RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Test suggests radioactive leak at Yankee



Toolbox

By Susan Smallheer Staff Writer - Published: January 8, 2010

BRATTLEBORO — Entergy Nuclear announced late Thursday one of its monitoring wells on the banks of the Connecticut River had detected radioactive tritium contamination, the first time such contamination has shown up at the plant.

Tests show tritium levels have risen sharply since it was first discovered six weeks ago.

The well, located between the reactor building and the river, first showed contamination of radioactive tritium at 700 parts per liter in mid-November, but by Wednesday, the contamination had jumped to 17,000 parts per liter.

Another test Thursday showed levels of 14,500 parts per liter, according to William Irwin, radiological health chief for the Department of Health. Entergy Nuclear spokesman Robert Williams said the tritium was below reportable federal levels, and he and Irwin both said tritium at these levels did not pose a health risk.

"The public shouldn't be concerned about any kind of health consequences," Irwin said, "because the amounts that have been measured are very, very low." Williams said the 17,000 parts per liter level was about half the reportable level established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is 30,000 parts per liter.

Irwin said the contamination was on the Vermont Yankee site, and other monitoring wells outside the plant had not revealed contamination. Those community sites include Vernon Elementary School, which is located across the road from the reactor, as well as a local farm.

But Irwin noted the first test that showed the tritium was in November, and that by early January, the amount had increased, which he said he didn't have a good explanation for.

He said the pollution could increase, decrease or even disappear.

Williams said the contaminated well was about 30 feet from the Connecticut River, which showed no signs of contamination.

Entergy started the monitoring wells in 2007 and the state followed with its own monitoring in 2008, Irwin said.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had ordered the testing after tritium contamination showed up at several nuclear power plants in different parts of the country, including the Entergy Nuclear-owned Indian Point reactors in New York state.

Arnold Gundersen, a nuclear engineer from South Burlington who served on the special Oversight Panel that examined Vermont Yankee's reliability last year, said there likely was a plume of contamination under the reactor, and that concentrations of the tritium were likely higher in locations other than the well.

Gundersen noted that Entergy officials told his committee there was no underground tanks of piping that would have contained radioactivity, calling into question the accuracy of their reports.

"The Oversight Panel specifically asked about underground pipes and tanks, but we were stonewalled by Entergy. Tritium is a sign of a leaking pipe or tank. Entergy told the panel that they had no buried tanks or pipes containing radioactivity. This is an indication that a radioactive plume is moving under the VY site," Gundersen wrote in an e-mail.

Gundersen said the committee was very concerned about underground radioactive contamination at the site.

"The reason to be concerned where it's coming from and I'm sure that we, at the Department of Health, and throughout the state, are very concerned about," Irwin said.

He said the priority was to identify the source of the pollution, stop it and mitigate the contamination.

"This is the first day of the discovery, so it's really difficult to know," he said. "Something is the source of radioactive contamination."

Irwin said tritium can be naturally occurring, but in levels far below the 700 parts per liter that first showed up on Nov. 17. Tritium is also used in illuminated safety exit signs, he said.

Williams said Entergy Nuclear had already established a 10-member team to investigate the source of the tritium.

Irwin said the initial testing was done by Teledyne Laboratories in Knoxville, Tenn., but that Monday and Tuesday's samples and tests were done onsite by Entergy.

He said he expected the well would be tested repeatedly in the coming week.

"Those of us who were born and raised in Windham County, always hope for the best. We all hope that it's a minor problem," Sen. Peter Shumlin, the Windham Democrat who is president pro tem of the Vermont Senate.

The news about the tritium eclipsed earlier problems in the day at Yankee, when an emergency oil level warning sounded, indicating low oil levels in one of two recirculation pumps at the reactor. The pumps circulate the water that controls the power production levels in the reactor.

The reactor was in the process of returning to full power when the warning came on, Williams said.

But by the afternoon, tests showed that the pump was working properly despite the warning light, said Uldis Vanags, the state nuclear engineer. Entergy resumed bringing the reactor back to full power, closely monitoring the pump, he said.

Entergy had reduced power at Yankee to about 60 percent Wednesday due to a broken 500-pound porcelain insulator in the VELCO switchyard, immediately adjacent to the plant.

