Problems with Older nukes and their relicensing
Search for leak continues at Yankee
By BOB AUDETTE, Brattleboro Reformer, Jnauary 13, 2010
BRATTLEBORO — A former nuclear industry insider turned nuclear safety advocate said the inspection team looking for the source of a tritiated water leak might consider the condensate storage tank, which contains 500,000 gallons of water that is used for normal auxiliary feedwater pump supply.
Arnie Gundersen said in 1976, a spill of tritiated water occurred at the plant, which was then owned by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation. The source of the leak was determined to be the condensate storage tank.
The state’s nuclear engineer, Uldis Vanags, told the Reformer in an e-mail that the source of the leak is only speculation at this point.
And, he stated, “It’s too early to tell if the concentration of tritium is increasing, decreasing or stable … until we identify the source and acquire more samples over time so there are more data points. I am hoping the source of the tritium can be identified quickly.”
Yankee has hired a hydrologist as part of its investigation and is considering drilling more wells to search for any plume of tritiated water.
Gundersen told the Associated Press that the contaminated sample is a sign that there’s a pipe or a tank leaking somewhere.
“It’s highly unlikely that the highest concentration in the ground would happen to be at the monitoring well,” he said, adding the tank could have leaked anywhere between 10,000 and 50,000 gallons a month “without anybody noticing.”
Last week, a Yankee spokesman told the media that tritiated water had been found in a test well on the site of the nuclear power plant.
Though the amount of tritium found in the water was below the threshold established by the Environmental Protection Agency, Yankee personnel and inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are investigating where the tritiated water is coming from.
The sample was taken from an on-site well in November. On Jan. 5 Yankee learned from an independent laboratory that the water was contaminated with 17,000 picocuries per liter. On Jan. 6, a second sample was taken, which had a level of 14,500 picocuries. The EPA’s limit is 20,000 picocuries.
According to the Nuclear Information Resource Center, the average tritium level in U.S. water ranges between 3.2 and 24 picocuries.
The NRC translates one million picocuries of tritium per liter as the equivalent of 50 millirems a year
The average American receives about 360 millirems a year from natural sources such as radon, cosmic radiation and as a result of medical procedures.
Off-site monitoring wells maintained by the state have shown no contamination, said Bill Irwin, Vermont’s radiological health officer.
Because water in condensate storage tank circulates through the reactor, it contains radioactivity, including high levels of tritium, said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC, but there are measures in place to prevent tritium from contaminating water supplies.
“The condensate storage tank at the plant rests on a concrete pad that is surrounded by a concrete berm,” said Sheehan. “Any leakage from the tank should therefore be collected and not reach the groundwater.”
Tritium testing is done by way of deep wells, which are sampled on a quarterly basis, storm drain systems, which are sampled on a monthly basis and the south storm drain system, which is sampled on a weekly basis.
In addition, ground water test wells are sampled and analyzed for tritium and other radionuclides are sampled on a semi-annual basis.
“Operations personnel also take a contaminated water inventory on a daily basis in order to determine any abnormal water usage or movement that might indicate a leak from the system,” according to the 2006 letter from Entergy to the NRC.
Under industry guidelines, said Sheehan, the threshold for reporting contamination to plant stakeholders is set at a very low level.
“In all cases we quickly learn about tritium and other types of groundwater contamination,” he said. “The companies do not hesitate to notify our resident inspectors of even the smallest levels of contamination.”
In 2006, the NRC established the Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force in response to incidents at Braidwood, Indian Point, Byron and Dresden nuclear power plants.
“Virtually all commercial nuclear power plants routinely release radioactive materials to the environment in liquids and gases,” stated the report. “These releases are planned, monitored and documented. Although there have been a number of industry events where radioactive liquid was released to the environment in an unplanned and unmonitored fashion, based on the date available, the task force did not identify any instances where the health of the public was impacted.”
NRC regulations require that the releases not result in a dose of greater than 3 millirems to any individual in an unrestricted area.
A person flying on a cross-country trip receives about 3 millirems of cosmic radiation.
Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com, or at 802-254-2311, ext. 273.
State goes after Entergy Administration criticizes Yankee for ‘misinformation’
By Susan Smallheer STAFF WRITER
MONTPELIER — The Douglas administration sharply criticized Entergy
Nuclear on Thursday for failing to give accurate information about
underground radioactive pipes at Vermont Yankee, saying last year’s
independent evaluation of the plant is now in question, as well as its
support for relicensing the reactor.
In letters to the Public Service Board and Entergy on Thursday, the
Department of Public Service said inaccurate information about
radioactive pipes at the Vernon reactor had serious ramifications.
“The record is wrong and we are re-evaluating our position,” said
Stephen Wark, deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Service.
The letters faulted Entergy for not providing accurate information to
the department, the board and its consultants in 2008 and 2009,
including Nuclear Safety Associates, which helped coordinate the 2008
independent evaluation of Vermont Yankee for the Legislature.
To date, the Douglas administration has been a strong supporter of
Yankee’s relicensing, saying its continued operation was key to the
economic health of the state.
Wark said the department’s formal case supporting Entergy before the Public Service Board now had to be re-evaluated, though he hesitated to say its support of Yankee was on hold.
The latest turn in the Yankee relicensing case came after Entergy
disclosed last week that a radioactive isotope, tritium, had surfaced
in a monitoring well at the Vernon reactor, and there were no obvious leaks above ground. The reported tritium levels are within EPA drinking water standards.
According to the letter from Public Service Commissioner David
O’Brien, the department was considering financial sanctions against
Entergy for the false information.
“A week ago, we learned about tritium and we were heavily reliant on
the information that ENVY’s staff gave us on it. It was unequivocal
that information is just wrong,” Wark said.
Wark said the future of Vermont Yankee was based on three essential
factors: its safety and reliability, the economic benefits and jobs,
and the power contract.
“This new information calls into question the safety piece,” said
Wark, who said Entergy still hasn’t given the state a full explanation
of the misleading and inaccurate information.
“It was a piecemeal revelation,” Wark said.
“We now know that the record is wrong and we have to go back and
complete our task that the Legislature gave us,” Wark said.
“Intentional? It doesn’t matter. The fact finders don’t have correct
information,” he said. “The record has not been set straight or
clear.”
Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, reiterated his
explanation for the inaccurate information, attributing the problem to
“miscommunications about the extent of underground piping that carries
radioactivity.”
“Vermont Yankee shares the DPS concerns and takes them seriously,”
Williams wrote in an e-mail. He said “senior management” was directing
a “comprehensive review of the questions received from, and the
answers provided” to the Legislature’s consultant and the members of
the oversight panel.
Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer who was a member of the oversight
panel, said the inaccurate information called into question other
information Entergy provided to the state during the 2008 study.
Gundersen said he didn’t fault senior Entergy Nuclear engineer David
McElwee for the incorrect information. “He got his information from
engineers on the staff. I think McElwee is a professional,” Gundersen
said.
“It calls into question how much effort did Entergy really put in to
provide us with accurate information across the board?” said
Gundersen, who said it was a clear indication Entergy didn’t really
know what was underneath the 38-year-old plant.
“My concern is what’s the real root cause? There are not enough people
there. They were short 80 people last year. Why did we get bad
information?” Gundersen said. “I think they don’t have enough people,
and they took the oversight process lightly.”
