Entergy Liable for Vermont Yankee Clean-Up
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_1487820
1http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/4020362
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100402
****
Times Argus
www.timesargus.com
Feb 21, 2010
Ex-industry insider goes extra mile to fight Vt. Yankee
By DANIEL BARLOW
Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER - When Paul Blanch heard that the Vermont Legislature would take one more day of testimony before voting on the future of its nuclear power plant, the West Hartford, Conn., resident jumped into his car and drove to the Green Mountain State.
Blanch, a retired nuclear engineer with more than 40 years of experience in the field, made the 200 mile drive on his own dime.
"I'm not here representing anyone," Blanch said. "I'm also not anti-nuclear. I consider myself a proponent of safe nuclear power."
Vermont Yankee, Blanch contends, is not safe nuclear power.
"The place was designed for 40 years," he told the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Thursday morning. Hours later, he was called over to the Senate Finance Committee, which was finalizing testimony on this week's Vermont Yankee bill. "It's unacceptable to me to imagine that plant running for another 20 years," he told that committee.
Blanch, 68, is retired from the nuclear industry - a career change that wasn't entirely his choice.
In 1988, Blanch became a nuclear power whistleblower when he told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that his employer, Millstone Nuclear Power Plant in Connecticut, was experiencing major malfunctions with a piece of safety equipment. It wasn't just that plant; the problem was industry-wide.
He's worked mostly as a consultant since then, including for the state of New York, but the experience changed his mind about the effectiveness of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its close relationship to the private energy companies that own many of the industry's nuclear power plants.
During Thursday's committee hearing, Sen. Claire Ayers, D-Addison, asked Blanch if he thought the NRC provided good oversight of the industry. Blanch paused, then grinned slightly. He joked that "there can be a lot of definitions of oversight." The committee laughed.
"The NRC has a run-to-failure policy," said Blanch, who says this is a classic case of the regulators being too close to the industry. "They don't have a plan for dealing with things like tritium. Right now, they are in panic mode over what's happening."
Naturally, the NRC does not agree.
Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the regulatory commission, said it's clear that Blanch "cares deeply about nuclear safety." But the commission disagrees with almost everything he says, including that it has a "run-to-failure, fix-it-when-it-breaks mentality," as Blanch had told lawmakers last week.
"That philosophy would be completely at odds with our approach, which is to ensure that the margins of safety are preserved and that public health and safety are first and foremost when it comes to the operation of nuclear power plants," Sheehan wrote in an e-mail.
Deb Katz, the executive director of the anti-nuclear group Citizens Action Network, said Blanch's testimony last week may have been the first time that a nuclear engineer has explicitly called for a nuclear power plant not to be relicensed.
"This is an important moment in the history of nuclear power," she said. "Experts just don't go this far unless, of course, the situation is extreme."
Military example
Blanch has Vermont roots. A 1959 graduate of Pittsford High School, he began his nuclear career when he joined the Navy in Burlington five years later. When he visited Vermont last week to testify, he stayed at his brother's home in Brandon.
His job with the Navy led him to working on nuclear submarines. A frequent critic of corporate-owned nuclear power stations and the perceived lack of government oversight, Blanch said the military knows how to run a safe nuclear power facility.
"I slept 100 feet from a nuclear reactor for months," he said. "I believe the Navy's nuclear power fleet is the safest in the world."
Blanch told the Senate lawmakers that he is opposed to the relicensing of Vermont Yankee for 20 years and the controversial plan to sell the plant and five others to a spinoff company. "It's a shell game to shield their stockholders from the liability of these plants," he said.
This isn't the first time he's encountered Entergy, the company that owns Vermont Yankee.
New York state's Indian Point 2 reactor had what Blanch calls a major tritium leak in February 2009 when a pipe ruptured and sent an estimated millions of gallons of radioactive water into the environment. Blanch said the NRC shrugged off the accident, not even issuing a news release about the problem. Entergy, which owns Indian Point 2, determined that the cause of the leak was corrosion of its underground pipes.