VELCO spokesman Kerrick Johnson said it took about 11 hours to replace the insulator, one of about 100 in the yard.

susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


Thank you "Name Change" and those of you who actually attempt to educate yourselves. Bring the plant up to date, the NRC and many other agencies do care about the public. Interstate 91 has and will injure more people the Vermont Yankee ever has or probably would. There are very few viable options for power production in the North East, and nuclear power has done it's part to help us. There are "NO" perfect answers out there so do your homework, put the best people in the industry to work and get your heads out of the sand. Coal and other fossil fuels are raping our planet and polluting it too. Besides they are finite. Support the nuclear industry and help find answers instead of incessant negativism. We are much more likely to be injured driving to Stowe and back than living near or partaking of nuclear power.
-- Posted by Ben Dover on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, 10:49 pm EST

report this comment



Cf You are right on about VY and Enexus and about nuclear power.
-- Posted by Shy Wreath on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, 2:09 pm EST

report this comment



They also want a tremendous increase in rates in the new utility contacts and want to discontinue profit sharing agreements with the utilties. I used to support continued operation. When they are over charging VT, provide a small percentage of their power here (most electricity sold out of state), making the state pay for the majority of shutdown costs, and are now having real issues it is time to close the plant.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, 2:04 pm EST

report this comment



Dr Gonzo

I do not work for VY or NRC, I am in no way affiliated with any Pro Nuke group or energy group.

I am a tax payer and an energy consumer, the same as you.

I have some experience with Nuclear and and have chosen to do research and learn before I muster a judgment. What I have found is that the majority of people who are afraid of Nuclear Power or VY are very uniformed, have little or no understanding of Nuclear and would rather bash something they know little or nothing about and listen to others who are like them, uniformed.

Am I right or do I have all of the answers? He&& know, but I think with the combination of my background and the research I have done. I am very safe at saying, Nuclear Energy and VY are far safer than any other current choice that we have. I will also add that VY has onky a 125 acre footprint and produces 620 MEGA watts of energy on that footprint.

I am far less versed in the companies that are involved and have less knowledge about their intent. MY concern is the safety and well being of Vermonters and the ability to continue to buy our energy at a decent price. As far as the companies are concerned, it is not up to us to dictate how they conduct business. I know some of you support the Man from Kenya and his Socialistic agenda, but VY is about the kind of power it produces and the marketing of that power is yet another issue.

I support keeping VY open and it can be updated as it goes. It is far easier and cheaper to update a plant than it is to tear it down and start over.

Do you live anywhere near VY Dr Gonzo? Are you going to drink any of that water? Then why imply it is a concern of yours. I will bet you one thing, if it was above any SAFETY LEVELS the Feds would be all over it.

Why don't research the levels that are being reported and then post your findings, that would be far more constructive than pounding the drums. Then maybe you would gain some allies.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, 12:12 pm EST

report this comment



NC, do you work for VY or the NRC? Must be. Can I interest you in some beautiful riverfront property close to Trituim Lake? No you say? Why not?
Perhaps you dont mind Tritium in your drinking water, but some of us do mind. Mind it a lot. You have got to be crazy to think nuke power is completly safe.
There is stuff in there that you can't pronounce and have no clue what it will do to you. The #1 myth about nuke power is that it is 100% safe. #2 is that its 100% clean.
Now can we shut it down please? Its leaking Tritium. Whats next? Do you want to find out? I dont.
-- Posted by Dr. Gonzo on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, 9:55 am EST

report this comment



Strangely, I agree with Name Change.

On the other hand.

I don't want to see Enexus, or whatever it's name is, take over. I want Entergy, their main company, to keep it and deal with it til the day it is time to close it. I don't want to see Entergy ***** the Vermonter with the bill. By claiming Bankruptcy with a "Front company" and escaping their responsibilities.

If they are not willing to keep VY under their parent company name. I am not willing to keep supporting them.



But I do support nuclear energy. It is much better and safer than every other major method of powermaking we have.

Wind and Solar make up a tiny fraction of the power we consume on a daily basis. While I hope that will increase, someday. It will be decades before it catches up to other methods, like Coal. Which creates hazards and pollution that you can see, smell, taste, and experience on a daily basis.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Sat, Jan 9, 2010, 8:09 am EST

report this comment



Next you'll be telling us that strontium 90 has benn detected for the first time in an off site well, oh wait that was Indian point...
http://www.ipsecinfo.org/Leak_Sept_2005.htm
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 8:28 pm EST

report this comment



"KSW - the registered lobbyist (should'nt you be doing more to protect the kids)is at it again. More misinformation like 90% of what you read on these blogs about Yankee. Why don't you ever mention your a paid hack? Meanwhile, the regular Vermonter without a lobbyist keeps getting wacked by the legislature. Hmmm - how is that change working for you?"

