NRC asks for cyber threat info from VY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested additional information on Tuesday from the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant about its plan to combat computer hackers, according to a spokesman for the NRC. Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Bob Stannard

Harwich, MA

#1 Dec 22, 2010
This is interesting. The NRC is concerned about a cyber attack on the plant's computer syetem, yet they will not entertain a discussion about a physical attack on the plant.

The VY plant is recognized as one of the most vulnerable plants in the country for a terrorist attack. However, when evaluating whether or not a plant should be relicensed for 20-40 more years, the NRC unequivocally bars any discussion on the subject.

Shouldn't the NRC be just as worried about terrorists flying a plane into this plant as they are about hacking their computer system?
I Know More Than You

Manchester, NH

#2 Dec 22, 2010
Bob the Liar Stannard wrote:
This is interesting. The NRC is concerned about a cyber attack on the plant's computer syetem, yet they will not entertain a discussion about a physical attack on the plant.
The VY plant is recognized as one of the most vulnerable plants in the country for a terrorist attack. However, when evaluating whether or not a plant should be relicensed for 20-40 more years, the NRC unequivocally bars any discussion on the subject.
Shouldn't the NRC be just as worried about terrorists flying a plane into this plant as they are about hacking their computer system?
Shouldn't paid NEC lobbyist and nuclear "expert" since 2008 aka Bob Stannard get a clue before posting lies which only make his side look even worse?
Local yokal

Dover, NH

#3 Dec 22, 2010
"The VY plant is recognized as one of the most vulnerable plants in the country for a terrorist attack."

Where do you get this stuff from?
I have been on this site and it sure doesn't look vulnerable to me.
nothing new

United States

#4 Dec 22, 2010
Local yokal wrote:
"The VY plant is recognized as one of the most vulnerable plants in the country for a terrorist attack."
Where do you get this stuff from?
I have been on this site and it sure doesn't look vulnerable to me.
This is a common practice from anti's all over. Make something up to scare everybody, the more people scared the better! Where did he get this information? It is amusing.
Bob Stannard

Harwich, MA

#5 Dec 22, 2010
First of all, I am not a nuclear expert. I'm a lobbyist. The VY plant's fuel pool is seven stories in the air, thus making it vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Other newer plants store the fuel at or below grade.

Go look it up.
I Know More Than You

Manchester, NH

#6 Dec 22, 2010
Bob Stannard wrote:
First of all, I am not a nuclear expert. I'm a lobbyist. The VY plant's fuel pool is seven stories in the air, thus making it vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Other newer plants store the fuel at or below grade.
Go look it up.
So you aren't an "expert" but you feel qualified to judge VY as one of the "most vulnerable" nuclear plants in the nation to terrorism?

Do you even see the irony in that?

That knob still needs polishing.
Nancy Stardust

Manchester, NH

#7 Dec 22, 2010
Bob Stannard wrote:
First of all, I am not a nuclear expert. I'm a lobbyist. The VY plant's fuel pool is seven stories in the air, thus making it vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Other newer plants store the fuel at or below grade.
Go look it up.
Are you stating that you have a plan? I would wager that the Townsand, Vernon, Bellows Falls and Jamaica hydro dams are built to a different set of building codes than dams that would be built today. Are we planning to raze those too and build state of the art facilities in their stead? When was the last hydro dam built in Vermont?
Merry Crispness

Brattleboro, VT

#8 Dec 22, 2010
The VY propaganda machine is working as usual - attacking the dissenters rather than responding to the assertion. Do they have an answer as to why the fuel pool isn't vulnerable being elevated and exposed to projectiles?
Did I Say That Outloud

Roseboom, NY

#9 Dec 22, 2010
Bob,

As NSD always says, no links, not true. I've worked at a few plants around the country and I can't remember a one that had this design. Which of the Mark series have this design BTW.
Nancy Stardust

Manchester, NH

#10 Dec 22, 2010
"Rep. David Deen, D-Westminster, who is chairman of the Committee on Fish, Wildlife
and Water Resources, applauded the report and said that while small hydro will never be
a very large contributor to Vermont's power output, there is potential to tap into some of
the state's waterways....Deen agreed that as small-scale hydro projects move forward, it will be important to protect habitat and ecosystems down stream.
"If dams can be redeveloped without negatively impacting life downstream, then more
power to them," Deen said. "But you have to look at how the project impacts life down
river, and you have to give real thought to strike that balance between environmental
health and power production."

