9 ms·

The Vermont Yankee plant has the same design as Fukushima Daiichi and was approved for a 20 year extension, ten days after the Fukushima meltdown: http://vtdigg

The Vermont Yankee plant has the same design as Fukushima Daiichi and was approved for a 20 year extension, ten days after the Fukushima meltdown: http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/22/nrc-makes-vermont-yankee-license-renewal-official-10-days-after-disaster-in-japan/ http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/22/nrc-makes-vermont-yankee-lice... Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "has never turned down a plant relicensing":http://ecopolitology.org/2011/03/30/fukushima-daiichi-problems-bitter-pill-for-vermont-yankee-foes/ http://ecopolitology.org/2011/03/30/fukushima-daiichi-proble...

william42 15y ago
What is the probability of an earthquake and tsunami the size of the Tōhoku earthquake hitting Vermont?
- jws 15y ago
  There was an earthquake half the energy of the design limit, 100 miles away, 70 years ago. So, greater than 0, less than 1, consult your seismologist. (The 100 miles away is the important part, the distance from the fault is critical.)
- bradleyland 15y ago
  Not terribly high, but that doesn't seem like a very good excuse for lackluster design specifications. Also, it's worth noting that while Vermont isn't exactly the the SF Bay Area when it comes to unfavorable proximity to fault lines, it's not entirely devoid of seismic activity. Map is USGS, not TreeHugger original, but I couldn't find it on USGS.gov. http://www.treehugger.com/seismic-hazard-map-us.jpg http://www.treehugger.com/seismic-hazard-map-us.jpg
jws 15y ago
From the article, that plant is moving its spent fuel rods from the roof top pools to a passive containment system. I guess actively cooled, roof top swimming pools full of used fuel rods makes sense from the standpoint of monitoring, but it carries more failure modes than anyone wants now.
nevinera 15y ago
>The Vermont Yankee plant has the same design as Fukushima Daiichi and was approved for a 20 year extension, ten days after the Fukushima meltdown Are you suggesting that Vermont is likely to be hit by a tsunami? The Fukushima plants did not 'fail', they were beaten to fucking death. For whatever reason, the regulations in Japan did not consider tsunamis of that magnitude possible, despite the fact that they have happened several times in recorded history in the same region. >Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "has never turned down a plant relicensing" That's probably literally true. This is because the process involves a long period of examination and overseen investigation by parties with no stake in keeping them running - it would be obvious that such a requested license would be turned down years before any kind of formal 'No' would be issued, and continuing to seek one would waste millions of dollars.

william42 15y ago

What is the probability of an earthquake and tsunami the size of the Tōhoku earthquake hitting Vermont?

jws 15y ago
There was an earthquake half the energy of the design limit, 100 miles away, 70 years ago. So, greater than 0, less than 1, consult your seismologist. (The 100 miles away is the important part, the distance from the fault is critical.)
bradleyland 15y ago
Not terribly high, but that doesn't seem like a very good excuse for lackluster design specifications. Also, it's worth noting that while Vermont isn't exactly the the SF Bay Area when it comes to unfavorable proximity to fault lines, it's not entirely devoid of seismic activity. Map is USGS, not TreeHugger original, but I couldn't find it on USGS.gov. http://www.treehugger.com/seismic-hazard-map-us.jpg http://www.treehugger.com/seismic-hazard-map-us.jpg

jws 15y ago

From the article, that plant is moving its spent fuel rods from the roof top pools to a passive containment system. I guess actively cooled, roof top swimming pools full of used fuel rods makes sense from the standpoint of monitoring, but it carries more failure modes than anyone wants now.

nevinera 15y ago

>The Vermont Yankee plant has the same design as Fukushima Daiichi and was approved for a 20 year extension, ten days after the Fukushima meltdown Are you suggesting that Vermont is likely to be hit by a tsunami? The Fukushima plants did not 'fail', they were beaten to fucking death. For whatever reason, the regulations in Japan did not consider tsunamis of that magnitude possible, despite the fact that they have happened several times in recorded history in the same region. >Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "has never turned down a plant relicensing" That's probably literally true. This is because the process involves a long period of examination and overseen investigation by parties with no stake in keeping them running - it would be obvious that such a requested license would be turned down years before any kind of formal 'No' would be issued, and continuing to seek one would waste millions of dollars.