Log in

View Full Version : Tritium Hot Zone Expands Around Vermont Nuclear Plant



chlamor
02-09-2010, 07:39 PM
Tritium Hot Zone Expands Around Vermont Nuclear Plant

by Susan Smallheer

VERNON - The Department of Health said late Monday there appears to be "a very large area" at the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor contaminated with radioactive tritium, and contamination levels continue to rise.

Because the area is so big, according to William Irwin, radiological health chief, there are many potential sources of radioactive water at this particularly high concentration of tritium.

"This is a very large area that encompasses many potential sources of water at this concentration of tritium, including the condensate storage tank and the systems and components of the advanced off-gas system," Irwin said late Monday afternoon.

He said the area of contamination was roughly from the reactor building to the Connecticut River.

Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear said Monday the new well with the highest level of contamination saw its concentration drop a little on Sunday to 2.38 million picocuries per liter, but went higher on Monday, to 2.52 million picocuries per liter of water. The federal standard for drinking water is 20,000 picocuries per liter.

Williams said Entergy Nuclear investigators were working on a strategy for excavating the area next to the well with the highest contamination levels.

Irwin said despite the increased levels of tritium, no other reactor-related radioisotopes have been identified in testing.

He said another groundwater monitoring well was in the final stages of being put into use and more wells might be drilled to help define the plume of contamination.

Irwin said it was too early to say how long the leak or leaks had been active. "It could be months or even a year or two," he said.

The first indication of the contamination showed up in November in one of three 2007 monitoring wells and the levels quickly rose starting in January. New wells, closer to the reactor and turbine buildings, show contamination in extremely high levels.

"We have to uncover pipes and see what's leaking. And get a better image of flow times and flow directions," he said. Water flows west to east on the site, toward the Connecticut River. Some of the monitoring wells are 15 to 20 feet from the river, while others are 100 feet or 200 feet away from the river.

Irwin said the Health Department is starting to test wells at private residences along Gov. Hunt Road, where Vermont Yankee is sited.

He said all of the private wells the state is testing are within a quarter of a mile of the plant and the point of the highest level of contamination.

Irwin said the state was looking to add five or six private residences to the state's weekly testing program, but he said the state had to get landowners' permissions. He said the department wanted to publish those test results, with the names of the individual homes kept confidential.

He said the Department of Health is testing private wells at Vernon Elementary School, which he estimated was just under a quarter of a mile of the contamination. The state is also testing water at two area farms - the Miller farm, which he said was about a quarter of a mile north of the plant, and the Blodgett farm, which, he said, was a mile from the plant "as the crow flies."

In addition, the Vernon Green nursing home and residential center is also being tested, he said. He estimated Vernon Green was about a half-mile south of the plant.

There are no municipal water systems in Vernon, he said, and every business and home is dependent on its own well.

Irwin said the Vernon health officer had done some initial private well testing when the tritium contamination problem first was made public.

Irwin said all deep wells are testing free of tritium.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, a New Hampshire Democrat whose district includes communities in Vermont Yankee's emergency planning zone, visited the plant Monday and said he was satisfied with the effort by Entergy to try and find the leak or leaks.

But Hodes, who is running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, said he planned on introducing a bill that would give neighboring states with towns in the emergency planning zone surrounding a nuclear power plant some say in the plant's operation.

"Catastrophes do not make exceptions for state boundaries and neither should laws designed to protect from them," said Hodes. "Granite Staters live within earshot of this nuclear power plant and I believe that guaranteeing the safety of Vermont Yankee is central to guaranteeing the safety of our citizens," he said in a prepared release.

Under the Hodes' proposal, states in the emergency zone could initiate their own investigations into the safety of power plants.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/09-7

BitterLittleFlower
02-10-2010, 07:56 AM
of any and all kinds so many problems would be solved (including Iran, good Shah piece, btw)...this is critical shit...

blindpig
02-10-2010, 10:23 AM
is that we need energy and fossil fuels must definitely be grossly curtailed. How much energy would a rational economy need, impossible to say at this point. Don't get me wrong, the waste problem is insurmountable given current technology and I hold no hope that it will be surmounted in the foreseeable future. I do think that reactors can be run safely, sans the profit motive. Given our current population and its concentration we may need some nuke to provide human need in the short term. Changing population patterns could reduce the need. This does not make me happy but I see no way around it.

chlamor
02-10-2010, 01:02 PM
P R E S S R E L E A S E
France Can Phase Out Nuclear Power and Achieve Low Carbon Dioxide Emissions

French Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rising Despite Nuclear Power, New Study Finds
Subsidies for Plutonium and Pro-Nuclear Policies Inhibiting Secure, Low-Carbon Future

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This press release and a summary of the report are also available in French.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Takoma Park, Maryland: A new report, Low-Carbon Diet without Nukes in France, examines the feasibility of phasing out nuclear power in France while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by about 40 percent in the next few decades. France is considered as exemplary by advocates of nuclear power, which provides almost 80 percent of French electricity generation, because the use of that energy source has been crucial to its relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) report is the first to detail technologies and policies that could meet the same lifestyle and economic choices as a high-nuclear, high carbon emissions future without nuclear energy and significantly reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

"The nuclear industry has presented itself as part of the solution to global warming" said Annie Makhijani, a co-author of the report and Project Scientist at IEER. "But nuclear power creates serious long-term security issues in the form of risks of proliferation, severe nuclear accidents, and vulnerability to terrorism. It's not a desirable trade-off. The IEER analysis shows that nuclear power is not necessary even in France to achieve a low-carbon emissions future."

