« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Will the Vermont Yankee Leak Throw a Wrench in Obama’s Nuclear Future?

By: Steve Maley (Diary)  |  February 22nd, 2010 at 11:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There seems to be a pattern here. Just when President Obama expresses his support for an issue, said issue turns to ca-ca.

Less than one month ago in his State of the Union address, the Rookie President read the following from TOTUS:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.)

So less than a month later, a monitoring well near the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has detected a leak of radioactive tritium. The apparent source of the leak is some underground piping that plant managers didn’t know existed.

R’uh-r’oh.

Vermont Yankee currently produces 30 percent of the state’s electricity. It is producing under a 40-year license that is eligible for a 20-year renewal in 2012, but the license renewal may now be in jeopardy. The plant’s operator, New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., had planned to spin off Yankee and four of its other nuke plants into a new company to be called Enexus Energy Corp., but the leak may scotch those plans, too.
Vermont Yankee radioactive leak causes many complications for Entergy

On Wednesday, the Vermont Legislature will vote on whether to extend the plant’s license for 20 years, or require Entergy to shut it down in 2012. Lawmakers surveyed in recent days have said they expect the extension to be voted down even though closing the plant would result in higher electricity rates for customers. And the Burlington Free Press advocated closing the plant, which provides 30 percent of the state’s power, in an editorial in Sunday’s paper. …

Michael Dworkin, a former chairman of the Vermont Public Service Board who now teaches at Vermont Law School, said it’s not the tritium leak that is the problem, it’s the way Entergy has conducted itself. Before it became clear that underground pipes at the plant were leaking, company officials had testified under oath on several occasions that there were no underground pipes, suggesting either that officials lied or didn’t understand the plant they were operating.

Nothing in the above article adresses the actual amount of tritium leaked, or its potential threat. Here, though, is a seemingly intelligent blogger who can put it into perspective:

I did a Google News search on the words “tritium leak Vermont” that produced 113 results, several with associated images of protesters carrying signs advocating an immediate plant shutdown. I read some of the articles and realized that they were stories about a few liters of water in the ground at the site of a nuclear power plant that each contained 0.000000028 curies of tritium. That is just 2.9 trillionths of a gram (2.9 x 10^-12) of tritium. For comparison, every liter of water contains about 111 grams of hydrogen, so the portion of hydrogen that is a tritium isotope is incredibly small – just 1 out of every 2.6 x 10^14 atoms.

The breathless calls for a shutdown of Vermont Yankee due to the quantity of tritium discovered is not just a tempest in a tea pot, it is more like vividly describing a swirl in a water droplet under a microscope and believing it should instill the same level of concern generated by Hurricane Katrina.

Now, I don’t necessarily buy the guy’s comparison to an oil spill, but still …

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Aaron Gardner

    From what I have read the leaks are at rather low levels and there are no readings indicating any measurable tritium levels outside of the monitoring wells.

    In addition to that, you have this…

    The NRC?s John White says Vermont Yankee?s problems haven?t approached any regulatory threshold that would require the plant to be shut down while the source of the leak ? reported Jan. 7 ? is sought.

    This is just the progressives playing politics with out future.

    • ehosterman

      If you note, the leak was detected by a monitoring well. The wells were installed to detect just this type of leak. This isn’t a design or construction issue. It’s a normal aging issue and apparently, the owners were monitoring for this type of issue. Monitoring plans are supposed to find small problems before they become big problems, In this case they appear to have worked.

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    …is preparing to use to kill the shale gas revolution in its crib.

    (yes, I’m shamelessly inserting a relevant Hayride link here)

    Do NOT underestimate the role of trial attorneys in ginning up both the Vermont Yankee scare and the hydraulic fracturing/groundwater “controversy.”

  • jccbin

    Are you kiddin?

    Your computer just shot more radioactivity in your face than this tritium. By many, many orders of magnitude.

    • cwilson

      …so avoid the loufa for a day or so.

      Tritium decays by emitting low energy beta radiation, which is stopped by six inches of air, a sheet of paper, or the aforementioned layer of dead skin.

      Or, put another way, standing next to this “radiation source” for an entire year will increase your radiation dose by approximately 2% of the background normal dose. ‘Course, you’d probably get bored and hungry standing next to a nuclear power plant for a year. But, on the plus side: no loufas!

  • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

    there might be an arguement to keep them from the two proposed facilities in my neighboring Burke county, GA.

  • DONTREADONME

    currently, so a bunch of Marines are running around with high concentrations of the isotope. http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/parts_new.cfm?categoryID=3 Now if the libs will shut the heck up about tritium, plus you need a very large concentration ot be significant and then its questionable whether the decay process will even hurt you.

