Slashdot Mirror


Entergy Admits 2005 Tritium Leak

mdsolar writes "The leaking Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was hit last week by a whistleblower allegation that a previous tritium leak had occurred. Now the parent company, Entergy, has admitted the occurrence of at least one prior leak to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is particularly significant for three reasons: because the leak occurred in pipes that company officials later testified under oath did not exist, because the Vermont Senate will likely soon vote to deny Entergy a needed approval to extend the power plant's license for another 20 years, and because President Obama just put taxpayers on the hook for new nuclear power plants in Georgia."

21 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Troll summary. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't want to be all "So what?" but so what? One plant leaks an unspecified amount of a weak beta emitter...It tested at the leak at a whopping 2 million picocuries, which is a bullshit measurement that's clearly chosen because it's more shocking than 2 microcuries. 2 microcuries is about what you'd get for a basic thyroid test at the docs office. Trituim doesn't stay resident in the body, it's half life is 12 years long, and it's a beta emitter: if you drink it you'll get a few rads, but you can take a shower in it without any problem.

    The whole thing is clearly being pushed as an example of the horrible dangers of the super scary nuclear power industry, but what I see is the dangers that are inherent in running antiquated plants for years beyond their design life because a bunch of poorly informed hysterics have blocked all attempts to modernize them for the last 40 years.

    And what the hell is the point in talking about the plants in Georgia? That's a different type of plant, being built by a different company! Georgia has the largest coal fired power plant in the us: where's that outrage? Where is the outrage over the radiation it emits?

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Troll summary. by TheKidWho · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's obviously a troll summary, the OPs username is mdsolar.

    2. Re:Troll summary. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place. Sure, this time it might be something like tritium, but whose to say at some later date it's not something worse? Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?

    3. Re:Troll summary. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't want to be all "So what?" but so what?

      Someone lies under oath abouty the operation of a nuclear power plant and you say "so what?" Are you on crack, or are you on this company's board of directors?

      The whole thing is clearly being pushed as an example of the horrible dangers of the super scary nuclear power industry

      No, it's an indictment of dishonest corporations in any industry. I'm starting to suspect that all big corporations are run by sociopathic thieves. I don't want any power plant, nuke, coal, or gas, run by sociopaths. And I'm damned glad there's an NRC, OSHA, and EPA, because these bastards don't give a damn about anything but their money.

      I'd like to see someone go to prison over this, preferably someone with a seven figure salary. It's the only way this shit will stop. The next time it may be a serious leak of some truly nasty shit, what makes you think they'll react any differently?

    4. Re:Troll summary. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Plus it also requires using a massive, unshielded, nuclear fusion reactor.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  2. New by endianx · · Score: 5, Informative

    because President Obama just put taxpayers on the hook for new nuclear power plants in Georgia

    The keyword there is "new".

  3. Hurray! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Corporate malfeasance, a dash of coverup, and a more or less fully captured regulatory agency!

    I, for one, am fully confident that the present minor tritium leak is the only thing going wrong, or likely to go wrong in the near future. Everything else is absolutely fine and, if it weren't, those involved would do the responsible thing and fix it....

  4. Yes but by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes this leak isn't a big deal as a leak. Nor for that matter is the recent leak. The problem is they lied under oath. And once people are lying about the state of things you don't know what else they are or will lie about. These might not matter, but they might very well lie about the next leak when it is a serious problem. As with many issues, the initial incident isn't nearly as much of a problem as the coverup.

    1. Re:Yes but by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is they lied under oath.

      Not necessarily. They didn't lie at all about the leak.

      What they are accused of lying about is "they were not aware of any underground or buried pipes that carried radioactive materials.".

      Now, given that juxtaposition (underground or buried pipes), and that the pipes in question were in a pipe tunnel (you know, the sort of place that people where walk along beside the pipes, looking at them, as opposed to underground or buried pipes like the water pipes into my house), it's just possible that the questioner meant one thing, and the answerer heard another.

