Vermont Nuclear Plant Says Radioactive Leak Plugged

VERNON, Vt. — Officials at Vermont's only nuclear power plant say they've stopped a leak of a radioactive substance and are starting to clean up the groundwater.

The Vermont Yankee tritium leak reported Jan. 7 was from two pipes in a concrete tunnel. Water carrying tritium seeped into soil and groundwater because of a clogged drain.

Plant officials say the cleanup will begin Thursday at the plant in Vernon, near where Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts meet.

They also say no detectable tritium levels have been found in nearby drinking water well samples or in the Connecticut River.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan calls the announcement "very good news" but says federal regulators still have concerns about the leak.

The 38-year-old plant is scheduled to close in 2012, but owner Entergy Corp. is seeking permission to run it for another 20 years.

Comments

[research]

04:07 PM on 04/19/2010

Green energy can provide all the energy the world will need,clan, safe, cheap and forever.

Nuke power in 50 years has create proliferation, history's deadliest million year waste, and city killing terrorist targets.

Green energy is growing 50% per year, only 11 years are needed to reach 90% green energy.

wind 3-6 cents, rooftop pv solar 3-6 cents, waste biochar cheaper than dumping.

[charles77]

12:47 PM on 04/10/2010

The LIFE engine would use an ICF laser system similar to the one now under development at NIF to ignite fusion targets surrounded by a spherical blanket of subcritical fission fuel. The fuel could be one of many fertile or fissile materials, including thorium, light-water reactor spent nuclear fuel, weapons-grade plutonium, highly enriched uranium, and natural and depleted uranium. (Fertile material is nuclear material that can be converted to fissile material through the capture of a neutron, such as uranium-238.)

LIFE provides a point source of ICF-generated neutrons to extract virtually all of the energy content of its fuel. LIFE would close the nuclear fuel cycle without the need for chemical separation and reprocessing. LIFE would be proliferation-resistant and passively safe, require no uranium isotope enrichment and lessen the need for long-term geologic storage of nuclear waste.

LIFE would enable the worldwide expansion of nuclear power in a safe, secure and sustainable manner. A number of reviews and discussions of the proposal with energy experts over the last year have been positive and supportive of the concept. A LIFE development team of about 40 physicists, materials scientists, engineers and energy and national security experts from LLNL, the University of California at Berkeley and other institutions is developing a "point design" – the target and laser features for specific experiments – and a path forward for LIFE.

https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/

[research]

04:09 PM on 04/19/2010

LIFE, because calling it apolcypitc death from proliferation and resulting nuclear war

is such a downer....

[research]

03:12 PM on 04/01/2010

Waste bio fuels, including marginal land, and water, does not effect food land use or cost.

In fact waste Bio Char save lots of money on waste disposal, and dumping, and provide energy fuel and fertilizer all carbon negative.

see my profile for proof. don't believe the nuke fear uncertainty and doubt arguments.

It's nuke power we have good reason to fear : proliferation , waste, terrorists, expensive and slow to install.

solar wind and waste bio fuels can profile all the energy the world needs: clean, safe, cheap and forever.

[friedfish2718]

09:02 PM on 03/28/2010

Biofuels? Increase impact on already stressed land ecology. Emphasis on biofuels enhance desertification.

Wind? chopping up birds and as irregular as rooftop solar. Need to have an area clear of trees: stress on land ecology.

Water turbines? Almost all the hydroelectric sites are already developed. Water turbines: disruption of
water ecology.

There was a time when wind, water and biofuels were the main energy sources and that was before the 1800's. That economy cannot get out of the agrarian state until the use of coal in the Industrial Revolution. Solar thermal (which is more efficient than photovoltaics) was explored in the early 1800's and found wanting in comparison to oil and coal.

With current global population, solar and wind put more stress on sick Nature. Earth's ecology needs the sun and wind, not nuclear, not oil. Energy sources with smaller footprint - like Nuclear - will allow Nature to heal.

With smaller population and Nature recuperated - in a few centuries - solar and wind will do.

[research]

02:48 PM on 03/29/2010

"not nuclear... like nuclear" WTF? Bio fuels rooftop solar pv and offshore wind are all ready to go NOW. Nukes are not.

[friedfish2718]

03:03 PM on 03/29/2010

"Bio fuels rooftop solar pv and offshore wind are all ready to go NOW."

Nope. Cannot take care of no more than 20%. Denmark (wind) pay the highest energy rate in the EU while at the same time makes money for Sweden (nuclear).

Spain (solar) is as sick as Greece, with France (nuclear) making money off Spain.

"Nukes are not."

Nope. Nuclear is already NOW. Sweden: 50% nuclear. Ukraine : 40%; France: 80% etc...
China with 11 nuclear plants underway with 2 per year for the next 50 years.

75% of Vermont's electricity is from the 1 nuclear plant they want to shut down, well I am getting my popcorn and soda and watch this spectacle.

As far as biofuel, Brazil is the largest player and Brazil is not stupid: it is still full speed ahead with off-shore oil (and subsidized by the US), and nuclear.