http://www.revermont.org/article/small_hydro_...
Nancy Stardust

Manchester, NH

#11 Dec 22, 2010
Merry Crispness wrote:
The VY propaganda machine is working as usual - attacking the dissenters rather than responding to the assertion. Do they have an answer as to why the fuel pool isn't vulnerable being elevated and exposed to projectiles?
As a matter of fact I do!

http://www.defenderscouncilvt.com/TheGodsofth...

http://www.158fw.ang.af.mil/photos/mediagalle...

http://www.emba.uvm.edu/~rcrouse/vtang.htm
I Know More Than You

Manchester, NH

#12 Dec 22, 2010
Merry Crispness wrote:
The VY propaganda machine is working as usual - attacking the dissenters rather than responding to the assertion. Do they have an answer as to why the fuel pool isn't vulnerable being elevated and exposed to projectiles?
Usually an assertion is backed up with something like facts, Bob freely admits he is not an expert and then makes a claim with no backing. You then expect nuke supporters to jump through hopes. Sorry.

Funny how the same people bitching about the vulnerability of spent fuel pools were the same ones bitching about putting fuel in dry cask storage.
NoNothings

Harwich, MA

#13 Dec 22, 2010
Usually an assertion is backed up with something like facts, Bob freely admits he is not an expert and then makes a claim with no backing. You then expect nuke supporters to jump through hopes. Sorry.
Funny how the same people bitching about the vulnerability of spent fuel pools were the same ones bitching about putting fuel in dry cask storage.

Look, I don't think that one needs to be a nuclear expert to know that the fuel pool is 7 stories in the air as opposed to being underground. That's nothing more than a well known fact. If the fuel pool is in the air, which it is, then it is more vulnerable to a terrorist attack then say, a pool that's underground, don't you think?
Feel free to attack me all you want. I could care less. The statement that I made is true. If you don't agree with it, wonderful. All you need to do is ask yourself if radioactive fuel stored in a pool 7 stories in the air is more or less vulnerable that fuel stored underground. Best of luck with that.

RE: storing the fuel on-sight in dry casks; I don't believe that was part of the original deal when the plant was proposed. Had Vermonters known they were going to host a high-level nuclear waste dump for hundreds of years, I doubt the plant would have ever been built. Remember, we only have this plant because it passed by one vote 38 years ago.

Now go ahead and call me nasty names. I guess that makes you feel better and somehow you think advances your position, whatever it is.
I Know More Than You

Manchester, NH

#14 Dec 22, 2010
NoNothings wrote:
Look, I don't think that one needs to be a nuclear expert to know that the fuel pool is 7 stories in the air as opposed to being underground. That's nothing more than a well known fact. If the fuel pool is in the air, which it is, then it is more vulnerable to a terrorist attack then say, a pool that's underground, don't you think?
Feel free to attack me all you want. I could care less. The statement that I made is true. If you don't agree with it, wonderful. All you need to do is ask yourself if radioactive fuel stored in a pool 7 stories in the air is more or less vulnerable that fuel stored underground. Best of luck with that.
RE: storing the fuel on-sight in dry casks; I don't believe that was part of the original deal when the plant was proposed. Had Vermonters known they were going to host a high-level nuclear waste dump for hundreds of years, I doubt the plant would have ever been built.
Could everyone agree that the spent fuel pool could be made "safer" or "less vulnerable" if it were being built today? Or course. But that's not the position taken by a paid lobbyist whose job it is to lie and drum up fear about nuclear power.

Funny how the only lobbyists people like are ones working for their cause.
Bob Stannard

Harwich, MA

#15 Dec 22, 2010
To I know more than you - could you please explain where I have lied? That's a pretty strong accusation coming from someone who won't even tell us his name.
Bob Stannard

Harwich, MA

#16 Dec 22, 2010
To the cowardly person who goes by the alias "I know more than you" I thought you might find the following information interesting, but you might not. Your mind is pretty closed:

The spent fuel pools for nuclear power plants with boiling water reactors are located above ground in the building surrounding the primary reactor containment structure. This can make some boiling water reactors even more vulnerable.