"I believe that plant leaked millions of gallons of water," he said. "I contend that it had been leaking for 30 years."
Too old to run
But Blanch contends that tritium leaks from underground pipes are not the main problem facing nuclear power plants such as Vermont Yankee and Indian Point. These leaks are symptoms of a larger issue: the advanced age of the facilities and the continued delay in upkeep of the infrastructure. These power plants are simply too old, he said.
"I don't think you'll see tritium levels any higher than 2.5 million picocuries," he told the committees. "That's essentially reactor coolant at that point."
Blanch said underground pipes at nuclear power plants can't be inspected unless they are dug up. Indian Point had 8,000 feet of underground piping, and Blanch estimates that Vermont Yankee, a different type of reactor, has about 1,000 feet of pipe.
He showed the committees pictures of the underground pipes and valves at the first Indian Point reactor - a plant that was shut down in 1974 due to safety problems after operating for 12 years. Also an Entergy plant, that facility is now in "safestor" - a decommissioning process that involves delaying clean-up for decades.
The pipes are corroded. They look ancient.
"If I drink tritium water will I die? Probably not," Blanch said. "But it would increase the chance that I'll die an earlier death."
Bringing pressure
Blanch said he doesn't expect the NRC to change itself. The only way to force the federal commission to "do its job," he said, is to appeal to the U.S. Congress, which has the power to pass legislation directing the commission to, for example, plan better for corroded underground pipes and tritium leaks. U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, would be a good person to direct those concerns to, he added.
"If they want change, if they want tougher regulations, the next step would be to have the state Legislature pass a resolution to that effect," he said. "Write to Congress. Demand proper regulation. Demand what it takes."
Sen. Margaret "Peg" Flory, R-Rutland, a member of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, pressed Blanch to explain how top Entergy officials and the state of Vermont could have believed the Vermont Yankee plant didn't have underground pipes "if they were essential parts of all nuclear plants."
"Everyone can see they are not hanging there in the air," Flory said.
"You are preaching to the choir, Senator," Blanch responded.
***
http://7dvt.com/2010statehouse-vermont-yankee-democracy-action-or-lawsuit-waiting-happen
***
Replace Vermont Yankee!
Dear Friends,
Yesterday Senate President Peter Shumlin announce that the Senate will vote next week to close Vermont Yankee as scheduled in 2012. We need your help to contact senators and go to the Statehouse on Wednesday, February 25 when we expect the vote.
Let senators know that:
1. You want them to vote to close Vermont Yankee because it is old, not safe and not reliable. Entergy has lied continuously and this is not the legacy we want to leave to our children.
2. No stalling. Vermont has known for 40 years that the plant is scheduled to be retired. The Legislature has studied all aspects of the situation. Now is the time to vote so that Vermont can plan for its future.
Talking Points are below. Here is a link to the Legislative Council Page with senate contact information.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/lms/legdir/alpha.asp?Body=S
Please help this week. The time has finally come to close this old and unsafe plant!
AND...
As you may know, many Vermont towns will be voting at town meetings on March 2nd on a resolution urging the legislature to shut down VY in 2012. If your town has the resolution on the warning, please be sure to be there for the vote.
If your town does not have the resolution, and you want to bring it up as "other business to come before the town", please contact me and we can strategize how to accomplish that.
Thanks,
Dan DeWalt
ReplaceVY.org
802.348.7701
Retiring Vermont Yankee as Scheduled
THE MESSAGE
Closing Vermont Yankee As Scheduled Is the Safe and Responsible Thing to Do.
The plant is too old to be safe or reliable
The owner's are out-of-state corporate executives that have repeatedly lied about leaks and contamination.
Plus, relicensing the plant means huge profits for the corporation, but Vermonters could be stuck with the clean-up bill.
For the sake of our families' safety and our legacy to future generations, we should close Vermont Yankee as scheduled in 2012.
THE PROBLEM
Vermont Yankee is too old.
Built in the 1970's and designed to operate for 40 yrs, it's now 38 years old.
It's the only Yankee plant still in operation; all of its sister plants on closed on schedule.
The design is so outdated that it could never be built today.
The plant is worn out, the towers are collapsing, and the pipes are leaking radiation. The plant is running at 120% of its planned capacity, and would be asked to do so throughout the relicensed period.
Vermont Yankee is neither safe nor reliable. Just look at their record.
History of failures, collapses, and leaks
Contaminating soil and groundwater with dangerous radiation
Missing fuel rods and contaminated shipments
Vermont Yankee is run by Entergy, whose out-of-state corporate executives have lied repeatedly under oath and cannot be trusted.
Long history of deceit and lies to state regulators about safety concerns.
No contribution to the clean-up fund as they had promised.
Are planning to create a spin-off shell corporation-Enexus-which will pay Entergy $3.5 billion but leave Vermont taxpayers stuck with the billion dollar clean-up bill.
Same corporate irresponsibility we saw on Wall Street where taxpayers bankroll huge salaries and bonuses for corporate CEOs and we all pay the price.
THE VERMONT YANKEE RECORD
We can't trust Entergy to run Vermont Yankee safely.
In 2007, a cooling tower collapsed, and then broke a second time in 2008, even though it was supposed to have been fixed.
In 2009, Vermont Yankee suffered from three separate radioactive leaks.
Recently, radioactive water has contaminated groundwater at the reactor.
The leaking radiation exposed a pattern of lies by numerous Entergy corporate executives.
THE SOLUTION
Vermont's legislature should do the responsible thing and close Vermont Yankee on schedule.
Vermonters have a responsibility to pass on a safe and positive legacy to future generations.
People may bring up the following issues or questions, and we can be ready to give a factual concise answer before returning to the main message. Whenever possible, pivot back to the powerful messages that Vermonters already believe: the plant is old, dangerous, and unreliable and it is run by out-of-state corporate executives who are irresponsible and cannot be trusted with protecting Vermonters.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why not delay the vote as the Governor has asked, until more studies are done?
We know the plant is too old to be reliable or safe. Delaying a vote doesn't change that fact.
We know we can't trust the out-of-state corporate executives to tell us the truth about it. Delaying a vote doesn't change their track record.
We know that delaying a vote on whether to close the plant as scheduled won't fix the many problems with the plant. It just makes them worse.
No more obstructionist delays, we should move forward with the vote to close Vermont Yankee on schedule.
The Aging Plant is Unsafe
What are the safety problems with Vermont Yankee?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. The out-of-state corporate owners of this aging plant have cut back on maintenance so much that the plant is literally falling apart. It has the nation's last remaining wooden cooling towers which Entergy assured were safe, until one collapsed requiring a reduction in reactor output . There was a raging fire at the plant. An operator was arrested for drinking on duty. And now it's leaking radiation into Vermont's soil and groundwater. The aging plant is at the end of its designed lifespan and is too old to be safe.
Isn't the design of the plant safe?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. Vermont Yankee was designed in the 1960s using slide rules because computers hadn't been invented, and without the benefits of the lessons learned in the intervening 40 years from the operation of other reactors. All four of its sister Yankee plants in New England have been retired as scheduled. This plant's first generation design would not be permitted anywhere in the world today. Even Uzbekistan wouldn't have it. Energy planners back then factored in the effects of aging and the likelihood of advances in technology when they wrote the license to expire in 2012. It's time to close the plant as scheduled.
