- Aug 18, 2001
- 4,260
- 0
- 0
FEMA: Since 1980, each utility that owns a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States has been required to have both an onsite and offsite emergency response plan as a condition of obtaining and maintaining a license to operate that plant. Onsite emergency response plans are approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Offsite plans (which are closely coordinated with the utility's onsite emergency response plan) are evaluated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and provided to the NRC, who must consider the FEMA findings when issuing or maintaining a license.
It's ultimately a federal responsibility to ensure safety/security at individual nuclear power plants. If the Vermont Yankee was so unsafe or insecure, the NRC or FEMA should have revoked or denied its license.
Originally posted by: Vic
Misleading propraganda thinly disguised as news. I wonder who paid for it? The Feds are responsible for nuclear power plan security, not the states.
You oughta stick to your patients, heartsurgeon, where you actually know something...
Originally posted by: chess9
Mill:
Do you think it wise for any state government to have much to do with regulating nuclear power plants? Really, the notion is absurd. Set asides for accidents are one thing. Supervision of safety and compliance is a whole different ball game. You are talking about extremely complex engineering and safety issues. If Dean HAD been intimately involved in that plant I would be aghast. Sheezh, doctors can barely get most diagnoses right, what would they do with that can of worms?
-Robert
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: chess9
Mill:
Do you think it wise for any state government to have much to do with regulating nuclear power plants? Really, the notion is absurd. Set asides for accidents are one thing. Supervision of safety and compliance is a whole different ball game. You are talking about extremely complex engineering and safety issues. If Dean HAD been intimately involved in that plant I would be aghast. Sheezh, doctors can barely get most diagnoses right, what would they do with that can of worms?
-Robert
I'm not sure I understand your arguments. States oversee and manage a lot more complex stuff than the security, safety, and compliance of a nuclear power plant. Just because a nuclear plant it fairly complex doesn't mean it is THE most complex thing, nor does it mean we can't have the same engineers that the feds have or the same former NRC members that other states use to give them plans for their reactors and plants. In this world today it is easy to find a consultant with experience in anything.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: chess9
Mill:
Do you think it wise for any state government to have much to do with regulating nuclear power plants? Really, the notion is absurd. Set asides for accidents are one thing. Supervision of safety and compliance is a whole different ball game. You are talking about extremely complex engineering and safety issues. If Dean HAD been intimately involved in that plant I would be aghast. Sheezh, doctors can barely get most diagnoses right, what would they do with that can of worms?
-Robert
I'm not sure I understand your arguments. States oversee and manage a lot more complex stuff than the security, safety, and compliance of a nuclear power plant. Just because a nuclear plant it fairly complex doesn't mean it is THE most complex thing, nor does it mean we can't have the same engineers that the feds have or the same former NRC members that other states use to give them plans for their reactors and plants. In this world today it is easy to find a consultant with experience in anything.
All that costs money and is a duplication of effort particularly in a small state such as Vermont.
The actual security violations listed in this article are in practice unrelated to state governments in any plant in the country. I worked with a local task force at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant here in MD and the types of screw ups and laxnesss presented in that article are the responsibility of the utility and the NRC. The state has nothing to do with it.
The other portions about funding for disatser preparedness is seperate and has little to do with security per say.
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: chess9
Mill:
Do you think it wise for any state government to have much to do with regulating nuclear power plants? Really, the notion is absurd. Set asides for accidents are one thing. Supervision of safety and compliance is a whole different ball game. You are talking about extremely complex engineering and safety issues. If Dean HAD been intimately involved in that plant I would be aghast. Sheezh, doctors can barely get most diagnoses right, what would they do with that can of worms?
-Robert
I'm not sure I understand your arguments. States oversee and manage a lot more complex stuff than the security, safety, and compliance of a nuclear power plant. Just because a nuclear plant it fairly complex doesn't mean it is THE most complex thing, nor does it mean we can't have the same engineers that the feds have or the same former NRC members that other states use to give them plans for their reactors and plants. In this world today it is easy to find a consultant with experience in anything.
All that costs money and is a duplication of effort particularly in a small state such as Vermont.
The actual security violations listed in this article are in practice unrelated to state governments in any plant in the country. I worked with a local task force at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant here in MD and the types of screw ups and laxnesss presented in that article are the responsibility of the utility and the NRC. The state has nothing to do with it.
The other portions about funding for disatser preparedness is seperate and has little to do with security per say.
"But Vermont laws required an active state role by creating a panel to review security and performance and requiring plant operators to set aside money for the state to use in the event of a nuclear disaster."
Vermont made the law not me. Secondly, it requires a panel to review security and performance. Where was that panel and who populated it. I don't think a secondary oversight committee is a bad idea, especially in the face of cuts to the NRC and the like. It may be the responsibility of the NRC and the utility, but the state has an obligation to protect its citizens and property.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: chess9
Mill:
Do you think it wise for any state government to have much to do with regulating nuclear power plants? Really, the notion is absurd. Set asides for accidents are one thing. Supervision of safety and compliance is a whole different ball game. You are talking about extremely complex engineering and safety issues. If Dean HAD been intimately involved in that plant I would be aghast. Sheezh, doctors can barely get most diagnoses right, what would they do with that can of worms?
-Robert
I'm not sure I understand your arguments. States oversee and manage a lot more complex stuff than the security, safety, and compliance of a nuclear power plant. Just because a nuclear plant it fairly complex doesn't mean it is THE most complex thing, nor does it mean we can't have the same engineers that the feds have or the same former NRC members that other states use to give them plans for their reactors and plants. In this world today it is easy to find a consultant with experience in anything.
All that costs money and is a duplication of effort particularly in a small state such as Vermont.
The actual security violations listed in this article are in practice unrelated to state governments in any plant in the country. I worked with a local task force at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant here in MD and the types of screw ups and laxnesss presented in that article are the responsibility of the utility and the NRC. The state has nothing to do with it.
The other portions about funding for disatser preparedness is seperate and has little to do with security per say.
"But Vermont laws required an active state role by creating a panel to review security and performance and requiring plant operators to set aside money for the state to use in the event of a nuclear disaster."
Vermont made the law not me. Secondly, it requires a panel to review security and performance. Where was that panel and who populated it. I don't think a secondary oversight committee is a bad idea, especially in the face of cuts to the NRC and the like. It may be the responsibility of the NRC and the utility, but the state has an obligation to protect its citizens and property.
Dean did so, the only contention appears to be the level of funding for disaster preparedness in 2002. All of the nuclear power plants in the US have vastly increased security since September 11. All of the actual violations (not increased funding and oversight that is as yet undocmented) were committed by people outside of his control and who will never be under the control of the states.
"
Carson acknowledged there were weaknesses before 2002 in Vermont's nuclear preparedness, and /b Dean moved quickly afterward to place state troopers and National Guardsman at the plant, distribute radiation pills to civilians, demand a federal no-fly zone over the plant to prevent an aerial attack, and increase emergency preparedness funding.
/b
"As many have said before, hindsight is 20-20 and no one could have predicted what could have happened on a terrible day in September 2001," Carson said.
"In retrospect, every state in the entire country could have been safer. The important thing is after Governor Dean recognized these vulnerabilities, he took swift, bold steps to make things better," Carson said.
State Auditor Ready, a Democrat and Dean backer, agreed things improved after her critical 2002 report and that security tests this year showed Vermont Yankee was safer. "Once Governor Dean got that report there was swift and thorough action," she said.
But even after Ready's report recommended the state's nuclear preparedness spending triple from $400,000 to $1.2 million, Dean budgeted only half the increase."
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: chess9
Mill:
Do you think it wise for any state government to have much to do with regulating nuclear power plants? Really, the notion is absurd. Set asides for accidents are one thing. Supervision of safety and compliance is a whole different ball game. You are talking about extremely complex engineering and safety issues. If Dean HAD been intimately involved in that plant I would be aghast. Sheezh, doctors can barely get most diagnoses right, what would they do with that can of worms?
-Robert
I'm not sure I understand your arguments. States oversee and manage a lot more complex stuff than the security, safety, and compliance of a nuclear power plant. Just because a nuclear plant it fairly complex doesn't mean it is THE most complex thing, nor does it mean we can't have the same engineers that the feds have or the same former NRC members that other states use to give them plans for their reactors and plants. In this world today it is easy to find a consultant with experience in anything.
All that costs money and is a duplication of effort particularly in a small state such as Vermont.
The actual security violations listed in this article are in practice unrelated to state governments in any plant in the country. I worked with a local task force at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant here in MD and the types of screw ups and laxnesss presented in that article are the responsibility of the utility and the NRC. The state has nothing to do with it.
The other portions about funding for disatser preparedness is seperate and has little to do with security per say.
"But Vermont laws required an active state role by creating a panel to review security and performance and requiring plant operators to set aside money for the state to use in the event of a nuclear disaster."
Vermont made the law not me. Secondly, it requires a panel to review security and performance. Where was that panel and who populated it. I don't think a secondary oversight committee is a bad idea, especially in the face of cuts to the NRC and the like. It may be the responsibility of the NRC and the utility, but the state has an obligation to protect its citizens and property.
Dean did so, the only contention appears to be the level of funding for disaster preparedness in 2002. All of the nuclear power plants in the US have vastly increased security since September 11. All of the actual violations (not increased funding and oversight that is as yet undocmented) were committed by people outside of his control and who will never be under the control of the states.
"
Carson acknowledged there were weaknesses before 2002 in Vermont's nuclear preparedness, and /b Dean moved quickly afterward to place state troopers and National Guardsman at the plant, distribute radiation pills to civilians, demand a federal no-fly zone over the plant to prevent an aerial attack, and increase emergency preparedness funding.