  • mschmitt

    … than the Safe Drinking Water Act allows (I’d hazard a guess that Obama’s EPA considers carbon dioxide far more hazardous to human life) and something like 90000 times smaller than the WHO recommends.

    By the way, 1:2.6*10^14 tritium to hydrogen, if that’s the right ratio, isn’t totally trivial. That is about 10k as much as is naturally occurring, though still quite harmless.

  • Raven

    What will they replace it with?

    Sounds to me like they want to spend some time making a big fuss about something they have no interest in actually doing something about that has a built-in escape pod.

    • revivefederalism

      No one has been buying them lately.

  • sdeakins

    .. do not an energy policy make. Obama is not serious about those new plant anymore than he cares about a Republican alternative to his health scam.

    • ehosterman

      under loan guarantees in an Energy bill signed by President Bush. The units at Vogtle have been under design and preliminary site work for several years.

  • hungarianfalcon

    threshold is 20 nanocurie/L. This release is currently at 29. Assuming this is a leak within a system totally isolated from drinking water sources, it isn’t a noteworthy health threat.

    However, given the lack of knowledge by plant managers about the existence of the plumbing in general, it is troubling from a standpoint of plant mgmt.

    Other posters are correct that tritium is of no real concern unless it is ingested. However, given that it is an isotope of hydrogen, the concern has always been that it readily exchanges with hydrogen in a variety compounds including water, acids, bases, etc.

    Disclosures:
    Ph.D. Chemist, former employee at an NNSA contract site, current employee at a chemical plant, hater of the EPA (don’t get me started about the cap and trade docs. from the EPA).

    Hungarian Falcon

    • ehosterman

      paraphrasing testimony from a company spokesperson, I’d hesitate to say the plant operators didn’t understand the plant plumbing. More than likely, the legislator either didn’t listen attentively to the testimony, or didn’t understand it. Who knows waht the actual testimony stated. It could be that there isn’t any underground piping in the vicinity of the monitoring well, or that the suspected leak came from a tank or vault. Without a detailed knowledge of subsurface geology, it’s not always easy to pinpoint the source ofan underground piping leak. The water doesn’t always come to the surface, and sometimes when it does, it’s not near the actual leak.
      On the other hand, the testimony could have come from a company spokesperson who wasn’t intimately familiar with the details of the underground piping at the plant.

  • ss396

    Obama’s purported support of nuclear energy through government guaranteed loans is hollow rhetoric. In order to build nuclear power plants there must be a regulatory environment that would actually allow such plants to be built. But that regulatory environment does not exist. If it did, the nuclear power industry would not need government loan guarantees.

    The left runs around shouting about how the nuclear power industry is so horrible that investors won’t invest in it, and insurance companies won’t insure it. They are in total denial of their role in bringing that about, through incessant lawsuits – many of them based on a pathetic an evaluation as this tritium scare. Because of Conservative opposition to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (not the research, just the funding!) and its challenges against anthropogenic global warming, the left accuses Conservatives of being anti-science. From these sort of shenanigans, it is apparent that the left has no clue whatsoever concerning the physical sciences.

  • samiran

    The issue here is not the leak.

    The issue is that the plant managers *did not know about the pipes*.

    That’s pretty damning, and is justifiably a reason to shut down the plant. And I say that as a huge supporter of nuclear power.

    I heartily believe that nuclear plants are 100% safe when operated by competent individuals, but if these guys are lying under oath (or simply have no idea) about the engineering plans of their plant, they are no different then Harry Reid running a nuclear plant after he loses his job in November.

    Keep in mind that the Chernobyl accident was not caused by equipment failure. It was caused by stupid managers running a dangerous test cycle, on equipment that was not spec’d well, in a setup that literally defied reason.

    Guns don’t kill people, murders kill people, right?

    Nuclear power plants don’t cause meltdowns, morons cause meltdowns.

    On the other hand, this represents the opportunity of the “national” nuclear power “system” to show leadership. Make arrangements for some other company to manage this plant on behalf of Entergy. No, I don’t mean have the guvermit do it, I mean that various other 5 star nuclear operators in the country.

    *shrug* . Don’t be so quick to defend incompetence, even the if the original engineers who designed the plant did such a good job that moderate incompetence would not incur any risks. Russian plants fail because they were poorly designed and ran by crappy managers. The U.S. should not go down this road.

