iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Entergy, Vermont Nuclear Plant Owner, Refusing State Testing Request

Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Posted: 01/27/2012 11:40 am

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Entergy Corp.'s Vermont Yankee nuclear plant once again is refusing the state's request that it conduct more tests for radioactive tritium in a former drinking water well on the plant grounds.

Christopher Wamser, site vice president for plant owner Entergy, says in a Jan. 20 letter to Public Service Commissioner Elizabeth Miller that such testing would be inappropriate because it could contaminate the bedrock aquifer at the bottom of the well and might not produce reliable results.

"We do not see how the incremental value of the results from such testing would outweigh the risk, particularly when there is already extensive testing information available from numerous other wells on- and off-site (including drinking water wells)," Wamser wrote in a letter released by Miller's department.

A key issue in the dispute is what type of testing would be most appropriate.

The plant says it would want to use a method that requires purging the well, which could increase the chances of the bedrock aquifer becoming contaminated. Wamser said the state's suggestion that a "grab sample" be taken from the well wouldn't produce reliable results.

Wamser wrote that "vertical flow within the well and insertion of the sampling equipment would cause mixing within the well column and would not tell us the location of tritium, if any, within that column."

Laurence Becker, the state geologist, said in an interview that Wamser's reading of the situation is wrong. He said he had checked with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and been told that the amounts of tritium in the well water would be consistent.

"The EPA got back to us about sampling for tritium in a water column. It's mixed very completely," Becker said. "You can take a grab sample from what is sitting in the bore hole right now and get a sense of what the tritium levels are."

Becker said the state is especially interested in new results for the well, which is deeper than other test wells dug around the plant since tritium was first discovered to have leaked in late 2009.

Entergy officials had produced a conceptual site characterization showing that water flows up from the bedrock into shallower underground depths where tritium has been found. The theory was that with water flowing upward, tritium — essentially a radioactive form of water — would not be flowing downward to the bedrock.

That's why testing of a well dug into bedrock is important, Becker said, especially when one earlier test showed tritium in it.

"Maybe it's an anomaly, maybe it's not," he said.

Gov. Peter Shumlin first requested follow-up tests of the former drinking water well in late 2010, while he was still governor-elect. Several requests by the state since then also have been rebuffed.

