Slashdot Mirror


Tritium Leak At Vermont Nuclear Plant Grows

mdsolar writes "The tritium leak into ground water at Vermont Yankee has now tested at 775,000 picocuries per liter, 37 times higher than the federal drinking water standard. 'Despite the much higher reading, an NRC spokeswoman said Thursday there was nothing to fear. "There's not currently, nor is there likely to be, an impact on public health or safety or the environment," the NRC's Diane Screnci said in an interview. She had maintained previously that the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water safety limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter had an abundance of caution built into it. ... The National Academy of Sciences said in 2005 that any exposure to ionizing radiation from an isotope like tritium elevates the risk of cancer, though it also said with small exposures, the risk would be low. ' At what level should the NRC shut down the troubled plant?"

35 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Wow... by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Why aren't those leaks taken care of fast, whether they are or aren't actually dangerous? We've had enough issues with fear of nuclear power, no need to let such stories grow out of proportions. Otherwise, we'll never see the US convert to nuclear power instead of gas and coal.

    1. Re:Wow... by Kartoffel · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would shoot myself in the foot, but it's dark and the tritium seems to have leaked out of my gun sights....

    2. Re:Wow... by poena.dare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "On Jan. 7, it was reported that radioactive tritium was leaking from the Vernon reactor into groundwater; the source of the leak has not been found. The following week, it was revealed that Entergy officials had misled state regulators and lawmakers several times in 2008 and 2009 by saying Vermont Yankee did not have the type of underground pipes that could carry tritium."

      I very pro-Nuke power... Well regulated, well maintained nuke power, that is. What I don't understand is why we have standards about acceptable contamination levels and then allow corporations to exceed them without severe recourse.

      Not being able to find the leak after a month makes it sound like Entergy doesn't even know how their own plant works.

    3. Re:Wow... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously, loss of the unwritten wisdom and muscle memory and whatnot of people who retire is inevitable. Not much you can do about.

      However, losing entire pipe systems suggests that your organization is suffering from severe failures in the area of documenting and controlling complex systems over time.

      Keeping a handle on your complex system, whether it be a plant or a program, is hard; but if you can't do it, you really should consider a career change to something less important.

    4. Re:Wow... by rhyder128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "At what level should the NRC shut down the troubled plant?"

      When the projected costs of liability for cancer exceed the projected profits? Oh sorry, you said "At what level should", I read that as "At what level will they". My mistake.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    5. Re:Wow... by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a big difference between a pinhole leak in a coolant pipe and a fundamentally flawed reactor design with no containment vessel and unsafe control rod designs operating way outside its safety margins. There's a difference between not knowing where every single coolant pipe is located and and deliberately ignoring safety alarms. I don't think there's much chance that this could cause a Chernobyl-level event in the near term.

      Should the reactor be shut down? Probably, if only because A. there's probably no way to fix an underground pipe leak without doing so, and B. if one pipe is leaking (and there have been *several* leaks at this plant lately), they're all probably on the verge of leaking, which means these problems are only going to get worse until they actually do pose a real risk.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Wow... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, the problem is by no means confined to this particular power plant. In fact, I'd argue that it is an extremely general problem, extending across the domains of system planning, document format design, library science, GIS, human resources, and others. It is also a very important problem to solve, or at least chip away at, if we want to continue to enjoy the fruits of highly complex technological civilization.

      The people who design and build complex systems are always going to leave, retire, or die. Advances in medicine have modestly extended the time horizon on the last two of those events, and sufficiently large sums of money can reverse the first(though, in general, there seems to have been a trend toward people moving around faster than in times past).

      Certain sorts of knowledge and experience are, at least without really creepy brain implants and other sci-fi stuff, basically impossible to capture. The muscle memory of a skilled technician moving through a complex series of manipulations, the emotional conditioning of a soldier continuing to function under extreme stress and danger, or the performance of a scientist or engineer(or, in more mundane cases, a support tech) who is so familiar with a system's parts that he can troubleshoot it as though by intuition.

