participate in the debate. Then the fun began. The organizers accepted an offer from Howard Shaffer to debate. As the article describes the situation at that point:

But when Shaffer’s participation was announced, Gundersen was not happy, and Freeze Plymouth was told he would renege on his commitment to the event because of what were characterized as “personal” attacks by Shaffer on his qualifications.

The Old Colony reached Shaffer at his New Hampshire home Friday, and while he admitted to instances where he and/or colleagues had been critical of Gundersen’s qualifications, he said he’s appeared on panels with the Fairewinds engineer before without incident.

On March 21, another Wicked Local article appeared: Freeze forum 'experts' set. The article starts: Fairewinds Associates Founder Margaret Gundersen has confirmed that her husband, Arnold Gundersen, has accepted an invitation to be one of two “experts” at next week’s Freeze Pilgrim forum – a public prelude to May’s nonbinding referendum on the re-licensing of Plymouth’s 40-year-old nuclear power plant.

So I guess the debate is a "go."

We can all attend, on-line. If I get more information on attendance, I will update this post.

CNN Hatchet Job about Vermont Yankee

The Hatchet is Raised

CNN doesn't want both sides of the story on Vermont Yankee. A CNN show is airing today and tomorrow: U S Nuclear Plants Similar to Fukushima Raise Concerns. The show is basically a hatchet job on all Mark 1 reactors, with extra-special attention to Vermont Yankee. The trailer includes extensive interviews with Arnie Gundersen, scary music, and a segment that makes the NRC look like a bunch of stone-walling idiots. Watch the trailer if you have a strong tummy.

Why do I say CNN doesn't want both sides of the story? Well, some of it is just seeing the trailer. Some of it is personal. CNN called me in November about getting both sides of the story, but they never called back or interviewed me. They never interviewed Howard Shaffer or any other plant supporter whom I know. To me, it's all adding up to a show that Helen Caldicott would love. It will air tonight and tomorrow night at 8 p.m. ET and PT. But you can make a difference!

The Audience Strikes Back

Pro-nuclear bloggers have already put up some excellent blog posts about this show:

Eric McErlain at the Nuclear Energy Institute blog Nuclear Notes wrote a Preview of CNN's Report on Vermont Yankee. His post includes a video of American nuclear plants withstanding flood, tornadoes, earthquakes and hurricanes...all in 2011! McErlain also notes that CNN never called the Nuclear Energy Institute about this program. (So it's not just me, Eric. I'm glad to know that...)

McErlain also posted Some Facts on Vermont Yankee That Didn't Make the CNN Report and How Safe is Vermont Yankee? Ask the NRC, not CNN. The latter has great links to the NRC reports on VY safety and operation.

Meanwhile, at Atomic Power Review's February 17 post, Will Davis has links to everything you would possibly want to know about Mark 1 reactor safety and containment. Great job, Will!

The more general audience has also struck back. At the main CNN page about the upcoming video, there are over 1000 comments at this writing. Many of the comments are pro-nuclear. At a webpage CNN wrote about the comments on the original page (the page about the page is called overheard on CNN) CNN notes that the comment below has the most "Likes".

Jack Baker: "We have been using nuclear power for over 50 years, and there have been very few serious incidents, and only a couple of incidents with injuries or radiation release. And considering that the quantity of waste by-product is significantly less than any other type of power generation, including natural gas, how can people be so adamant against nuclear power?"

You Can Take Action and Let People Know What You Think

The first and most simple action would be to go to the CNN page about the video, register, and post a comment. You can also post a comment on that page through Facebook or Disqus or Twitter. Most of the people who have commented on the page are using screen names. If you want a screen name, I think that the CNN registration is the easiest way to get one.

You can also comment on the

CNN Presents Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/cnnpresents. I just did. Obviously, my name appears on the comment. (Update. My comment disappeared from FB and will probably appear on the CNN page. I should have expected that...)

You can also tweet to @cnnpresents and @amberlyon (Amber Lyon is the reporter.) I recommend that you tweet while the show airs, sometimes called live-tweeting. Live-tweeting would probably be most effective way to comment with Twitter.

Don't sit by while extremely biased reporting and scary music set the nuclear agenda for Vermont. Say something!

Sunny News about Fish and Vermont Yankee

All fish are radioactive. South Vermont fish, North Vermont fish, all fish.