      Note also that the answerer was not an Entergy executive necessarily - TFA merely describes them as "Entergy representatives"

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  5. Re:WHAT! by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference being that the Tritium in luminous devices is contained and no one has lied under oath about it. I am a big supporter of nuclear power for environmental and economic reasons and I believe these guys ought to be nailed to the cross over this. Nuclear power is one of the few technologies that are capable of displacing fossil fuels to any extent and the last thing we need is some corporation cutting corners and getting away with it. The public's confidence in nuclear power needs to be strengthened by making damn sure these corporations are doing what they are supposed to do in order to keep these plants safe.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  6. New Plants have nothing to do with old... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just love how the anti-nuclear comes out every time. Yes, it is significant that this leak was hidden from the NRC. Yes, it should affect that company from getting an extension. And yes, because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed (since they obviously covered up the previous leak), they should get heavy fines (to the individuals, not just the corporation), and even jail time. And absolutely should get denied operating license extension, and possibly even have their existing license revoked.

    But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATE. It would be like arresting every person in the country who owns a Silver or Gray car because a Silver/Gray car was involved in a hit and run Rhode Island.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A better car analogy: "I don't trust any hybrid because of that damn Prius braking problem. And the fact that Toyota denied there was any Prius braking problem for so long."

      But let the anti-nuke whackjobs be the anti-nuke whackjobs. It keeps them out of more annoying fringe circles.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  7. Absurd by sackvillian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's ridiculous that the summary implies that, in the context of this leak, Obama setting aside funds for building new power plants is a negative thing.

    If anything, the fact that America's only nuclear power comes from relatively ancient, decaying reactors of obsolete design should be motivation for building new nuclear power plants. This might be the best tangible thing Obama has proposed to date and informed citizens should be applauding it.

    --
    Hey mate, spare a sig?
    1. Re:Absurd by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...and informed citizens should be applauding it."

      They are. Both of them.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Absurd by lwsimon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Amen.

      I'm rabidly anti-Obama, because I disagree with almost every one of his policies on a fundamental level. The simple fact is, however, building more nuclear power plants is a good thing. I'd rather them happen through private industry, and without subsidy, but this is still a step in the right direction.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
  8. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nuclear power would be competitive with coal in terms of cost if it were not for the massive amount of red tape. In fact, if you built in the environmental cost that Coal has into the pricing, Nuclear power becomes the cheapest source of energy due to the much much lower CO2 emissions of the technology. France is a perfect example of a country that has cut its CO2 emissions to a third of comparable nations CO2/$ because of the fact that 70+ % of its power needs come from nuclear power.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  9. Re:WHAT! by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

    DEATH BY SNU SNU!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  10. Re:WHAT! by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am a big supporter of nuclear power for environmental and economic reasons and I believe these guys ought to be nailed to the cross over this.

    Having worked in the nuclear industry, I understand there's a lot of unreasonable fear about radiation and radioactivity. I also understand that 2.5 million picocuries per liter sounds like a huge amount, but it's closer to a drop of tritium in a swimming pool. That's a very low level of contamination.

    Even at that, lying under oath and otherwise being dishonest is not okay. Patient education and being truthful will win over time. Yes, you'll have to sometimes make expensive repairs, which you'll then pass on in the form of rate hikes. That's life in the nuclear business.

    ...I believe these guys ought to be nailed to the cross

    I'll help pound the nails.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  11. Re:mdsolar by SovBob · · Score: 5, Informative

    In case the username wasn't enough, here's some more evidence to suggest that mdsolar might have a bias.

    From mdsolar's profile page:
    http://slashdot.org/~mdsolar/
    "Very recently, I've gotten involved in a startup that plans to rent solar photovoltaic systems in the residential market. My guess is this is going to catch on. My homepage is where you can sign up."

    There's also various submissions and journal entries going back as far as 2007 denouncing oil and nuclear power and extolling the virtues of renewable energy (particularly solar.)

  12. Re:WHAT! by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only part of this article worth mentioning was the lying under oath. The tritium leak was harmless to anyone not 3 feet away when it happened. As for the American taxpayers being 'on the hook' for new power plants that will only happen if the plants somehow default on their loans, something no nuclear power plant has done in American history and given the subsidies already given to nuclear power it is highly unlikely that any new (and therefore more easily maintained and more efficient) reactor would do so.

    The summary reads like a troll to me, but YMMV.

  13. Re:WHAT! by thsths · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > What happens when the uranium runs out?

    You mean Uranium 235? There is still Uranium 238, which is very common. Then there Thorium, which is available just about everywhere. Chances are that we melt the earth before running out of Thorium, but if you still need more energy, there is always fusion.

    The sources are not the problem, the sinks are. What do you do with radioactive waste? And how do you tell the public that everything is safe when the nuclear industry is lying like Dick Cheney? Those are the real questions.