Ah... I KNEW Back Nine Eckhardt would break his New Years Resolution and start commenting on Yankee-related articles, again! I KNOW the past two or three weeks have killed him... especially after the news of Entergy's AWFUL new proposed contract with CVPS and GMP, which he found himself COMPLETELY unable to defend.

And he's come back with such reassuring flair, too: ad hominem attacks -- again -- on ksw -- again -- as a "lobbyist" -- again -- who therefore automatically can't be trusted. A return to the classics. Good, good stuff.

Welcome back, big guy!
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 6:49 pm EST

report this comment



I am awaiting word from David J. O'Brien,Commissioner,Dept. of Public Service on the appropriate term for this occassion... perhaps, "Friday"?
-- Posted by FDR None on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 6:32 pm EST

report this comment



KSW - the registered lobbyist (should'nt you be doing more to protect the kids)is at it again. More misinformation like 90% of what you read on these blogs about Yankee. Why don't you ever mention your a paid hack? Meanwhile, the regular Vermonter without a lobbyist keeps getting wacked by the legislature. Hmmm - how is that change working for you?
-- Posted by Back Nine on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 6:31 pm EST

report this comment



The report wasn't written by the ANS. Try going to the link, reading it seeing who has the credit for it and then making the comments.
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 3:03 pm EST

report this comment



Do you suppose a finding from the ANS minimizing the Chernoybl accident is a suprise? Golly.

Believe what you like Name Change. I'll take my chances with hydro and windpower.
-- Posted by Dave None on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 12:42 pm EST

report this comment



Here is a good report on Chernobyl

http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/docs/2005-10-3.pdf
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 10:22 am EST

report this comment



Top 10 Myths about Nuclear Energy

Myth # 1: Americans get most of their yearly radiation dose from nuclear power plants.

Truth: We are surrounded by naturally occurring radiation. Only 0.005% of the average American's yearly radiation dose comes from nuclear power; 100 times less than we get from coal, 200 times less than a cross country flight, and about the same as eating 1 banana per year.

Myth # 2: A nuclear reactor can explode like a nuclear bomb.

Truth: It is impossible for a reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon; these weapons contain very special materials in very particular configurations, neither of which are present in a nuclear reactor.

Myth #3: Nuclear energy is bad for the environment.

Truth: Nuclear reactors emit no greenhouse gasses during operation. Over their full lifetimes, they result in comparable emissions to renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar. Nuclear energy requires less land use than most other forms of energy.

Myth # 4: Nuclear energy is not safe.

Truth: Nuclear energy is as safe or safer than any other form of energy available. No member of the public has ever been injured or killed in the entire 50 year history of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. In fact, recent studies have shown that it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than an office.

Myth # 5: There is no solution for huge amounts of nuclear waste being generated.

Truth: All of the used nuclear fuel generated in every nuclear plant in the past 50 years would fill a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards, and 96 % of this "waste" can be recycled. Deep geologic burial has been shown to be safe and effective means of used fuel disposition, and Yucca Mountain has been deemed a technically sound burial site by the Department of Energy.

Myth # 6: Most Americans don't support nuclear power.

Truth: In surveys conducted in 2007, it was found that 63% of Americans support nuclear power. Further, 82% of Americans that live within 10 miles of an existing nuclear power plant favor nuclear energy.

Myth # 7: An American "Chernobyl" would kill thousands of people.

Truth: A Chernobyl type accident could not have happened outside of the Soviet Union because this type of reactor was never built or operated here. The known fatalities during the Chernobyl accident were mostly emergency first responders. Of the people known to have received a high radiation dose, the increase in cancer incidence is too small to measure due to other causes of cancer such as air pollution and tobacco use.

Myth # 8: Nuclear waste cannot be safely transported.

Truth: Used fuel is being safely shipped by truck, rail, and cargo ship today. To date, thousands of shipments have been transported with no leaks or cracks of the specially designed casks.

Myth # 9: Used nuclear fuel is deadly for 10,000 years.

Truth: Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts. Most of the waste from this process will require a storage time of less than 300 years. Finally, less than 1% is radioactive for 10,000 years. This portion is not much more radioactive than some things found in nature, and can be easily shielded to protect humans and wildlife.