What is tritium?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that is extremely rare in nature but is a toxic byproduct of nuclear power production that must be contained. It acts like water, travelling easily in surface and groundwater, and is extremely difficult to treat. Once in the body, the particles emitted bombard adjoining cells and can mutate them, causing cancer. Tritium leaks at other aging nuclear plants required extensive excavation of soil and removal to radiation dumps in distant states-costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
State officials say that the radioactivity leaks are small and no threat to human health, so what's the problem?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. Tritium, like any radioactive particle ingested in the human body, increases the risk of cancer- according to the National Academy of Sciences. Stringent California public health standards limit drinking water levels to 400 parts per trillion, although Vermont relies on a looser standard 50 times higher or 20,000 picocuries. Even with that lax standard, test wells at Vermont Yankee have exceeded 700,000 picocuries.
Tritium, even in low levels, has been linked to developmental problems, reproductive problems, genetic abnormalities, and other health problems in laboratory animals. Additionally, there is evidence of adverse health effects on populations near facilities which utilize tritium.
What happens to nuclear waste now?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. Because of safety concerns, plans to create a federal high-level radioactive waste facility have fallen through. So, nuclear power plants across the country must store their waste on site. Most of the million pounds of Vermont Yankee high-level waste sits in a pool of water suspended 7 stories in the air above the plant, a few hundred feet from the banks of the Connecticut River. This material is highly radioactive and requires constant cooling and close monitoring. Some of the highly radioactive fuel has cooled somewhat and was transferred into concrete casks set near the river. With no federal repository in sight, that radioactive waste will need to be safeguarded in Vermont for at least 50 to 60 years. Extending Vermont Yankee's license for 20 years past its scheduled retirement would add another 750,000 pounds of highly-radioactive waste to Vermont's burden, further increasing the cost to taxpayers for the cleanup.
Entergy's Out-Of-State Executives Cannot Be Trusted
Why is Energy unsuited to run this plant?
Entergy's Out-Of-State Executives Cannot Be Trusted. Entergy's out-of-state corporate executives run Vermont Yankee with a Wall Street short-term profit approach that has wrecked our economy. The latest reports of radioactive water leaking into our soil and groundwateris the most recent example of them blatantly lying to Vermonters, our Legislature, our regulators and our Governor-who says he's fed up. Their corporate character cannot be trusted to operate this dilapidated nuclear power plant another 20 years past its scheduled retirement.
What is Enexus?
Entergy's Out-Of-State Executives Cannot Be Trusted.
Straight out of the Enron playbook, Entergy hopes to create a spin-off company called Enexus which would issue $3.5 billion in junk bonds and pay Entergy for 6 aging reactors including Vermont Yankee. Enexus would be saddled with massive debt and would lack the capital needed to run a fleet of aging and failing nuclear reactors. Meanwhile Entergy Louisiana would make a handsome profit by unloading its toxic assets, and shield itself from liability for accidents, shortfalls and clean up. Vermonters could be left holding the bag.
What are the decommissioning issues with Vermont Yankee?
Entergy's Out-Of-State Executives Cannot Be Trusted. Cleaning up nuclear plants after they retire is a big job. Entergy estimated the cost to clean up Vermont Yankee's mess would be a billion dollars and that was before it admitted leaking radiation into the soil and groundwater, which will add hundreds of millions more. All the other New England Yankee nuclear sites have been closed as scheduled, and a few of those sites have been totally cleaned up and returned to green pasture land. But Vermont Yankee's clean-up fund is half a billion dollars short, because Entergy has siphoned off all the profits and refused to put anything into the fund since it bought the plant in 2002. Instead, it played the stock market with the fund and lost money. Because of this risky, Wall-Street type scheme, Vermonters could end up holding the bag on clean up costs when the bill comes due.
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant
Don't we need Vermont Yankee power?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. The aging reactor counts for 2% of New England's electricity production. There is plentiful power available for purchase on the market at attractive rates. The CEO of Green Mountain Power says "It's a good environment to have to be making power purchases," so she and other utilities are actively lining up power to meet Vermont's needs when the plant closes as scheduled. At least three Vermont utilities: Burlington Electric, Vermont Electric Coop, and Washington Electric, have all locked in power sources that do not include Vermont Yankee, and are increasingly depending upon efficiency and renewables.