[research]

03:36 PM on 03/28/2010

Nuclear waste is the perfect Mass Murder crime.

You can dump low levels of radiation in the the environment, that will eventually kill people from cancer, 10 to 20 years from now, and can keep killing people for a million years.

Since the deaths cannot be distinguished from natural cancer deaths, only statistical means can detect the increased deaths.

Nuclear waste insidious deadliness is reason enough to stop all nuke power development.

Solar wind and Bio fuels are all cheaper, faster to implement, clean, safe and forever.

"Clean" and too cheap to meter. we remember your nukes industry lies.

The nukes power industry grow out of the bomb industry. That's why the Uranium once through cycle was adopted: it makes the best bomb material.

Nuke power industry has inherited all of the bad habits of the nuclear bomb projects: secrecy, deception, disregard for the safety of civilians, and a war desperation mentality that will risk the Apocalypse to keep their program running.

don't be fooled again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research?action=profile

remove all subsides and breaks from nukes and fossils, they had their chance, let them spend their own money if they want to clean up their act.

cap and tax radiation 1$ per curie? that will make nukes and coal unprofitable, as they should be for the damage to the commons they do.

[realpolitic]

09:23 PM on 03/26/2010

I hope independent officials will do their own testing to test for that chemical and not just believe what the company says. It could mean the life or death of local residents.

[guinganbresil]

11:50 PM on 03/26/2010

Tritium...? I don't think so.

If water straight from the primary is ~3 million picoCuries/liter and the NRC says 60,900 picoCuries/liter gives a dose of 4 mrem/year, then you would get:

(3,000,000 pC/l) / (60,900 pC/l) x 4 mrem/year = 197 mrem/year

This is from drinking straight tritiated water from the primary ALL YEAR.

For comparison, this is about the same as one head CT (~200 mrem) spread out over a year...

There were NO DETECTABLE LEVELS OF TRITIUM in the Connecticut River. So no, it does not mean "life or death of local residents"... In fact I WOULD drink tritiated water at these level - I know something you don't...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html

http://hps.org/physicians/documents/Doses_from_Medical_X-Ray_Procedures.pdf

[realpolitic]

05:48 PM on 03/27/2010

"Tritium is relatively similar to hydrogen, which makes it bind to OH as tritiated water (HTO), and that it can make organic bonds (OBT) easily. The HTO and the OBT are easily ingested by drinking, through organic or water-containing foodstuffs. As tritium is not a strong beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally, but it is a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food, water, or absorbed through the skin. HTO has a short biological half life in the human body of 7 to 14 days which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

[charles77]

11:49 AM on 03/27/2010

"It could mean the life or death of local residents"

What are you thinking? Death of local residents????

Before you post such silly histeria you should read a little. It is just this kind of uninformed sillyness that will result in delays of new nuclear plants and cause us to continue burning coal, our ONLY alternative for our 24/7 baseline power!

From our own government website:

"Tritium is a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen that is produced in the atmosphere when cosmic rays collide with air molecules. As a result, tritium is found in very small or trace amounts in groundwater throughout the world. It is also a byproduct of the production of electricity by nuclear power plants. Tritium emits a weak form of radiation, a low-energy beta particle similar to an electron. The tritium radiation does not travel very far in air and cannot penetrate the skin."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html

[realpolitic]

05:47 PM on 03/27/2010

Read again. "Tritium is dangerous if inhaled or ingested. It can combine with oxygen to form tritiated water molecules that can be absorbed through pores in the skin, leading to cell damage and an increased chance of cancer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

[hubbahubba77]

06:11 PM on 03/26/2010

Of all places Vermont should be nuke-free. I hope they don't get the extension and close it. Wood-burning fires are more romantic anyway.

[gravey72]

11:40 PM on 03/26/2010

AGREED,however, the U.S. is the world leader in actual number of nuclear power plants with,I believe,109... knowing this,we should all inform ourselves a little better!

[charles77]

11:50 AM on 03/27/2010

And we need about 250 more to stop burning coal. If you do not support nuclear, your are supporting coal. Simple as that.

[charles77]

02:54 PM on 03/26/2010

The plant cannot be closed in two years anyway.
“However, in Vermont, an assessment by ISO found "potential reliability problems," he said. Under certain conditions, transmission lines in the state could become overloaded with more electricity than they were designed to carry, which can damage the lines, Rourke said. In addition, if the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant shuts, more "system vulnerabilities" would affect Vermont and some surrounding areas, including portions of New Hampshire and north-central Massachusetts, he said.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/26/alternative-energy-little_n_514760.html

[charles77]

01:57 PM on 03/26/2010

Why do you think Obama is for “clean coal” and Nuclear? Because 50% (20% Nuclear today) of our electricity comes from coal, switching to Nuclear would raise our electric bills a little, switching it to wind and solar, not possible without storage anyway, would mean electric bills 5 TIMES HIGHER than today! He dosen’t have any politically viable choice. People cannot pay electric bills higher than their rent or mortgage.