The reactor containment structure is often a steel-lined, reinforced concrete building whereas the spent fuel pool building is usually made simply of reinforced concrete.

An aircraft—or missile—would not need to completely level the fuel building to cause harm. It would merely need to crack the concrete wall or floor of the spent fuel pool and drain the water out. The spent fuel pool is designed to remain intact following an earthquake, but it is not designed to withstand aircraft impacts and explosive forces.
----------

When I said that the VY plant is "one of the most vulnerable plants in the country" that would be a true statement. I do not lie, sir. You may not agree with the truth and that's your perrogative, but calling those with whom you don't agree liars does little more than to denigrate you.
I Know More Than You

Manchester, NH

#17 Dec 22, 2010
Bob Stannard wrote:
That's a pretty strong accusation coming from someone who won't even tell us his name.
Spare me the sanctimonious sermon Bob. Playing the "your argument is invalid because you won't give me your name" is grade school.

You invariably drop a few turds in a thread and scurry away or attempt to deflect the discussion away from your lies.

Do you have some specific proposals to make the VY spent fuel pool less vulnerable or is it just another shot in the dark as part of your futile efforts shut down VY?

People might have a little respect for you if you just came out and said that you don't give a shiat about any of these "concerns" and just admit all you care about is shutting down nuclear power plants.

BTW, I'm 10th generation Vermonter.
I Know More Than You

Manchester, NH

#18 Dec 22, 2010
Bob Stannard wrote:
To the cowardly person who goes by the alias "I know more than you"
So now I am a "coward"? What's next? Some "your momma" insults?

Wow, did you find that Union of Concerned Scientist page all by yourself or did someone give the link? Surprise, I had already read the page located here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_p...

Maybe I should get a job cutting and pasting other people's work into Topix threads.

How many fuel pools are located below grade? Is VY 1 of 2 of the "most vulnerable" or is it similar to 35 other reactors in the USA?
Bob Stannard

Harwich, MA

#19 Dec 22, 2010
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
So now I am a "coward"? What's next? Some "your momma" insults?
Wow, did you find that Union of Concerned Scientist page all by yourself or did someone give the link? Surprise, I had already read the page located here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_p...
Maybe I should get a job cutting and pasting other people's work into Topix threads.
How many fuel pools are located below grade? Is VY 1 of 2 of the "most vulnerable" or is it similar to 35 other reactors in the USA?
Hiding behind an alias qualifies you as a coward in my book, yes. The facts speak for themselves in this rediculous dialog. The fuel pool is above ground. Fly a plane into it and it's light out; literally and figuratively here in New England. I could give a rat's behind if you agree with me or not. Anyone who examines the status of this situation can easily see the potential for a real problem. That is unless they don't want to see it, which is, I believe, where you come down. That's fine. You simply wrong. I'm used to dealing with folks like you. I do it for a living.
Localguy

Springfield, MA

#20 Dec 22, 2010
That's a great slash and burn retreat there, buddy. So you finally concede the point that the elevated fuel storage at VY DOES make it more vulnerable which DOES make it one of the most vulnerable plants but now those little facts are irrelevant. I really love your ongoing dancing monkey act, I mean that sincerely. Big fan here, keep it up.
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
So now I am a "coward"? What's next? Some "your momma" insults?
Wow, did you find that Union of Concerned Scientist page all by yourself or did someone give the link? Surprise, I had already read the page located here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_p...
Maybe I should get a job cutting and pasting other people's work into Topix threads.
How many fuel pools are located below grade? Is VY 1 of 2 of the "most vulnerable" or is it similar to 35 other reactors in the USA?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vernon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ayn Rand 2 hr The Main Thing 26
marble ace arvidson 2 hr reality 42
Just another religious criminal 4 hr Oh please 16
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Deny All H... (Mar '14) 9 hr reality 135
Truth reason knowledge (Dec '12) 12 hr truth 549
Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New A... (Sep '12) 12 hr supply side Jesus 23
Tectonic Shift (Dec '12) 13 hr logic 421

Vernon News Video

Vernon Dating
Find my Match

Vernon Jobs

Vernon People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Vernon News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Vernon

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]