Where will the power come from if we close Vermont Yankee?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. Closing Vermont Yankee as scheduled gives us a lot of choices to replace the power. There is plenty of power available from natural gas and regional renewable sources to meet Vermont's needs, including power from Hydro Quebec, upstate New York and the New England region.Mary Powel, CEO of Green Mountain Power stated that, "Our plan is to ramp down our use of nuclear power and ramp up our use of cost-effective renewable energy".
The Public Service Board has determined that efficiency efforts alone could yield 215 MW/year by 2015. That is nearly twice the amount of power that VY proposes to sell in Vermont over the next 20 years comes at a much lower price.
If that replacement power comes from coal or fossil fuels, won't the impact on climate change be greater?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. The biggest threat to our environment is failing to close the old and unsafe plant as scheduled. Once that has happened, Vermont will grow its clean energy economy-local, renewable, sustainable power that creates jobs, keeps our electricity payments here in Vermont, and reduces climate change. A combination of hydro power from Hydro Quebec and some short-term contracts for traditional power will help bridge the gap while transitioning to our in-state green economy. Efficiency measures which can replace VY have a smaller carbon footprint, and no radioactive footprint when compared to other sources of power.
Renewables, really, when Vermont won't allow wind power?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. Efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit, already underway but we can do a lot more and right away. Many renewable sources of power are being permitted now in Vermont: photovoltaic, solar water heaters, cow power, geothermal and yes, we will join the rest of the world soon to figure out a way to site wind turbines in a sustainable and environmentally sensitivity manner.
Won't the replacement power be more expensive?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. Vermont has a chance to replace Vermont Yankee with safe and reliable regional power contracts at prices that are competitive with those offered by the aging reactor, but come without the risks and long term costs of clean up and decommissioning. Replacing the power after Vermont Yankee closes as scheduled will come from conventional power available on the open market now, which is priced at about the same rate Vermont Yankee offered going forward. For example, power available today on the spot market is selling at a fraction of VY's current price. VY plans to raise their rates significantly if they get their license extension.
The Old and Dangerous Plant Should be Retired as Scheduled, without Changing the Rules of the Game
Why can't we keep Vermont Yankee for 5 years, and conduct an orderly transition to what's next?
The Old and Dangerous Plant Should be Retired as Scheduled, Without Changing the Rules of the Game. Entergy's application under consideration is to keep the aging plant going for another 20 years, and that is what the various regulatory agencies and our Legislature are considering. The plant is far too old, unsafe and unreliable to last another 20 years. It needs to be closed and cleaned up as scheduled.
Some Labor unions support Vermont Yankee. Why should we end those good-paying jobs?
The Old and Dangerous Plant Should be Retired as Scheduled, Without Changing the Rules of the Game. This plant is old and unsafe. It was designed to last 40 years and is falling apart as it closes in on its scheduled retirement. The million pounds of highly radioactive waste on the banks of the Connecticut River will require hundreds of engineers to maintain. More hundreds of engineers will need to design the clean-up, which will cost a billion dollars and employ many hundreds more. There will be many jobs for many years, cleaning up the mess and restoring safety to Southern Vermont. Besides there are trade unions that do not support the license extension, and there are officials within the supporting union who do not agree with their unions position.
How can Vermont muck around in licensing decisions that are the NRC's? Won't Entergy just sue and get the Legislature's action thrown out?
The Old and Dangerous Plant Should be Retired as Scheduled, Without Changing the Rules of the Game. The NRC has jurisdiction over reactor safety, but the states have the right to decide their energy policy. The NRC specifically says it "has no role in the energy planning decisions of State regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate." It is left to state regulatory agencies to determine whether it is in the best interest of ratepayers and cost effective to continue operation of their state's nuclear plants. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically ruled that states have authority to determine the state's best economic interest when ruling on re-licensing aging reactors.