The Vermont Department of Health (DOH) periodically tests radiation levels of fish in the Connecticut River. They always find background levels of radioactive strontium and cesium in the fish. Meanwhile, the opponents always say that Vermont Yankee contaminated the fish.

In the past two days, the DOH has announced test results of fish from the far north of Vermont, far from Vermont Yankee. The fish had the same level of radioactivity as the fish near the plant. Background levels.

The Northern Fish

Both the Brattleboro Reformer and the Burlington Free Press posted stories about the measurements of the northern fish.

Here's a quote from the Reformer: "The results are that cesium-137 and strontium-90 in Lake Carmi fish is in the same range as Connecticut River fish," said Irwin. "We take this as some evidence that all fish in Vermont are likely to have radioactive cesium and strontium at these levels and that, as we've hypothesized, it is from nuclear weapons fallout and the releases of Chernobyl. All of us are glad to have proof and not just conjecture."

....

"There's no danger in eating the fish," said Irwin. "Should we ever find that there are reasons to restrict diet from any sampling for any kind of radioactive or toxicological events, we would keep in mind different cultures have different diets."

(Bill Irwin is the radiological safety officer of the Vermont Department of Health)

In the Burlington Free Press, David Deen, a long-time foe of the plant acknowledged, however, that if future samples remain consistent, then Vermont Yankee officials were right that the plant was not the source of the strontium 90.

A Partial History of Fish Scares

Claiming radioactivity in the fish is due to the power plant is a well-worn tactic. In 2010, when strontium was detected in a fish from the Connecticut River, the nuclear opponents made this a centerpiece of their marches. Maggie Gundersen said that people should "throw the fish back" and not eat Connecticut River fish. Her husband, Arnie Gundersen, said they were finding radioactive fish near the plant but "blaming the bomb." In other words, he implied that Vermont Yankee was saying the fish had merely background radiation, but that was just a way to avoid acknowledging that it was Vermont Yankee's fault. My blog post It's the Nukes What Gets the Blame describes these events.

In 2011, there was another fish with strontium. Governor Shumlin said he wouldn't eat fish from the Connecticut River because of the strontium in this fish. Meanwhile the head of the Vermont Department of Health contradicted him, saying the fish was safe and the levels were low. I have a video of this press conference in the post That Strontium Fish in the Connecticut River. Later, Lochbaum and Markey weighed in on the side of the governor. I blogged about their assertions, also. They exaggerate.

Potassium and Strontium

In a wonderful guest post, Richard Schmidt compared the relative dangers of strontium, mercury, and naturally-radioactive potassium in the fish. In his post What is the Real Impact? Richard Schmidt on Strontium, Mercury and Potassium in Fish, Schmidt points out that 2 % of the radioactivity in the fish comes from strontium, and the rest comes from natural potassium.

Yesterday, the Brattleboro Reformer said pretty much the same thing. In the Reformer: In the same analyses, the fish had almost 500 times more potassium-40 in them than they do cesium-137, [Irwin] said. Potassium-40 is a naturally occurring radioactive material that is in nearly everything and was created when the planet was formed billions of years ago, said Irwin.

In other words, the natural radioactivity in the fish swamps any man-made sources of radioactivity.

It is safe to eat the fish. The fish in the north of Vermont. The fish near the plant. All the fish.

The Bomb: Not Banned Soon Enough

Where did all that strontium come from? It came from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Fallout is real. Fallout measurements are not something a power plant "hides behind." Though the atmospheric test ban treaty in 1963 stopped most of bomb testing, there have been 2000 bomb tests.

On this video, you can see the accelerated rate of testing through the early 60s.

-----------

Picture at the head of the post shows me approaching Blinky the fish outside a Public Service Board meeting in July 2010. I have the light-green top and black purse: Blinky has three eyes. Picture by Howard Shaffer, published in earlier blog post.

Howard Shaffer Testimony to VSNAP: Perspective on Vermont Yankee Errors

Errors at Vermont Yankee Reported to the NRC

Recently, Vermont Yankee announced that it had reported two personnel errors to the NRC. The first error occurred during the refueling outage in October. A worker flipped a circuit breaker on the shut-down cooling system, causing the water temperature to rise briefly and an alarm to sound. The plant was off-line at the time. The second error, in December, was taking both of the plants diesel generators out of service at the same time. This error (the generators were not in use) lasted for about 2 minutes before the mistake was noticed and corrected. As the NRC spokesman noted: Vermont Yankee has other backup systems as well (as the generators), including batteries and a tie to a nearby hydroelectric plant.