      Barring substantial advances in man-machine interfaces or assistive technologies, the best we can really do to try to capture these is to foster the correct funding and HR environments. This doesn't mean unlimited lavish funding for everybody, that would be unrealistic; but it does mean trying to avoid boom/bust or feast/famine cycles. You want a steady continuity, with new hires having time to absorb experience from veterans, rather than having a purge/binge cycle, where efficient, well operating systems are cut to the bone(because hey, if they can keep the lights on with 5 engineers, 10 is clearly just a waste, just in time is the future, man!) until they start to fall apart, and then a whole bunch of noobs are hurridly hired and forced to reverse engineer the pieces and get things running again.

      Other aspects of institutional memory, while hard to capture, are at least in theory amenable to technological solution, if a serious and conscious effort is made to do things properly. Digital archivists and aggressive format standardization are one part of the puzzle. If your power plant/factor/whatever was CADed, your staff today should be able to call up the plans. If changes were made, they should be able to know when, where, what, why and who(similar, in principle, to the revision control systems used in software production). This is, admittedly, hard. It is quite possible that some 3rd party contractor CADed the place using an obscure, industry-specific CAD package from the 80s, and may or may not have shared the full specs with you. It is, however, necessary, and we as people with a stake in complex industrial society, need to do something about it.

      The other half of the puzzle, since keeping records in sync with reality is extremely hard and is inevitably going to fail from time to time, probably lies in the development of embedded sensors, "smart dust", and suchlike projects. Ideally, we should not only have the records of what the world is supposed to look like; but be able to programmatically interrogate the world and determine how closely it is adhering to our records, both in the sense of "Hey, look, the tertiary Toxin Shunt is developing stress fractures, it should be replaced within the next 100 hours." and "Hmm, flow-rate readings on the 2nd street water main look off compared to water meter readings in the area, we should check for possible tree roots, leaks, unauthorized diversions, or other deviations from the design."

      These are hard problems, and I don't actually suspect that the Vermont nuclear guys are unusually incompetent about it(though, losing tritium is more serious than just leaking water, so that is still kind of a problem); but this is an example of a very complex, very serious, and very important problem that we will have to come to a solution to. Complexity is hard; but if we want its benefits, we'll have to figure something out.

    7. Re:Wow... by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would wonder how it is that Tritium is in the coolant. Unless it's the (primary?) coolant stage that's leaking, in which yes - fixing it is a bitch because the coolant is otherwise very hot and radioactive.

      If you've got tritium in your (secondary?) coolant stage, you've got bigger issues.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Wow... by HiddenCamper · · Score: 3, Informative

      BWRs are only 1 stage for cooling. The water in the reactor is the water that passes through the condenser. PWRs use 2 loops. Vermont is a BWR. Tritium levels could be higher in there because of the massive amount of free neutrons flying around in the reactor. double neutron absorption in the water could cause it.

  2. We have the answer... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 5, Funny
    Nuke it from high orbit

    Oh, wait...

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  3. 2.7 million picocuries by mysqlrocks · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, the latest reading was 2.7 million picocuries: http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87126/

    1. Re:2.7 million picocuries by biryokumaru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't we just say 2.7 microcuries now?

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    2. Re:2.7 million picocuries by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's good. That reading is a sump inside the plant. It's about the level of the process water, so it's near the leak. They're getting close.

      The hazardous readings are all within the plant perimeter. Additional monitoring of off-site wells has been started (ten locations are normally monitored by the State of Vermont, but monthly) and those aren't showing any significant radioactivity.

    3. Re:2.7 million picocuries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure if you're joking, but a gigabyte is only 1000 megabytes. You're only lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

    4. Re:2.7 million picocuries by Z34107 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the context of storage, a gigabyte is 1024 megabytes.

      In the context of networking, a gigabit is 1000 megabits.

      In the context of physics, a giga-something is 1,000,000,000-something. Physics doesn't measure gravity in bits or bytes.