This does mean that the Legislature's decision must be based on factors other than safety-including reliability, power pricing, decommissioning costs, effects to human health and the environment, the desired mix of energy sources and the like. Based on Vermont Yankee's record, the old plant and its out-of-state corporate executives can't be trusted to deliver the kind of reliable power that is good for Vermonters' health and our environment.
Leas, J. M. (2008, November 17). Yankee containment won't contain. Rutland Herald.; Snow, K. H. (December 2003). Vermont Yankee: A second lease on half-life? Montague Reporter.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. (1996). Tritium: The environmental, health, budgetary, and strategic effects of the Department of Energy's decision to produce tritium. Takoma Park, MD: Hisham Zerriffi.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, HYPERLINK "http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/PHGtritium030306.pdf"http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/PHGtritium030306.pdf
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. (1996). Tritium: The environmental, health, budgetary, and strategic effects of the Department of Energy's decision to produce tritium. Takoma Park, MD: Hisham Zerriffi.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. (2006). Science for the Vulnerable: Setting radiation and multiple exposure environmental health standards to protect those most at risk. Takoma Park, MD: Arjun Makhijani, Brice Smith & Michael C. Thorne.
Lacy Consulting Group, LLC. (2009). Spent Nuclear Fuel, Low Level Radioactive Waste and Decommissioning. Montpelier, VT: Bruce Lacy.
Lacy Consulting Group, LLC. (2009). Spent Nuclear Fuel & Low Level Radioactive Waste: Current and future storage options. Montpelier, VT: Bruce Lacy.; Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2008). Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel after Cessation of Reactor Operation. ADM ML082600597. Retrieve from www.nrc.gov.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2009). Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation related to Spent Fuel Management Program and the Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-271). Washington, DC
http://www.vpirg.org/node/226
Bloomberg News, "Entergy CEO Says Financing Won't Hinder a Spinoff," by Tina Seeley, June 22, 2009. Also Memorandum to Joint Fiscal Committee by Richard H. Saudek, October 19, 2009.
Williams, R. (2009, December 10). A Note from Rob Williams at Vermont Yankee.
HYPERLINK "http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87048/"http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87048/
Vermont Public Interest Research Group. (2009). Repowering Vermont: Replacing Vermont Yankee for a clean energy future (pp. 17-29). Montpelier, VT: James Moore.
Barlow, D. (2010, January 29). Former Yankee co-owner says shut it down. Vermont Press Bureau.
Vermont Public Interest Research Group. (2009). Repowering Vermont: Replacing Vermont Yankee for a clean energy future (pp. 22-23). Montpelier, VT: James Moore.
HYPERLINK "http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87048/"http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87048/
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. v. ENERGY RESOURCES COMM'N, 461 U.S. 190 (1983)
***
Rutland Herald
Feb 14, 2010
Batting 1,000 on Yankee
MONTPELIER - For years there have been many lawmakers, lobbyists and state officials at the Statehouse who thought Arnie and Maggie Gundersen were alarmist and rabid anti-nuclear kooks.
But it turns out that this husband-and-wife team from Burlington have been right about many things Vermont Yankee - including this latest scandal surrounding tritium leaks and plant owner Entergy giving false info to the state.
Maggie Gundersen told the Senate Natural Resources Committee last week that, back in 2009, a lawmaker pulled her and Arnie aside and told them to lay off on Entergy, that they are "losing credibility" when they question the company.
"We stuck to our analysis," Maggie Gundersen said.
Arnie Gundersen was a controversial choice as a member of the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel and pro-nuclear groups quickly said he was biased and his participation would discredit the process. Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin stuck by his pick, saying Gundersen brought years of nuclear experience to the team.
Gundersen seemed to be the only one asking Entergy and state officials about these underground radioactive pipes that may be now leaking tritium. When everyone told him they didn't exist, he persisted and asked the question again and again. Same result.