Naturally, the opponents have commented. In the Rutland Herald, Ray Shadis was quoted: “They were Homer Simpson moments...The two screw-ups are part of a continuum of ongoing, goofy, inexplicable stuff”. Shadis further noted that he expected the next three months to be the most dangerous in the plant's forty years of operation. In the same article, Arnie Gundersen said that the Public Oversight Panel (he was a member) identified similar issues three years ago.

Yesterday, the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP) met in Vernon, Vermont. The mission of this panel has never been clear to me. According the VSNAP web page, it "considers issues" and writes an annual report to the governor and the legislature. At VSNAP meetings, most of the meeting time is spent on public comments. Vermont Yankee opponents generally show up in force. One of the public comments about the plant was from George Harvey, as reported in the Brattleboro Reformer. "These people have a history of lying....They’re clearly operating out of self-interest. They’re not interested in our making informed decisions, they’re only interested in making money."

Neither Howard Shaffer nor I could attend the VSNAP meeting, due to other obligations. However, Howard sent VSNAP the testimony below, which I am very happy to share.

-----------

Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel

From: Howard Shaffer PE (nuclear) Vermont, NH, MA, IL
Startup Engineer and Support Engineer for Vermont Yankee


The two personnel errors at VY open the discussion to consideration of the initial design of the whole nuclear power program, and all our technologies.

In all my Navy Nuclear power and submarine training it was emphasized that the greatest care is required. You must communicate and double check before taking action. Yet it is acknowledged, and proven by experience, that people make mistakes. Therefore, designs must include backups and consideration of "what ifs."

Nuclear Power Plant Design

In nuclear reactor plant design, of all types, it seems to have been considered that there will be failures of hardware, and people. People include Operators, Managers, and Regulators. In addition, it was believed that in spite of all design, training, and precautions, some day, somewhere, a reactor core would be damaged and melt. The radioactive products were assumed to get out of the vessel and piping. Therefore, a backup was needed. It is the Containment. I call it the "garbage can over the tea kettle." It worked at Three Mile Island. At Fukushima the containments worked for a while, until the lack of cooling for the fuel caused melting and releases. It has been forgotten by the media that the Japanese government ordered an evacuation on the first day of the event, long before releases began.

We, the world nuclear power community, have organizations to communicate lessons learned, in addition to the regulatory agencies. These organizations are the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations in the US, and the World Association of Nuclear Operators. Airplane regulators communicate world wide too.

Human Interaction

Comparing nuclear power to perfection is a political ploy. What in human endeavor is perfect? Try comparing airplanes and cars to perfection. The certainty of error is no excuse. Every accident is investigated and lessons learned incorporated. This is true of the flooding after hurricane Irene, the fire in downtown Brattleboro, house fires, plane and train crashes, car accidents, and nuclear power plant accidents and errors. If you are against something politically, compare it to perfection, and demand zero errors.

In my Navy nuclear power training, I had to read the book containing reports of all the errors that had happened to date. By then, 1963, the book was thick. As years went by, the book got too thick to manage. Errors were being repeated. The book was replaced with a manageable volume of the "classic errors." Why were errors repeated? Errors are repeated in spit of all efforts, because people are human. There are always new people, people changing jobs, rules changes, design changes, and time and other pressures.

NRC licensees are required to have a formal program to document, report, investigate, learn from, and take corrective action on, Human Errors. It is always appropriate to ask if any events constitute a pattern.

Conclusion

The nuclear power program, and Vermont Yankee, should be compared to the available alternatives. On this basis, using the measures the EPA uses: deaths, injuries, accidents, and environmental degradation, it appears that in the 1950's Congress made a very wise decision in choosing nuclear power as a replacement for coal.


Footnote

In a recent press release on the Cross Border Air Pollution Regulations, the EPA stated that:

Pollution from Coal Burning is responsible EVERY YEAR for

34, 000 early deaths due to asthma
$280 billion in health costs
15,000 non fatal heart attacks
19,000 acute bronchitis cases
400,000 cases of aggravated asthma
1.8 million sick days