      Next up in words that have different meanings in different jargons: Hacking

      </troll>

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    5. Re:2.7 million picocuries by agnosticnixie · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, that's because incults who don't realize that the OS counts in binary and the makers in metric (which IBM already did in the 80s) sue.

  4. actually, the levels only doubled by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article says the levels in the well from before doubled and are still below the federal level. Levels at another existing well dropped. And a new well was drilled to try to find the leak and it has a much higher concentration of tritium.

    Unless you're drinking from the new well (and no one is, it's a test well), this doesn't really affect you at all. It's not like you're getting 37x as much radiation now (at least as far as the data we have says). And it's part of the process of finding the leak and fixing it.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:actually, the levels only doubled by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course it doesn't stay in those wells, that's how it was found in the other well too. And it's surely in other wells even further away, just at lower concentrations.

      That's why they're looking for the source of the leak by drilling more wells. Once they find the leak they can fix it.

      Some say they should shut down the plant while they find the leak. Which is an interesting concept. Do you know how they find leaks in underground pipes? They put in radioactive tracers and then detect for it.

      http://www.darvill.clara.net/nucrad/uses.htm

      So, as long as the levels of radiation at wells outside the plant are low enough it's safe to keep running the plant while the leak is found.

      Also, radiation doesn't build up in your body. There is a model for body damage from radiation that counts cumulative exposure over a long period. But that isn't because the radiation stays in your body the whole time, it's because the damage from the radiation takes a long time to repair so it's useful mathematically to sum it up over time.

      Either way, the radiation levels have not increased 37x. The danger has not increased 37x. There's not even information (at this time) that the leak has grown at all, they're just measuring at a new spot. This would be like jumping in a pool at the shallow end and saying it's 3 feet deep, then walking to the deep end and saying the pool got deeper. It was 6 feet deep at that end before, you just didn't measure it in that spot before.

      I hope they get this problem fixed soon.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    2. Re:actually, the levels only doubled by ukemike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that underground plumes of bad stuff spread over time. If you discover the contamination before it gets dangerous and you stop the leak it may be that the levels in water that is used by people never gets above the regulatory limit. If you let it sit it won't be long before people are drinking water with many times the the EPA limit.

      One thing that always bothers me about these environmental stories is that when some Chemical X is reported to be floating around, it's never 20% over the regulatory limit, or even twice the limit, it is always at least one order of magnitude too high. The regulatory limit may be conservative, but I really doubt it has a safety factor of 37 built in.

      --
      -- QED
  5. Tritrium in water? Unacceptable. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why do we Americans put up with this kind of nonsense? How can anyone phoo phoo off something as serious as tritrium in drinking water?

    As true Americans who cherish tradition, we should always take our raioactive elements in the traditional way. First mine it with coal, then burn it in a furnace, disperse it through smoke and then ingest it via the lungs. That is the American way. One second before you mod me down as a Luddite, remember I do support modern innovations, like mountain top removal and long wall mining.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  6. to all the nuclear proponents by cats-paw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suppose when this sort of thing happens you'll be ok with taxpayers paying the clean-up costs ?

    I think nuclear is something we're going to have to use, but I am _extremely_ worried it's going to be another privatize the gains and socialize the losses deal.

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  7. Now everyone go to your corners and rant. by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Far-Right:
    There's nothing to see here, it's just those damn liberals and their whining about nuclear power. It's all perfectly safe, there's absolutely no problems whats-so-ever with this plant or any other plant. A possible indicator of other problems around the country? Pshaw.. more liberal clap-trap. We can fix all our power problems with just building a lot of nuclear plants. Waste schmaste.

    Far-Left:
    This is just PROOF that the nuclear power industry are all a bunch of bastard weasels. We ought to shut the whole shootin-match down for good. We can get all of our power from wind and solar anyway. 37 times the standard! I bet the standard is set too high anyway! These plants are all rotting from neglect, and there's probably a ton they're not telling us! I recently saw The China Syndrome and Silkwood, and let me tell you that's all just the tip of the iceberg! Chernobyl!