    • edintexas

      With a disclaimer that I know nothing more about this story than what is contained in the original posting above, I would note that the story cites “company officials”. Since the plant is operated by Entergy, a company based in New Orleans, those are presumably Entergy officials. They may, or may not be based at the plant. They may, or may not having anything at all to do with the plant’s operations. It is often the fact that “company upper level management” decides to make all “presentations”, rather than allow “lower management” (with an actual knowledge of which end is up) to represent the company.

      I may even be mistaken in thinking that samiran is assuming that “company officials” means “plant managers”. Samiran may have personal knowledge of who testified, and that those individuals were actually the plant managers. Unfortunately, the wording of the story doesn’t provide that level of detail. Absent other information, I think it quite possible that idiots from New Orleans were testifying without proper preparation.

      Of course it is always, and perhaps even more, possible that the contractor for the plant had workers who made a change in the blueprinted job and changed only one set of blueprints, a change which did not get transferred to all sets of blueprints.

      • Vladimir

        For now, Entergy has been doing all that it can to keep its nuclear relicensing and spin-off plans afloat. An executive in Vermont has been relieved of his duties, the company has been running advertisements, and a team of outside attorneys is investigating how public officials were given bad information. Curt Hebert, Entergy’s executive vice president of external affairs and a former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has been in Vermont reassuring public officials.

        Now, we’ve all seen people scapegoated, but apparently there are people close to the plant involved.

        A bigger issue may be Entergy’s plan to spin the 5 plants in Michigan & the northeast into an independent corporation. One motivating factor could be sheltering Entergy from shut down & cleanup liability, or perhaps they just want to put a Chinese wall around their assets in enviro-wacko states.

        Chinese wall…. is that racist? Hmmmm…..

        • samiran

          http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190323

          Looks like the company’s “officials”, whoever they maybe, have been aware of this problem for awhile.

          Again, I want to reiterate that I 100% agree that A) Nuclear Power is Safe, B) This leak has *no* *risk* *whatsoever*, and C) Nuclear Power is the best way to generate electricity.

          That doesn’t change the appearance of blithering incompetence from the managers on-site. Perhaps a better explanation will emerge, but given the current political environment, it is absolutely *shocking* that management would attempt a cover-up of even a minor, minor problem. The appearance of guilt will doom the nuclear industry. This cannot be allowed to occur.

          • ehosterman

            While there may have been another leak two years earlier, it doesn’t mean that the two events are related. With regard to using a leak seal technique, that is somewhat common and quite effective for temporary repairs. If a temporary repair method can effectively seal a leak, it makes no sense to shut a plant down for several days or weeks, dependng on the leak. Note the article did say the temporary repairs were made to allow operations until a planned refueling outage, when I assume permanent repirs were made. I can’t comment definitively on this particular repair because I’m not familiar with the plant configuration, but I am familiar with the testimony of “whistleblowers”. Often, they are disgruntled employees, and many times their perception of issues is incorrect.

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    Killing 30% of Vermont’s power? Let the loony liberals that live there suffer the consequences of their anti-technology religion. Perhaps once they start getting daily blackouts during those cold New England winters, they will re-examine their premises.

    • grlcowan

      than a liberal-versus-conservative one.

      So when Connecticut Yankee got shut down, after, I suppose, much happy talk about how sun and wind would quickly take up the slack, replacement power was fairly soon being built. This we know, because of the recent minor hitch at the so-called “Kleen Energy” plant.

      Just some contractors, easily replaceable, and such trouble as may arise with the feds will be very minor.

      How do we know that? Because natural gas makes *money* for the feds. A gram of uranium, 11 cents’ worth, is replaced by $3 of natural gas, and of that $3, the tax man’s share is much more than 11 cents.

      So the officials who could make a big deal out of a few dead workers at an under-construction power plant are financially motivated to want that plant up and running, get it collecting taxes. Unless it’s a *nuclear* power plant. In that case, its noxious habit of preventing other power plants from collecting tax, and incidentally preventing those other plants from killing people, motivates the officials to look for something, anything, that can be spun as a big deal.

      NRC people have no objections to being posted at the stations they regulate; federal inspectors are always there, always in residence.

      It would be good for everyone if they could also be required to spend a few hundred hours per year near gas pipelines, lest their decisions be too helpful in keeping those pipelines busy.

      Another good option would be for government not to tax fossil fuels so much.

      (Incidentally, natural gas is as radioactive, with radon, as the water in those Vermont Yankee test wells is with T.)

      • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

        That never occurred to me, but you’re right – the government doesn’t get anything like as much tax revenue from a nuclear plant as it does from a fossil-fuel one which consumes massive quantities of highly taxed goods throughout its entire life. I guess I just can’t keep up with my cynicism…

  • bcmorris02

    Most nuclear plants routinely release some tritium (and other isotopes) directly to the environment whenever liquid rad-waste is discharged – typically to the river. There are regulatory limits on how much can be released.