Dr. Chu, Obama’s Energy Dept Head, was asked since solar is now a proven technolgy why are utilities not putting up millions of them. His response, “the price of solar would have to fall by a factor of 5 to 10 for that to happen”.
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/page1/
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/steven_chu/index.html

Even people in the solar industry, the true believers of the true believers, don’t see the systems getting much cheaper in the near future because building solar cells has already become a commodity industry. They take a fixed amount of raw materials and the price of those raw materials is not falling and in some cases, like rare earth elements, is rising.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm

[triciap317]

02:25 PM on 03/26/2010

Yeah, but the problem with nuclear power are issues like this..."a leaky pipe"? Would hate to live in neighboring communities.

I completely agree that paying more money for electricity than a mortgage is insane...there just has to be a comfortable middle.

[gravey72]

12:18 AM on 03/27/2010

However " clean coal " is a hoax!!! Pumping CO2 into underground storage cavities is absolutely absurd! All of you who believe that it's a good idea,I challenge you, to go sit in your RUNNING vehicle,w/the door completely closed,and then get back with me.NO... So then what do you think even an accidental expulsion of super concentrated CO2 would do to entire regions,of say, anywhere??? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL...and no forseeable technology to make it a reality,any time soon. Workable technology for current projected "clean coal " goals, are at least 20+ years away. Sadly, we don't have that long to wait,on projected goals that...that inevitably fail.I'm not saying that " clean coal " may never b/c a reality,BUT IT'S NOT THE ANSWER! Let's concentrate our time,our energy and our economics on new and alternative energies that would seem to dictate the lack of even figuring out " clean coal " anyway...PERIOD!

[charles77]

11:51 AM on 03/27/2010

Well if you do not like coal get behind nuclear. That is our choice for at least the next 100 years.

[tragicallyblonde]

01:40 PM on 03/26/2010

"clogged drain"..??

[onalimb]

01:08 PM on 03/26/2010

Yeah.
In a few years we will have Gamarra or something.

[charles77]

12:59 PM on 03/26/2010

Vermont has been spoiled for 38 years with clean Nuclear Power, you don't remember the coal plants.
Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium. The population gets 100 times more radiation from a coal plant than from a nuclear plant. So in 2004 by burning 4.6 billions tons of coal, we released 5980 tons of uranium into the air and 14720 tons of Thorium.
This is like 80 truck size dirty nuclear bombs releasing 1 ton of radioactive material every day.
A Chernobyl twice a week.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/10/coal-chernobyl-twice-week-and-coal-9.html

Coal ash that contains arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, and mercury. are leached into groundwater from it's storage in coal ash "surface impoundments." Impoundments which are in fact are no more or less than big holes in the ground that remain open to rainfall from above and water seepage from below.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rena-steinzor/oiras-time-is-up-on-coal_b_460678.html

[raven119]

10:45 AM on 03/26/2010

Vermont Yankee plant has been one mishap after the other. While the state legislature has voted to not renew its license, Entergy says it will fight the vote.

The arrogance, the ineptitude and the misinformation coming from Entergy has helped many of us in Vermont to finally realize that nuclear plants are a danger to anyone downwind (and down water).

It is time we pull the plug on VY and make them clean up the mess they've created.

[charles77]

12:24 PM on 03/26/2010

When you replace the 90% percent of electricity you get from your nuclear plant with coal, you will really see "the danger to anyone downwind (and down water)" from coal.

Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium. The population gets 100 times more radiation from a coal plant than from a nuclear plant. So in 2004 by burning 4.6 billions tons of coal, we released 5980 tons of uranium into the air and 14720 tons of Thorium.
This is like 80 truck size dirty nuclear bombs releasing 1 ton of radioactive material every day.
A Chernobyl twice a week.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/10/coal-chernobyl-twice-week-and-coal-9.html

Coal ash that contains arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, and mercury. are leached into groundwater from it's storage in coal ash "surface impoundments." Impoundments which are in fact are no more or less than big holes in the ground that remain open to rainfall from above and water seepage from below.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rena-steinzor/oiras-time-is-up-on-coal_b_460678.html

[charles77]

12:54 PM on 03/26/2010

The Vermont State Senate will look at how many coal plants it will take to replace the 90% (CO2 FREE) of Vermonts electricity that this plant produces and vite to keep it open with some new safety requirments.

"nuclear plants are a danger to anyone downwind (and down water)"
Well nothing comes out in the air and the water leak has been fixed.

You have been spolied for 38 years with clean Nuclear Power, you don't remember the coal plants.

[webweaver]

10:33 AM on 03/26/2010

This AP article is incomplete:

On February 24, the Vermont State Senate voted to stop the Vermont Public Service Board from issuing a "Certificate of Public Good" for continuation of Vermont Yankee operation past its original license.

Entergy agreed in 2002 to follow whatever the Vermont legislature decided.

Well, they have decided. No more Vermont Yankee after 2012.

The plant will close on March 12, 2012.

Now it's time to plan a post-ENVY Vermont Energy Plan.

[charles77]

12:27 PM on 03/26/2010

The Vermont State Senate will vote again and extend the license. Common sense will prevail. They may impose new safety requirments. The danger and cost of building all the coal plants to replace it will prove decisive.