Sponsored Links
FACTBOX-U.S. nuclear plants similar to Japan plant in peril
March 12 (Reuters) - Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1
reactor that had an explosion and radiation release was a
General Electric Co (GE.N) Mark 1 boiling water reactor type.
[ID:nN12287054] [ID:nN12275226]
There are 23 GE Mark 1 reactors operating at U.S. nuclear power plants.
GE has rolled out several versions of the Mark 1, and some of the U.S. reactors could be slightly different than the Daiichi Unit 1 reactor.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said all of the 104 reactors in the United States, including the Mark 1 reactors listed below, were operating safely.
The following lists the Mark 1 reactors in the United States, according to data from the NRC and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which is opposed to nuclear power and is critical of the Mark 1 design. Reactor Location Size (MW) Year Browns Ferry 1 Decatur, AL 1065 1974 Browns Ferry 2 Decatur, AL 1104 1975 Browns Ferry 3 Decatur, AL 1105 1977 Brunswick 1 Southport, NC 938 1976 Brunswick 2 Southport, NC 920 1975 Cooper Nebraska City, NE 770 1974 Dresden 2 Morris, IL 867 1970 Dresden 3 Morris, IL 867 1971 Duane Arnold Cedar Rapids, IA 580 1975 Hatch 1 Baxley, GA 876 1975 Hatch 2 Baxley, GA 883 1979 Fermi 2 Monroe, MI 1122 1988 Hope Creek Hancock's Brdg, NJ 1161 1986 Fitzpatrick Oswego, NY 854 1976 Monticello Monticello, MN 572 1971 Nine Mile Point 1 Oswego, NY 621 1969 Oyster Creek Toms River, NJ 615 1969 Peach Bottom 2 Lancaster, PA 1112 1974 Peach Bottom 3 Lancaster, PA 1112 1974 Pilgrim Plymouth, MA 685 1972 Quad Cities 1 Moline, IL 867 1972 Quad Cities 2 Moline, IL 867 1972 Vermont Yankee Vernon, VT 620 1972 (Reporting by Scott DiSavino in New York and Bernie Woodall in Detroit; Editing by Xavier Briand))
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
I am very disappointed by this “Factbox”–an oddly myopic focus on a preselected set of “facts,” which you then acknowledge comes from a biased source (as if that exonerates you from a biased presentation of the relevant “facts”?).
Why didn’t you bother to explain the extraordinarily distant dates of construction above–all but 2 from the 1960s and 1970s? (see below)
Given the implication of your report, this too would seem a relevant fact: namely, that *all* of the reactors proposed in the past 15 years or so were fundamentally different from the ones now in trouble in Japan (i.e., the 1970s model reactors we used then too), in that the new ones are all designed with “rollers”–specifically equipped to handle 8 and 9-point earthquakes (just like recent sky-scrapers). It was these safe reactors whose permits were denied.
How come this vital fact is left out of your “factbox”?
Moreover, since the obvious implication of your report is to insinuate that our nuclear energy program is just as unstable as the Japan reactors now unraveling, this was quite dishonest. The truth is that–as you well know (but fail to mention)–we have had a virtual moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants (i.e., better, safer ones) in this country since the late 1970s/early 80s, and *if we hadn’t* had such a moratorium, all of these outdated reactors from the 1960s and 70s (your list above) would *already* have been replaced.
But why didn’t these two vital facts make it into your “factbox”? Would appreciate a public response.
Follow Reuters