    Tritium is useful stuff. It’s what makes self-illuminating emergency exit signs glow. No electricity/batteries needed. Also used to refresh fusion bombs (H-bombs), since tritium decays over time.

    Level of leakage at VY is of trivial consquences

    • Doc Holliday

      I need some new night sights for my 1911.

      • Raven

        My sights are hard to use in anything short of full daylight…

        • Doc Holliday

          btw, maybe you need glasses. If you get them you could see your sights better and then they would not make you wear eye protection at the range :) but I am serious, it would kill two birds with one stone.

          • Raven

            Strong ones at that. But getting my sight picture at dusk or dawn is a real pain. I don’t Think I’ve ever had that problem with my M-16, but that may be because I haven’t shot at dusk or dawn. But I’m not sure.
            Course, an ACOG should fix any such problem with the M16 when I deploy.

          • Doc Holliday

            I did not remember you were in. BTW, my range allows glasses as eye protection, they are probably wrong, but I go with it lol. BTW, I can’t see crap at dusk with my AR. I am looking to get an ACOG too. Of course there are lots of things I want but can’t justify at the moment.

            If you deploy, you better get what you need or they will have to deal with me!

          • Raven

            But within another year or so. Deploy, I mean.

    • Doc Holliday

      Our old reactors are the reason, the French have nuke plants all over and don’t seem to have so many problems and hand wringing.

      • Richard Mullins

        are Reactors are well behind the curve.

        • ehosterman

          are of the same vintage as most US plants. Most o the most modern plants are in Japaan and China. Quite frankly, the US plants run as well as anyones.

          • Doc Holliday

            of course China has the newest nuclear reactors, they also have the newest indoor plumbing, and the newest outhouses. That goes hand in hand with the fact they are growing fast and they have such a long way to go.

            My point was that we need more nuclear power. We get 19 percent of our energy from nuclear and the French get 80 percent of their from nuclear. Also, our nation does not issue licenses and they have not built a nuclear power plant since the 1970s.

            And we do know how to make and run nuclear plants, they are on our subs.

          • ehosterman

            The reason we haven’t built any plants since the 1980′s is political. When it takes more than ten years to license and construct a nuclear plant and a combined cycle gas plant can be built in one – two years, why would a CEO want to risk his company over nuclear construction. The interest payments represent more than half the cost of a new nuclear plant. Add in delays from litigation and the changing political climate that can occur in ten years, it’s no wonder we haven’t built new plants. However, we haven’t stood still. Most US nuclear plants have been uprated from their original design generation ratings. By doing this we’ve added capacity equal to 10-15 new plants. Additionaly, there are more uprates planned in addition to the new construction just startng.

  • blooch

    “Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe[Cap&Trade RINO, ed.], chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry?s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon?s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.
    In addition, Mr. Obama?s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod?s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html

    “Mr. Emanuel?s biggest transaction came in late 1999 when he landed an advisory role for Wasserstein in the $8.2 billion merger of two utility companies, Unicom, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, and Peco Energy, to create Exelon, now one of the nation?s largest power companies.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04emanuel.html?pagewanted=all

    “Millions of gallons of contaminants made it into the groundwater and for the past three years, residents who live near the plant have had to use bottled water for drinking, courtesy of Exelon, which owns and operates the plant.”

    http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_14446210

    • Richard Mullins

      and they were trying to seek a permit to build reactors outside of Victoria(that’s in Texas if you didn’t know). I’m guessing the might get the permit now since there exelon and Obama go way back.

      • ehosterman

        to build in Texas. They may still have the permitting process alive, but they are not really planning to build new plants, They are committed to uprating their existing units, which will provide a similar amount of power at a lower cost and in a shorter time horizon.

        • Richard Mullins

          and if I only was a fly on the wall at 1 Military Plaza(San Antonio City Hall) and knew all the fuss at CPS(City Public Service) Energy.

  • blooch

    Obama has Chicago eruptions,,,can’t be helped. I’m just enjoying the red-on-red aspect of this. I long ago gave up on the US Left being rational about nukes, and it’s obvious Obama is doing Rowe’s bidding because he’s in Rowe’s pocket. It will be interesting to see if Obama can deliver for Rowe on Cap&Trade. I expect a hard fight from Obama on that. Big money involved.

    • blooch
  • dennism

    I see “.nt” added to some of the comment lines here. What’s it mean?

    • blooch

      It’s all in the title.