Turns out he was right the whole time. There was a dramatic shift in the couple's recent appearances before legislative committees. Even pro-nuclear Republicans now look at the couple knowing they know what they are talking about.
Maggie Gundersen said last week that there is more at stake than just the state of the environment in Vernon, where the Vermont Yankee plant is located. The whole state's reputation is threatened, she said.
"Vermont is a brand that symbolizes purity," she said. "Vermont's brand is now being tarnished."
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100214/FEATURES15/2140316
*****
CITIZENS PROVE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT LEAKING NUCLEAR PLANT PIPES
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100214/FEATURES15/2140316
******
Press Release: Citizens Awareness Network
Citizen's Group Calls for Targeted Monitoring
With levels of tritium increasing at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Reactor site, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) is requesting increased monitoring of its test wells. In a recent letter to the Vermont Department of Health (VDOH), CAN, through its expert Dr. Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates (RWMA), requested that the Department test samples obtained from the wells for pure beta emitters, in addition to its current testing, to determine if Strontium-90 (Sr-90) is present and in what concentrations.
According to the VDOH web site, Entergy is employing gamma spectroscopy (gamma spec) to monitor for radionuclides in the groundwater in addition to tritium. While gamma testing is important, it will not detect Sr-90. Strontium-90 is a pure beta emitter with a half life of 29 years, and is known to concentrate in bone and teeth. Given that the plume of contaminants is migrating to the Connecticut River, it is essential for the state to monitor for other radionuclides which are even more dangerous than tritium.
The request is based on the group's experience during a hearing on the cleanup of the shuttered Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Reactor (CY) in Haddam Neck, CT. At CY, high tritium concentrations in test wells were accompanied by high Sr-90 concentrations. One monitoring well at CY had tritium concentrations as high as 138,700 picocuries/liter with accompanying Sr-90 concentrations of 129 picocuries/liter (June 2001 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2001). In comparison, Vermont Yankee test wells have been reported to contain 2,292,000 picocuries/liter tritium concentrations, a level nearly 17 times higher than the levels that were ever measured at CY.
Both tritium and Sr-90 continue to persist in the groundwater at the CY site 14 years after shutdown and several years after cleanup was completed. The most recent testing (September 2009) shows that Sr-90 values in one CY well still exceed the EPA's safe drinking water limits.
"We are greatly concerned about the exceedingly high tritium levels found at Vermont Yankee," stated Dr. Marvin Resnikoff of RWMA. "Based on the experience at the Connecticut Yankee reactor, strontium may also be in the groundwater. We've asked the Vermont Department of Health to sample for strontium. Strontium concentrates in bone and can cause leukemia and other cancers."
"Given that this leak is an unmonitored release from an abnormal, unapproved and unknown source, and the VDOH refuses to shut the plant to find the leak, it is essential that it then increase monitoring of this uncontrolled situation," said Deb Katz, executive director of CAN.
"It is shocking that tests show tritium concentrations in the groundwater which are consistent with those in the reactor cooling water and other hot parts of the plant. The leak must be large enough that we are not seeing dilution in the monitoring wells. That highly contaminated, not fully characterized water is leaking from unknown locations at unknown rates, is a grave concern," said Rosemary Bassilakis, a CT CAN member living one mile from the decommissioned CY site.
Bob Bady, a Brattleboro resident describes the pulse of his town. "Everybody is talking about what's going on at the plant. At the hardware store, the grocery, the diner, everyone is concerned; in fact there is a palpable anxiety. There is distrust and an uneasy feeling that the situation is out of control. We need comprehensive testing of the pollution emanating from this plant, and complete public disclosure." Bady went on, "No one is comforted by VDOH's or NRC's proclamations of safety; they still don't know where the leak is and it's still contaminating the CT River."
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that Entergy officials misled the state, under oath, as to the existence of these now leaking pipes. It's an old plant designed to last 40 years and is scheduled to close in 2012.
-end-