    I'm just really sick of the nonsense on both sides. They both insulate themselves from the other and don't want to hear any real truths from "the other side". The whole nuclear power issue is 90% a "side of the room argument" where nobody wants to be associated with an idea from "the other side". This is what needs to stop to make any progress on the whole issue.

    --
    AccountKiller
  8. Canary in the coal mine by argent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the reactor doesn't produce much tritium, then wouldn't that imply that tritium would be a small proportion of the radioactive material released when a leak occurs... but it is detected early because it IS so mobile and easy to detect.

    That is, the tritium itself is not the direct cause for concern, but rather an indicator that will lead to locating the real problem.

  9. Re:I know it's a troll but ... by Faerunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You said yourself that most of the currently operating plants in the US are ancient (by nuclear power standards). Newer tech and newer plants would be many times safer and less likely to leak. Replacing the old plants with new ones, or simply building new ones nearby and shutting the old ones down as soon as possible would be a good choice, but many people point to the old plants as examples (as you're doing) without regard for the fact that a new, re-engineered plant wouldn't have any of the problems the 30-year-old ones are having. And in 30 years, I'm sure we'll have the capacity to build even more and better plants, or improve the ones we have so that they will last. The problem is getting past the folks who think that an old standard is the only standard.

  10. They need to stop this fast... by david.given · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...because tritium's really expensive to make and they're wasting it.

    A few years back I bought a bunch of glow-in-the-dark keyrings as stocking fillers for my family. These are little tubes containing tritium. The tritium produces very low energy beta particles, which excite phosphor on the inside of the tube, which cause them to glow. They have a half-life of 12 years, which in effect means that they glow usefully for about five or six years before they need replacing. (I should probably get them new ones.)

    Let me repeat that: it's a little glowing thing that will glow for six years, continuously. They don't need recharging, they don't need their batteries changed, they don't need exposure to sunlight. They're fantastic for safety-critical things like exit signs. My father sails, and he has his tied to the end of the emergency torch on his boat --- it means that if he needs it in a hurry in the dark, he can find it. I know a nurse who uses them to find things in bags of equipment. They're really handy.

    Naturally, they're banned in the US, because they're atomic.

    (Tritium, being hydrogen and really hard to contain, will slowly diffuse out through the walls of the glass tube and into the environment. However there's a tiny, tiny amount of the stuff, and the radioactivity they emit is so weak it won't penetrate six millimetres of air, let alone anything solid. I suppose it is possible to absorb the stuff into the body --- we are largely made of hydrogen, after all --- but the low energies, short half-life and tiny quantities means that you're probably more likely to get radiation damage from Bikini Atoll than your tritium keyring.)

    Incidentally, did you know that after the Chalk River reactor in Canada was shut down in 2009 due to overreaction, there is now a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes? There are only five reactors worldwide, sorry, four now, that produce the stuff. I wonder how many people that shutdown has killed?

    1. Re:They need to stop this fast... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Naturally, they're banned in the US, because they're atomic.

      I'm going to have to give you a [citation needed] for that one, on the basis that United Nuclear (a US company) are still selling them.

    2. Re:They need to stop this fast... by limaxray · · Score: 3, Informative

      Any American gun owner can tell you that tritium is NOT banned in the US - tritium makes for great night sights and is a common addition for home defense weapons.

  11. What a bunch of numbskulls. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

    We get far more exposure from radon outgassing from the granite countertops in our kitchens.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html

    Let's pay attention to something we can actually get exposed to.