/b
"As many have said before, hindsight is 20-20 and no one could have predicted what could have happened on a terrible day in September 2001," Carson said.
"In retrospect, every state in the entire country could have been safer. The important thing is after Governor Dean recognized these vulnerabilities, he took swift, bold steps to make things better," Carson said.
State Auditor Ready, a Democrat and Dean backer, agreed things improved after her critical 2002 report and that security tests this year showed Vermont Yankee was safer. "Once Governor Dean got that report there was swift and thorough action," she said.
But even after Ready's report recommended the state's nuclear preparedness spending triple from $400,000 to $1.2 million, Dean budgeted only half the increase."
When was Dean elected, and when was the Vermont law passed? He should have had it taken care of before 9-11. Every other nuke plant has had tight security before Bin Laden even thought of his plan.
I think this is a minute and silly attack on Dean(this thread) but the point of the article is valid. Dean didn't do something until he was REALLY in the spotlight.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: chess9
Mill:
Do you think it wise for any state government to have much to do with regulating nuclear power plants? Really, the notion is absurd. Set asides for accidents are one thing. Supervision of safety and compliance is a whole different ball game. You are talking about extremely complex engineering and safety issues. If Dean HAD been intimately involved in that plant I would be aghast. Sheezh, doctors can barely get most diagnoses right, what would they do with that can of worms?
-Robert
I'm not sure I understand your arguments. States oversee and manage a lot more complex stuff than the security, safety, and compliance of a nuclear power plant. Just because a nuclear plant it fairly complex doesn't mean it is THE most complex thing, nor does it mean we can't have the same engineers that the feds have or the same former NRC members that other states use to give them plans for their reactors and plants. In this world today it is easy to find a consultant with experience in anything.
All that costs money and is a duplication of effort particularly in a small state such as Vermont.
The actual security violations listed in this article are in practice unrelated to state governments in any plant in the country. I worked with a local task force at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant here in MD and the types of screw ups and laxnesss presented in that article are the responsibility of the utility and the NRC. The state has nothing to do with it.
The other portions about funding for disatser preparedness is seperate and has little to do with security per say.
"But Vermont laws required an active state role by creating a panel to review security and performance and requiring plant operators to set aside money for the state to use in the event of a nuclear disaster."
Vermont made the law not me. Secondly, it requires a panel to review security and performance. Where was that panel and who populated it. I don't think a secondary oversight committee is a bad idea, especially in the face of cuts to the NRC and the like. It may be the responsibility of the NRC and the utility, but the state has an obligation to protect its citizens and property.
Dean did so, the only contention appears to be the level of funding for disaster preparedness in 2002. All of the nuclear power plants in the US have vastly increased security since September 11. All of the actual violations (not increased funding and oversight that is as yet undocmented) were committed by people outside of his control and who will never be under the control of the states.
"
Carson acknowledged there were weaknesses before 2002 in Vermont's nuclear preparedness, and /b Dean moved quickly afterward to place state troopers and National Guardsman at the plant, distribute radiation pills to civilians, demand a federal no-fly zone over the plant to prevent an aerial attack, and increase emergency preparedness funding.
/b
"As many have said before, hindsight is 20-20 and no one could have predicted what could have happened on a terrible day in September 2001," Carson said.
"In retrospect, every state in the entire country could have been safer. The important thing is after Governor Dean recognized these vulnerabilities, he took swift, bold steps to make things better," Carson said.
State Auditor Ready, a Democrat and Dean backer, agreed things improved after her critical 2002 report and that security tests this year showed Vermont Yankee was safer. "Once Governor Dean got that report there was swift and thorough action," she said.
But even after Ready's report recommended the state's nuclear preparedness spending triple from $400,000 to $1.2 million, Dean budgeted only half the increase."
When was Dean elected, and when was the Vermont law passed? He should have had it taken care of before 9-11. Every other nuke plant has had tight security before Bin Laden even thought of his plan.
I think this is a minute and silly attack on Dean(this thread) but the point of the article is valid. Dean didn't do something until he was REALLY in the spotlight.
"Every other nuke plant has had tight security before Bin Laden even thought of his plan. "
Care to back that up? How do you define tight? What metrics are you using to define tight security as compared to the Vermont Plant, and how specifically did Howard Dean contribute to that? How did his actions compare to those of other governors both before and after 9/11? This whole argument has no context.
I drove into Calvert Cliffs with four other people unnanounced in a police car to use thier ranges prior to 9/11 (back in 2000). All terrorists would have had to do would be to steal a car and make up some uniforms to do the same. That is not possible now. All domestic facilities have made changes since September 11.
Misleading propraganda thinly disguised as news
The most interesting theory that I've heard so far?which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved?is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.? Now, who knows what the real situation is?