Wamser's Jan. 20 letter came one day after a federal judge in Brattleboro issued a ruling saying Vermont may not force its lone nuclear plant to shut down when its initial 40-year license expires March 21.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Entergy Corp.'s Vermont Yankee nuclear plant once again is refusing the state's request that it conduct more tests for radioactive tritium in a former drinking water well on t...
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Entergy Corp.'s Vermont Yankee nuclear plant once again is refusing the state's request that it conduct more tests for radioactive tritium in a former drinking water well on t...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 174
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
12:44 PM on 02/04/2012
That video is bad. No radiation deaths, pssh. Of course there aren't, yet. Radiation is the silent killer, it takes time and usually you see it when babies are born dead (infant mortality rate) or the babies born get leukemia when they're 4, or they are born deformed, or you see it in the cancer rates many years later. What he was saying is simply not true, they are already discovering birds at fukushima with deformed brains and there is a die out as I write this. Places with Nuclear reactors encountering problems: healthy infant rate in belarus is 0%,Ukraine is 20-0% best areas are 80% mutants and that statistic does not include what happens to them later in life. It only means they had a brain on the INSIDE of their bodies, or they had a functioning heart. Look up fukushimaupdate.com updating on current issues related to that. Common Dreams posted an article about the bird deaths, it's entitled Bird Population in Collapse Near Fukushima
Study: Many species show “dramatically” elevated DNA mutation rates, developmental abnormalities and extinctions. No one is paying serious attention to the life expectancy of the plants with in the US, the Vermont Yankee reaches it's life expectancy in March and they approved 20 more years when in 2011 they found tritium in local water supplies around the plant. For or against ignoring this simple fact is genocide, it's not like radiation goes away.
11:07 AM on 01/31/2012
What a piece of tripe. No way of dealing with all the wastes which are nearly forever. No real information when mishaps do happen, i.e. Fukishima. The industry has total control of the NEA and most of the media. So the truth concerning threat is kept and controlled. Mining uranium is very dirty. So often due to geography and population there are no real evacuation routes for catastrophes. So many nuclear plants are ill positioned due to proximity to earth faults, coastal positions and population density. Overly taxed aged nuclear facilities who refuse close scrutiny, i.e the Yankee reactor in Vermont, for years at Brookhaven, N.Y. etc.
With the truth of the severity of the Fukishima disaster still unknown, even as its owner and the Japanese government claim control of a "not too bad accident of nature" many, many lives are threatened beginning in just a couple of years and beyond from the fall-out released both in the air and in the sea. How can an industry, subsidized so incredibly by governments because insurance companies refuse to cover them and because the technology is so damn expensive, ever be trusted and relied upon for cheap, safe,clean and dependable energy?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
10:40 AM on 01/31/2012
Good for them. This is just harrassment by the govt. of Vermont, who, having lost in court, is now seeking to make operations as expensive as possible.
Next, they'll probably declare the road leading to the plant a toll-road and charge everyone going to work a fee to go to work.
Look for more tricks of this sort.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oahutrading
07:10 PM on 03/20/2012
Thanks for the tips, good ideas.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nirek
Proud progressive Vietnam vet. against WAR
06:30 PM on 01/30/2012
I do NOT trust Entergy. They lie , deceive, and distort the truth. They obstruct and the NRC helps them. I do NOT trust the NRC to regulate the safety of the nuclear industry.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disappointed Democrat
03:15 PM on 01/30/2012
No nuclear power plant is safe:

http://ene­news.com/u­-s-univers­ity-study-­23-higher-­incidence-­of-childho­od-leukemi­a-within-1­6-km-of-nu­clear-faci­lities-mor­e

And hot off the presses - a radiologic­al release from an Illinois nuclear plant that was unable to cope with loss of offsite power earlier today:

http://ene­news.com/j­ust-in-eme­rgency-shu­tdown-at-i­llinois-re­actor-smok­e-was-actu­ally-steam­-containin­g-radioact­ive-materi­al-workers­-evacuated
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nirek
Proud progressive Vietnam vet. against WAR
06:27 PM on 01/30/2012
http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9SJFUOO1%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=931

Just so you know there is the story elsewhere, too.
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
07:35 PM on 01/29/2012
Socs can't refute the fact that expanding energy production is a ponzi scheme. Because it is a fact.
06:27 PM on 01/29/2012
Damn, he has a point !


I hear people talk about supporting the state of Vermont as we campaign to shut down Vermont Yankee.

I see no reason to support the state of Vermont regarding shutting down Vermont Yankee. For the past 40 years, some branch of the state government or another has historically allowed VY to operate with impunity, lies, and poisoning the water, air, and life of its surrounding area.

http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site05/story.php?articleno=4749&page=1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oahutrading
07:11 PM on 03/20/2012
hey MDO, what you know about chelation...
em me at

sd --- a t--
hawaii.rr.com
05:35 PM on 01/29/2012
Pretty balanced article on court decision, from local source.

The Vermont Yankee challenge: A moment of firm decision - or indecision?

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120129/NEWS03/120128030/Vermont-Yankee-nuclear-power-plant?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
05:15 PM on 01/29/2012
Nuclear energy production already meets a standard 100 times tougher than any other method of producing electricity.The plant where I work is ISO 14000 certified. if a car in the parking lot drips 3 drops of oil a haz-mat team is called to investigate/clean it up, drinking water is not allowed to be spilled into storm drains without treatment due to the high chlorine content, we are stewards of our environment. Who monitors the PV plant in China? What happens to the gallons of oil in a wind generator? What happens to the tonnes of pollutants from coal plants? I sometimes wonder if my tax dollars are being spent in the best way to protect my environment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disappointed Democrat
04:38 PM on 01/30/2012
Nifty that they can keep things so squeaky clean at the plant, but the problem appears to be what's released offsite - radiation and fission products that cause cancers and leukemia and other deadly effects:

http://enenews.com/u-s-university-study-23-higher-incidence-of-childhood-leukemia-within-16-km-of-nuclear-facilities-more
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
05:06 PM on 01/30/2012
Unscrupulous statisticians with an ax to grind, no reputable scientist would have anything to do with those studies . Most studies have not been able to detect an increased risk of cancer among people exposed to low levels of radiation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nuclear power plant operations account for less than one-hundredth (1/100) of a percent of the average American's total radiation exposure.
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/MedicalTreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oahutrading
07:12 PM on 03/20/2012
Sounds like a real stupid way to deal with oil and tap water.....outrageous, seems more like a cover for playing with the most dangerous thing on earth to pump your little scientific ego.
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
01:49 AM on 01/29/2012
They just make these grand meaningless generalizations about how we will all die without massive eternally expanding increases in energy production. They don't even understand the "rebound" or "backfire" effect, known from highway construction: build it and they will use it. Produce more energy and they will use it. Produce more than that and they will use it. Produce infinite energy and they will use it. Nuclear power and the whole "we must have more energy" canard is all a big Ponzi scheme scam.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:04 AM on 01/29/2012
Yes, you are correct! Faved, already fanned!

Just say N☢ to Nuclear, it is too RISKY
... For everyone except those making money from it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
05:22 PM on 01/29/2012
They make these vague generalizations about how "any radiation is harmful" and how we'll all die horrible deaths if the least amount of radiation exposure from nuclear power plants, when we're already exposed to 3,000 times more radiation from other sources. They claim not to see the correlation between abundant, clean, energy and the standard of living, which has been evident since the beginning of time. They just don't seem to get it...
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
01:44 AM on 01/29/2012
Socs can't face the truth. They support the falsifying, suppression, and deletion of NPP safety reports. When I accuse them of it they change the subject.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jtt
-
11:31 PM on 01/28/2012
They need to be able to run their plant without leaks. No matter how small.

Its a leak; if they cant test for it and fix it and clean up they need to let someone else run it.

Nuclear power is clean and reliable when it is not done on the cheap.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
11:30 AM on 01/29/2012
Nuclear is N☢T "clean and reliable when it is not done on the cheap."
Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!

Just because it has only happened a few times SO FAR means nothing!

Ask The Japanese; before 3/11 they were the poster nuclear Energy Country,
...Now they have a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster to deal with...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
traceymarie
the President is black, deal with it
04:57 PM on 01/28/2012
A southern based company that has been poluding for decades. They are protected in NO, La. and Texas
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
11:31 AM on 01/29/2012
Just like TEPCO is protected in Japan...

Nuclear Industry = ZERO Government Control
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nirek
Proud progressive Vietnam vet. against WAR
06:38 PM on 01/30/2012
The NRC is no more than an extension of the industry it is supposed to regulate for safety. ( the only entity that is allowed to do so )
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
01:51 PM on 01/28/2012
#1 Nuclear is not only RISKY to the Planet but also has huge potential problems, so promoting for the use of land based nuclear reactors and or the building of new land based reactors makes no sense at all to me; either financially or safety-wise since Solar (of all flavors) is now about the same or less costly to build!

#2 I think that "dirty" coal can be used in modern plants to generate Energy so it is less damaging to the Planet but it should be phased out as Solar (of all flavors) is installed. I fully expect Germany to development a state of the art coal fired plant that is several magnitudes of order cleaner than what we think of now when we think of Coal and or Gas fired plants. The Japanese are in the process of planning to install mega solar in Argentina (and many believe in Australia) then use the Energy to produce Hydrogen which they will ship to Japan and or sell on the market. This is a great example of planning ahead by not just building more nuclear...
con't
02:53 PM on 01/28/2012
"I think that "dirty" coal can be used in modern plants to generate Energy s"

Now Cap'n shilling for Big Coal as well as Big Oil.