  12. Re:I won't lie- This concerns me by HiddenCamper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are finding water near the condensate storage tanks. This is water that is supposed to be used for emergency cooling, replenishing reactor feedwater, and overflow for a couple systems. It is potentially contaminated. It draws its water from the potable water system (typically in most plants), which means that the water going in is supposed to be clean. They need to check if they have a leak in there causing potentially contaminated water to go into the site's potable water system. I'm sure that was already done, at my plant it would have been done already at least. Anyways, condensate storage tanks arent always located inside the plant. It is very likely thats where the leak is. I'm not completely sure why they are getting tritium of all things as in a BWR plant tritium usually isnt your biggest worry. Nuclear plants have a corrective action process that a plant uses to fix problems. Anyone at the plant can put something in the process, it is federally mandated, and its one of those things that an employee cannot lose his job over. The system is very effective and allows the plants to 'self-police'. Finding and fixing a problem like this when the tritium leak was low would have been a low priority fix because the tritium levels were under limits previously. One of the actions they took was likely to install the new wells to find if the leaks were worse near potentially contaminated systems, which they did and found out it was worse. Now they are likely elevating the issue internally, which is why it was reported again to the NRC. So far, the plant sounds like they legally/procedureally done everything right. They made a huge boo-boo by having a PR guy tell people they have no underground piping that could carry contaminated water, it makes me think that guy never took or paid attention during the BWR systems class. The plant cannot be expected to prevent all accidents, but they are expected to mitigate accidents and issues to a minimal risk of safety to the public and to monitor and fix equipment which has repeat failures (things they know are breaking). Long story short, They are going to get investigated, and if this problem has been here longer than they say it has, they are in a bit of trouble. I Tritium isnt terrible in the water, as long as it doesnt get into drinking water. It's in low amounts that it will be diluted easily if it reaches a main water supply. It's still not good, but there are MANY worse things that could have leaked.

  13. Re:we do not apply limits by HiddenCamper · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually they did act. They noticed the rates increasing. They added more wells and kept testing to locate the problem. They are self-policing and reporting using their corrective action process. Going over a limit will get them a hefty fine, but all things considered when a problem just pops up like this you dont know where its at and you have little control over it. They are doing the right things.

  14. Re:I won't lie- This concerns me by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

    We hear your concerns and we are instituting a remediation program immediately! You should shortly be receiving a package via USPS bulk rate. In it you will find a shovel, a radiation detection badge, and a large zippered radiation proof bag.

    Directions

    Take the shovel and dig a "Safety" hole three feet wide, 4 to 6 feet deep, and about as long as you are tall.
    Put on the detection badge. Please wear the detection badge at all times.
    You will note the badge has the words "Hell No, We Don't Glow" printed on it.
    If those words fad out OR if the badge does in fact begin to glow you should take the bag and climb into the Safety Hole.
    Get in the bag and zipper it up from the inside to keep the radiation out. Now lay quietly in the bottom of the Safety Hole until help arrives.

    Thanks for your cooperation.

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  15. Re:I won't lie- This concerns me by rhyder128k · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't worry, nature has a way of balancing itself out and adapting to changes. You'll probably grow an extra cock, but you'll have extra fingers to hold it with.

    --
    Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
  16. I'm not shocked they didn't know by plopez · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the 10000 or so jobs I have over the years was working in a refinery for a few months. During that time some of the workers tried to find some pipes for maintenance. No one knew where they were. There were the design diagrams, the "as-builts" and numerous additions and removals by contractors upgrading and doing maintenance. Some new ones were out in, some ripped out, and others abandoned in place.

    Metal detectors did not help, there was too much metal buried and scattered around.

    The situation was so bad they resorted to dowsing. I'm serious!

    Lately I've heard of small robots using GPS to travel a pipe and map it out. But with so many old plants and old pipes, it will be a long time before the situation is unsnarled.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  17. Super Powers by phorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe they're just waiting for the radioactivity to reach a high enough level that it will give them super-powers. Then they can deal with this and many other injustices in the world...

  18. Re:I won't lie- This concerns me by vtcat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Exactly- It wasn't a PR guy, it was Jay Thayer, VP of operations, among others. Backtracking and in trouble: A detailed timeline on who said what on Vt. Yankees Also, instead of 0 underground pipes, there are 40. And they've found Cobalt-60 and Zinc-65 in a "trench". Nice