Exactly One Tritium Leak Source Found at Vermont Yankee

[wtmusic]

and exactly zero (0) samples show levels of elevated tritium beyond the test well.



"Since Jan. 7, the Vermont Department of Health has stepped up its environmental surveillance of Vermont Yankee by testing water samples taken from drinking water wells and ground water monitoring wells on site at the plant, and in the surrounding area. Water is now being sampled at least weekly for independent testing by our public health laboratory. Other samples, such as soil, milk, river sediment, and vegetation (when available), are being taken for testing as needed.

The first results of analyses performed for radioactive materials that are hard to detect were reported by Vermont Yankee today (March 5, 2010). These include strontium-90, iron-55 and nickel-63. Water samples from wells GZ-3, GZ-4 and GZ-14 were analyzed by the plant's contract laboratory, Teledyne Brown of Tennessee.

No evidence of any of these hard to detects was found. Other well samples, including from GZ-10 near the leakage path are being tested now for hard to detects. The Vermont Department of Health will have these analyses conducted independently by a private commercial laboratory.

Once every week, the Vermont Department of Health Laboratory is testing private drinking water supplies of selected residences near the Vermont Yankee site boundary.

To date, none of these wells have shown evidence of contamination with tritium or other radionuclides that would be associated with a nuclear reactor."

http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/tritium.aspx

Whew, glad we closed this sucker down. Vermonters sure dodged a bullet! :eyes:

[kestrel91316]

1. Where has all the highly radioactive waste from this nuclear plant been

securely disposed of so that it can never pose a threat to anyone until it decays?

(crickets chirping)

(some people want us to think tritium leaks are the problem........)

[wtmusic]

2. It's in dry cask storage on site, posing a much higher threat

than if it was stored safely in Yucca Mountain

[kestrel91316]

3. Explain to me why some wealthy for-profit corporation in VT should expect to be able to

dump its perpetually-lethal waste in my home state? If VT wants nuclear power, VT can figure out where in VT to store the waste.

[wtmusic]

4. Your home state buys lots of nuclear power from Arizona

Why should NV be able to store its nuclear waste in AZ? :shrug:

[kestrel91316]

5. Link to your claim that NV buys lots of nuclear power from AZ??

Because I have no particular reason to believe what you claim, lol........

Oh, and nice change of subject rather than addressing my question, there.

[wtmusic]

6. Palo Verde in AZ provides 3x the power Hoover Dam supplies to the region

"Palo Verde provides power primarily for the Arizona/New Mexico/Nevada Power Area, although it
exports some of its power (13 percent) to utilities in California and Texas. Efficient performance
has made Palo Verde very cost-competitive in the region. Palo Verde had a production cost of
1.33 cents per kilowatt-hour. By comparison, the three-year average production cost was
2.53 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generators in the region.

Palo Verde’s low production costs help keep wholesale electricity prices affordable in the region.
Although Palo Verde’s exact contribution is difficult to measure, it can be estimated by determining
how much average 2002 production costs in the region would increase if Palo Verde were replaced,
for example, by a combined-cycle natural gas plant (the plant of choice for new generation).
Substituting combined-cycle natural gas plants for Palo Verde in 2002 would have resulted in an
increase in average generation costs for the region from 2.53 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3.13 cents
per kilowatt-hour."

http://www.nei.org/filefolder/economic_benefits_palo_verde.pdf

I was directly addressing the hypocrisy of Nevadans regarding storage of nuclear waste.

[kestrel91316]

7. Impressive cut-and-pasting. But exactly how does this justify VERMONT

dumping nuclear waste in NEVADA??? If nuclear waste from a plant that provides power to Nevada is disposed in Nevada, that's one thing. Nuclear waste from a continent away that is not linked to power provided in nevada is another matter entirely.

Nuclear waste should be disposed of near where it is produced and profited from. It's the only way to ensure that safety concerns will be adequately addressed. What would be MOST helpful would be if those who profited from it were required to live near the nuclear plant and waste disposal sites. Then safety might be guaranteed, lol.

[Statistical]

8. Because centralized storage is safer and more efficient.

Don't worry politics not science killed Yucca Mountain. Yucca Montain is dead a buried. Likely because of politics we will need to design 3 or 4 regional facilities rather than a single national one. once again politics not science.

So the the waste will continue to be stored on site at reactors around the country. Nuclear power isn't going away so rather than a single secure facility with thousands of high paying jobs we have spent fuel in 106 locations around the country.

"What would be MOST helpful would be if those who profited from it were required to live near the nuclear plant and waste disposal sites. "

YOU have profited from nuclear power. It has kept your electric bill low for decades. I am sure living in Nevada you use more than your fair share of electricity.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. A favorite Mark Twain quote

Behold, the fool saith, "Put not all thine eggs in the one basket"--which is but a manner of saying, "Scatter your money and your attention"; but the wise man saith, "Put all your eggs in the one basket and--watch that basket!"

--Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar

[Statistical]

16. Well it looks like Mark Twain will get his wish.

It is unlikely there will ever be enough political consensus for single repository. After another three of four decades with next generation growing up without nuclear incident there likely will be enough political will for "regional deep geological repositories".

Sometimes though a single location does make more sense.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. I believe you mis-read him

It's easy to do, and that's one of the reasons I like it. (Read it again.)

[Statistical]

19. Oops. Well reverse it. Mark Twain likely won't get his wish.

:)

Although I think from a science and security standpoint a single well guarded, well run facility (under direction of DOE and employing federal employees) would be the best solution I don't think there will be political will for it.

Likely we will see regional facilities possibly with above ground bunkers built at existing nuclear sites to act as intermediate (30-100 years) storage centers before a decision on final repository is made a generation later.

Likely after we see every other nuclear nation build repositories and operate them for decades we will realize that is the best solution.

[wtmusic]

20. Nuclear waste would be disposed of where it is profited from.

Yucca would have brought $100M and 2000+ jobs into the local economy. But apparently the economy in NV is doing just fine right now. Just like Harry Reid's re-election chances.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Not to mention profited from when that 'waste' becomes 'fuel' in the next

types of reactors. (Hopefully standing-wave form reactors are a success, but there are other potential designs that might use the 'waste' of today for fuel tomorrow)

[kristopher]

9. This is about the human factor in nuclear safety - VY management are either liars or incompetent.

There is no third alternative. If they were being honest when they said those pipes didn't exist, then they are incompetent; if they knew then they told a bald faced lie. Either way, the potential of human failure as a major weak link in nuclear safety can't be argued.

[Statistical]

10. That is why the NRC is the oversight body.

The problem is being resolved, the plant lost its bid at licenses extension (which will cost the company billions of dollars in lost revenue on a plant that has been paid off) as a result and once again not a single person has been killed.

Seems to me the system is working as expected.

[kristopher]

11. You were chortling about the removal of oversight authorities...

The ability of the NRC to over time be a satisfactory oversight body is disproved by a vast body of experience showing the inevitability of failure. You point on one hand to the safety record of the present system, a record established that got by a system where Congress and the public was able to get an occasional glimpse over the shoulders of the NRC and it's pet industry. However when the discussion is about the high cost of nuclear you crow about how "we've" streamlined the system (read removed various points of oversight) and removed the ability of Congress and the public to influence the decisions of the NRC.

[Statistical]

12. Not removing. Changing.

It makes no sense to require permit which can be denied AFTER a plant has been built to spec at cost of billions of dollars.

The worst example is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Plants should be approved BEFORE construction is even authorized. Once authorized if plant is built to spec, passes inspection, and is safe it shouldn't be prohibited from generating power because of public pressure.

"Oh we said you could build it. We never said you could actually generate power. Hope you enjoy that $11 billion boat anchor".

[kristopher]

13. REMOVING.

When concentrate the oversight in one agency you REMOVE the different views of the other agencies.

You are plainly talking out of both sides of your face.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. "Seems to me the system is working as expected."

No. In this case, it was the Vermont state senate which acted, not the NRC.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100225/NEWS03/100224051/Senate-pulls-plug-on-Vermont-Yankee

Senate pulls plug on Vermont Yankee

Vermont Senate votes solidly against allowing the plant another 20 years of life after 2012

Terri Hallenbeck, Free Press Staff Writer • Thursday, February 25, 2010

MONTPELIER — The Vermont Senate delivered a blow to the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant Wednesday with a resounding vote against allowing the state Public Service Board to consider granting the plant another 20 years of life after 2012.

The 26-4 vote illustrated a remarkable turnaround in the Vernon plant’s fortunes in the past few years, as several senators who called themselves one-time supporters joined in voting against it.

...

At least that's not how I expect the system to work.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/vermont-yankee-issues/vermont-yankee-current-lic-issues.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. There is a third alternative, which I consider more likely

They could be both incompetent and liars.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. For sufficiently large values of "one"

http://www.reformer.com/ci_14660368

VY plans more leak inspections

By BOB AUDETTE

Friday March 12, 2010

...

While Yankee has not yet confirmed that the "B" drain line is responsible for the tritium leak, it has confirmed that a crack found at the point where the line connects to the off gas pipe tunnel is the only leakage pathway to the environment found at this time.

Because the "B" pipe is in a place where it cannot be isolated, it will be kept in service until an upcoming refueling outage, which is scheduled for April 24 through May 19, according to statements made during Central Vermont Public Service's 2009 third quarter earnings call.

Existing leakage from the "B" line is being routed by the off gas pipe tunnel floor drain to the pit sump. From there it is pumped through underground pipes to the radioactive waste building for re-use, stated the DOH.

The leak in the "A" drain line was isolated and stopped on Feb. 14.

...