Solar starts at 70 cents today when transmission and filthy deadly polluting and ghg spewing gas backup is included. Add a buck a kwh for green storage to replace the gas. Wind is twenty cents less.

Here is the real cost of a real solar install just completed by expert engineers at Duke Energy.

Google "biofuelswatch.com/solarfarm-starts-operation"

$43 a watt average, 18% capacity factor, 50 cents a kwh at Dukes discount rate.

Google "pge-to-purchase-operate-246-mw-manzana wind-project"

One the other hand here is a real 3 cents a kwh cost of a real nuke reactor.

AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installations over the last twenty years all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh when the 1.5 cent a kwh fuel and O&M cost is included.

Google "cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/default"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
05:07 PM on 01/28/2012
No Candu reactor have ever been built in the U.S. not will they ever be built in the U.S.. However, being the lying liar you are, I am sure you failed to include any Canadian subsidies in your calculation. The numbers you have provided are bogus.

http://www.cnp.ca/resources/nuc-subsidies-at-50-ex-sum.html

http://www.ccnr.org/subsidies.html

Canada's Nuclear Industry -- Fifty Years of Failure

Economics : There are currently 22 reactors operating in Canada, with eight of these in long-term shutdown. Nuclear power generated only 12% of Canada's electricity in 1998, and this has come at a very high cost. The total subsidies (1952-2000) for Canada's state-owned nuclear company, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) were $16.6 billion ($Cdn 2000) [4]. This does not count hidden subsidies such as federal nuclear liability protection, tax breaks, and provincial debt guarantees for nuclear utilities.

At the time of its dissolution in 1999, Ontario Hydro left a massive debt of $38 billion -- most of it from nuclear power. In order to allow Ontario Hydro's successor companies to remain viable in a competitive market, they were relieved of $22 billion of this nuclear debt (known as "stranded debt"). Ontario Power Generation (Ontario Hydro's successor on the generating side) is owner of 20 of Canada' s 22 power reactors. It has estimated its decommissioning and radioactive waste liability at about $20 billion - a figure that will undoubtedly rise in coming decades.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
01:51 PM on 01/28/2012
Cont
#3 We should use oil for transportation until we can develop engines that will run off something cleaner without affecting our food supplies! Heavy trucks require the "power" contained in diesel fuel and all Countries, especially the US depend upon diesel powered trains, farm equipment and trucks to transport food stuffs from A to B... Electric mag-lev types of replacements are not being installed because money is being used elsewhere!

#4 Energy from Space will transform our Planet and the sooner we begin the sooner we will stop the global resource race which leads to ever more wasteful wars and possible the end of life as we know it because of nuclear radiation and or pollution!

For more, read at least one of these:
The High Frontier by Gerard K. O'Neill,
Colonies In Space by A. Heppenheim­er.
The Third Industrial Revolution G. Harry Stine
The Space Enterprise by Philip Robert Harris
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeMustDoBetter09
02:23 PM on 01/28/2012
It doesn't make sense, does it CaptD? WHY must we continue down this deadly path when there is something BETTER/CLEANER/GREENER?! God, I can't wait until NEW technology RACES PAST THIS OLD TECHNOLOGY, whereby saving the planet and humanity. It will happen...I just hope it happens very very SOON.
FAVED
04:36 PM on 01/28/2012
Nuclear tech is not old...yes, current plants are old compared to new plant designs, but we didn't even know how to harness nuclear power until about 60 years ago.

Solar and wind have their place, but they cannot meet the demands of an industrial society. As Obama said, we need an all of the above strategy.

But none of that matters, because natural gas is the only game in town for the foreseeable future. Though I wonder how many folks will call it a "renewable energy boom" when solar and wind installs have to be "backed up" (used 80%+ of the time) with these natural gas resources. That alone should tell you that solar and wind can't meet our needs.