France obtains 75 to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, making it one of the lowest carbon-emitter countries in Europe per unit of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Because of that, France is not obligated to reduce its CO2 emissions relative to 1990 under the Kyoto protocol, while other European countries have to reduce their emissions to 8 percent (collectively) below their 1990 levels sometime between 2008 and 2012.

Nuclear power has not been the solution to eliminating greenhouse gas emissions in France, however. Low-Carbon Diet without Nukes in France shows that, despite the essential elimination of the use of oil in the French electricity sector since 1973 and the reduction of coal use, greenhouse gas emissions are high and have been rising. This is because the main greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector as well as from the use of oil and natural gas in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.

According to the report, the constraint is not a lack of carbon-free energy sources energies but that existing resources are devoted disproportionately to nuclear energy to the detriment of other sources. Official studies of the use of plutonium as a fuel in 20 nuclear reactors in France indicate that this aspect of nuclear power alone gets about $1 billion per year in subsidies. Yet, until the past few years total investment in wind energy in France had not even reached the annual plutonium subsidy.

"It is not possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in France significantly without large efficiency increases in the transportation sector and in residential and commercial heating," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of IEER and co-author of the report "The technologies are commercial or nearly so. But the official devotion to nuclear energy, including heavy subsidies for plutonium fuel production, has sidelined other aspects of energy policy."

IEER presents two scenarios that use official economic projections of high energy use to show that nuclear power would be phased out over a period of 30 to 40 years while setting a path to much reduced carbon dioxide emissions. The scenarios use existing technology or more advanced technology to achieve 20 percent and 40 percent CO2 reductions with a simultaneous phase out of nuclear power. It acknowledges that nuclear power must be phased out gradually rather than abruptly, because it is such a large part of France's electricity sector and because abandoning existing plants prematurely would divert resources that could be used for investments in efficiency and renewable energy sources, notably wind energy.

"There is no question that France will have to dig deeper into the advanced technology basket to produce the same percentage of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as the United States," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani. "But the country that invests in that future can grab future technological and economic leadership on reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

"France has unfortunately chosen its technological leadership in the energy sector to be in nuclear technology," noted Annie Makhijani. "But France and the world are ignoring warning signs, like the statement of Ichiro Ozawa, the Japanese Labor Party leader, that the commercial nuclear energy sector could provide plutonium for nuclear weapons."

The French company AREVA, which is majority-owned by the French government, provides reprocessing services to Japanese utilities. Japan has a large stock of separated plutonium as a result, stored partly in Japan and partly in France.

The report notes that a low carbon, zero-nuclear-power future for France by the middle of the 21st century will involve significant technical and policy changes, including

Regulations requiring new cars to achieve an average fuel efficiency of 100 miles per gallon by the year 2020 and improvements in efficiency of delivery vehicles and trucks.
Improvements in heating and cooling in the residential and commercial sector that use existing technologies like co-generation and earth-source heat pumps.
Government procurement of advanced technologies to stimulate innovation, in place of tax breaks for existing technologies.
Abandonment of reprocessing and retirement of nuclear power plants when they reach the end of the licensed lifetime (40 to 45 years after start up).
National policies to put wind, pumped hydro, and natural gas and, in the more advanced technology scenario, solar photovoltaic cells, at the center of the electricity sector.

The report is posted in full on IEER's website. (PDF 650kB).

http://www.ieer.org/reports/energy/france/

blindpig
02-10-2010, 01:46 PM
30-40 years is the short term.

Of course we must note that these are all technological fixes within the capitalist framework and are thus deserving acute scrutiny.

BitterLittleFlower
02-14-2010, 09:46 PM
with solar and wind, and, hate to say it, still some fossil fuel, sans profit hopefully, all provide enough (again we need to look at what enough is), none of these have the capacity to completely destroy all life...sorry no nukes, way too dangerous, the radiation is already leeching into far too much...I'm intransigent here, NO NUKES...

BitterLittleFlower
02-14-2010, 09:54 PM
"Regulations requiring new cars to achieve an average fuel efficiency of 100 miles per gallon by the year 2020 and improvements in efficiency of delivery vehicles and trucks."

They have cars that run on clean fuels...radio waves and water for instance...the technology is there, who can refuse the sums they pay to buy the low profit based ideas? On edit and a really quick search:
http://www.mobilemag.com/2006/05/31/prototype-car-runs-100-miles-on-four-ounces-of-water-as-fuel/
here's one example, a couple years ago I was reading alot on this type of stuff...

Another area is really trying to find Tessla's answers (we need a really good psychic medium ;) ;) ) He truly did have Colorado Springs fully electrified for nothing...there are answers...

blindpig
02-15-2010, 09:52 AM
what technological advances might be made without the constraints of the profit motive. Otoh, ya can't count on that... the glass is half empty until proven otherwise.

Ain't no telling until it happens.

BitterLittleFlower
02-15-2010, 11:39 AM
By eliminating the profit motive! and instituting a strong people needs motive!