Myth # 10: Nuclear energy can't reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Truth: Nuclear generated electricity powers electric trains and subway cars as well as autos today. In the near term, nuclear power can provide electricity for expanded mass transit and plug in hybrid cars. In the longer term, nuclear power can directly reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing hydrogen for fuel cells and to produce synthetic liquid fuels.
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 10:12 am EST

report this comment



I can't for the life of me figure out what the official Vermont Yankee response to the tritium link is--or should be. See "Tritium Leak" at "Are You There God, It's Me, Fake-Rob Williams. "http://fakerobwilliams.blogspot.com/2010/01/tritium-leak.html

Cheers,

Fake-Rob
-- Posted by Fake- Rob on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 10:06 am EST

report this comment



Do of you understand the measurement or is the word RADIATION what you are making all the silly posts over?

http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/

"We live in a radioactive world, humans always have. Radiation is part of our natural environment. We are exposed to radiation from materials in the earth itself, from naturally occurring radon in the air, from outer space, and from inside our own bodies (as a result of the food and water we consume). This radiation is measured in units called millirems (mrems).

The average dose per person from all sources is about 360 mrems per year. It is not, however, uncommon for any of us to receive far more than that in a given year (largely due to medical procedures we may undergo). International Standards allow exposure to as much as 5,000 mrems a year for those who work with and around radioactive material."

If you live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant (0.01 mrem)is added to the other sources such as Air, Food, Earth and whatever. Not .01 TOTAL.

In another thread I went to a site where a guy was holding a meter that showed .6 whatevers at whatever scale and claimed .01 was normal for an unrediated area. FALSE. .01 is what a plant produces and then add all the other sources in the area. The only way to measure is to set you calibrate your scale to read zero and then go the immediate area and take another reading. One reading will not establish credible evidence and fear over a report that no one understands is silly.

Watching TV will give you a dose of about 1 mrem per year.

Your PC video display (1 mrem)per year.

Traveling by Jet Plane is .5 mrem per HOUR. Where is all the shouting here?

If you live in a stone, adobe, brick, or concrete building (7 mrem) per year.

and yet you are complaining over a measurment, you do not understand and you are attacking a source of cheap and clean energy because you don't understand it.

KNOWLEDGE REPLACE FEAR
-- Posted by Name Change on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 9:59 am EST

report this comment



Entergy will leave a trail of deceit when they leave Vermont and spin off this mess to Enexus while pocketing the money Enexus will pay them. Entergy told us there were no underground pipes at the plant. We were told there was no radioactive waste leaking into the soil, river or aquifer. We were told they would return the site to a green field. But then, Jay Thayer testified to the Vermont Public Service Board that Entergy could not commit to a 10/4 millirem residual radiation standard because they didn't know how much radiological remediation would be required. They do not know how contaminated the Vermont Yankee site is not have they put up the money for even minimal decommissioning. With previous decommissioning of the Maine
Yankee,, Connecticut and Yankee Rowe decommissioning, state officials nerver found much of anything during operation, but extensive radiological soil contamination was found during decommissiioning which significantly increased the cost. Mr. Irwin this is not the first instance.This latest radioactive leak started in November.
-- Posted by ksw on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 9:23 am EST

report this comment



Don't worry, the wind won't blow it this way!
-- Posted by True Vermonter on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 9:02 am EST

report this comment



Just goes to show you how dangerous this plant really is, with cooling towers collapsing and cranes breaking down with the very real possibility of killing someone when it nearly dropped a fuel cask on the fueling room floor. They can't even keep a couple of old ladies out of the security areas. When are the terrorists just going to mosey on in and have a field day? Because from the looks of it, would be VERY easy to push this antiquated piece of junk into a meltdown. But I guess we need cheap power more then safety according to a lot of people on this forum. Sad, sad, sad.
-- Posted by bob vila on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 7:58 am EST

report this comment



Is this story connected to one i remember reading earlier about possible contamination coming from a floor drain pipe or something?

"Entergy Nuclear announced late Thursday one of its monitoring wells on the banks of the Connecticut River had detected radioactive tritium contamination, the first time such contamination has shown up at the plant."

"Tests show tritium levels have risen sharply since it was first discovered six weeks ago."

"This is the first day of discovery so it's really difficult to know..."

Which is it? Is today the first day, or was the first day back in November when it was first discovered? Or is it the same old same old with Entergy, don't worry about it until it really becomes a huge problem and then address it?
-- Posted by you've got to be kidding me on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 7:25 am EST

report this comment



well, the woman in the commercials should come foward and inform us in an intelligent and honest way as she portrays herself or, does she just want to keep the her check and lie. either way, let's hear a new commercial from her informing the public as she claims to live and now, possibly die for due to radiation poisoning. such a shame common sense is shunned for dollars and cents.
-- Posted by ronald grande on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, 5:07 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout