Skip to main content

How Safe is Vermont Yankee? Ask the NRC, Not CNN.

By Eric McErlain
Another colleague of mine here at NEI forwarded me a copy of the 4Q2011 Performance Summary at Vermont Yankee conducted by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Open it up and what will you find? Nothing but the color green.

For more details, click here. Bottom line, this plant is operating safely and efficiently.
Labels:

Comments

Rod Adams said…
The problem is that CNN did ask the NRC, but the NRC's official response was "no comment". When pressed about its claim to be supportive of open government, the unnamed spokesman essentially said that all of the information it needed to share about the topic was available on the NRC web site. That might be true, but that is a very large and complex web site with decades worth of information on it.

Surely, if the NRC spokesman was interested in sharing information about Vermont Yankee's safety and reliable performance, he could have invited Ms. Lyon into the building, given her a cup of coffee and showed her exactly where to look on the web site for the information that she needed.

The more I watched that segment - and I repeated it several times - the more angry I became and the more I suspected that there was a plan being executed.

Here is a link my post on the topic.

http://atomicinsights.com/2012/02/cnns-carefully-timed-attack-on-nuclear-energy-and-nrc-credibility.html

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
February 19, 2012 at 6:52 AM
Anonymous said…
The problem with giving any comment is that through careful editing slanted journalism can make you say anything. If the news wants to sensationalize a story, they're going to do it, and your best bet is to just say nothing.
February 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Will Davis said…
Rod, you are right on the money.

I would like to commend Rod Adams, Meredith Angwin, and every single person responsible for the NEI Nuclear Notes blog here for their complete evisceration of the CNN report. A fantastic, and accurate, response to the malarkey they're trying to push nowadays.
February 19, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Kit P said…
Rod and some others do not seem to understand that it is not not the NRC's job to comment on crockumetaries.

When it comes to regulating things nuclear, the NRC does a very good job. NEI also does a good job of commenting on biased media reports.
February 19, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Anonymous said…
Kit P, agree it's not their job. However, that doesn't mean it is not something they ought do anyway.
February 21, 2012 at 9:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more