TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Vt. Yankee valve still leaking



Toolbox

By SUSAN SMALLHEER Rutland Herald Staff - Published: February 17, 2009

BRATTLEBORO — A valve leaking more than 3,600 gallons of radioactive water a day at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station, discovered seven weeks ago, still hasn't been fixed, an Entergy Nuclear official said Monday.

Several attempts to fix the leaking gasket, contained in a 4-inch pipe in the reactor's clean-out system, have failed, according to Robert Williams, company spokesman.

Williams said company engineers will attempt to reinstall a sealant this week.

The company announced the discovery of the leak in early January, saying the leak had been discovered two weeks earlier.

According to Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Entergy has tried at least three times to fix the problem, traced to a faulty gasket in a valve in the reactor's clean-out system.

Sheehan said the leak was now down to one-tenth of a gallon a minute, but he said he didn't know how long the leak had been reduced. He said the water was "slightly radioactive."

Sheehan said the gasket would have to be repaired, and Entergy Nuclear now had a spare valve on hand. He said the company could try to make some temporary repairs, or shut the plant down and quickly make the permanent repair.

"Entergy has made three attempts to halt the leakage using sealant material. After the first two tries, it was determined that a material more resistant to the high temperatures in that area was needed. However, the third attempt with that kind of material also did not succeed," Sheehan said Monday.

"Entergy is evaluating its options. The company does have a replacement valve on hand, so one option would be to shut down and install the new valve. The leakage, as it currently stands, is within the plant's technical specifications. But obviously there is a desire to fix the problem as expeditiously as possible," he said.

He added that the NRC resident inspectors were keeping close tabs on the situation, including viewing the leakage via a camera set up in the room where the leak is occurring.

susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com







READER COMMENTS


Sound like you're a bone-a-fide Tree Hugger Stephen. After all, wouldn't every tree hugger give up a good clean energy source for an alternative that spews greenhouse gas and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere?
-- Posted by B G on Thu, Feb 19, 2009, 12:45 pm EST

report this comment


Those pesky leaks are so annoying. You guys at Entergy shouldn't feel alone. My old heating system has been dripping in the cellar since January too. I tried wrapping a rag around the pipe. Did you try that? Oh, it didn't work for you either. That's the problem with old junk, it's just so hard to fix. Hey, I saw some stuff advertised on TV that you just spray on the outside of a hose and it seals the leak. That might work, except that you would need to turn the pressure off to stop the raidoactive water from coming out in order for the stuff to work. I guess you'd better not try that, might have a full blown nuclear meltdown and that would probably make the leak worse. I've decided to cut my heating pipe open and let all the water out so that I can do a proper solder repair. It's a bummer because the house will cool off while the heating system is down but I guess I can burn some wood for a few days. Heck, I might just get used to burning wood and forget all about that leaky old contraption in the cellar. That might be your best bet too. Together we can get out of the endless chasing of leaking old pipes and move on with our lives towards something more rewarding and less frustrating.
Stephen Miracle
Montpelier
-- Posted by Stephen Miracle on Thu, Feb 19, 2009, 7:42 am EST

report this comment


Melissa, I know for a fact that if a nuclear plant has a situation that affects the health and safety of the general public they obligated by state and federal regulations to inform you. Sometimes, incedents that happen within the plant such as the valve leak poses no threat to the general public because it is confined within the plant's safeguard systems.As far as radiation release, it does not matter if the water is inside the pipe or leaking out of the pipe, the radiation levels of the water remains the same. Sometimes people confuse "Radiation" with "Contamination". Radiation is the release of ionizing radiation due to the breakdown of radioactive materials. Contamination is radioactive material where it does not belong, such as your backyard. The leaking valve at VY poses no threat to the public because the leak was confined and did not leak out into the environment where it would be a contamination issue. I would be happy to answer any more questions that you and/or others may have. I certainly know the destructive powers of radiation and radioactive materials by first hand experience, but I also know how safe and benificial it can be when properly controlled.
-- Posted by B G on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, 7:50 pm EST

report this comment


That's just it BG, if we don't understand we are at the mercy of these people that could really give a rats arse. They only want there plant to keep running. Are you insisting that nuclear plants never lie, or give disinformation to the public? If you do believe that then perhaps you're the misinformed here.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Feb 18, 2009, 12:10 pm EST

report this comment


Maybe people should educate themselves before posting comments. How much radiation does one absorb in one year due to naturally occuring sources and cosmic rays? Let me tell you....300millirem....or how about on a flight from Vermont to Florida?.....100millirem. Yup, your little vacation to Disney just gave you 100mR during the flight....Oh, that's each way. And not all radiation is "harmful to humankind". What about all of the wonderful medical advances that utilize radiation to help human kind? As far as nuclear power is concerned, if you do not know how all of the systems operate and all of the safeguards that are in place, how can you determine what is really bad and what can really effect the public? So educate yourselves and make wise comments.
-- Posted by B G on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 10:09 pm EST

report this comment


Ed, what is your problem? I was brought up with the understanding that in this country we all have a right to share our opinion. I also was brought up to respect others. I think that when someone calls another person stupid, they themselves are showing how smart they truly are. I have a question, why if they are really putting an effort into fixing the problem is it taking so long. How long would you think it would take if the problem wasn't so slight. Really, how safe are we if they can not stop a simple leak?
-- Posted by Steven DeForge on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 8:22 pm EST

report this comment


Without asking the reporter directly, I haven't a clue if Entergy withheld the radiation readings or if the reporter didn't ask or if she just left them out of the story. Without looking at the link posted by Melissa, how many of you have any idea how millirems is a normal exposure? Is 18 millirems a big radiation release or a "slight" one? I doubt the reporter had time to find out and I also doubt her editor would have given her enough space in the article to explain it if she did.

The article did say that the plant was "within specifications." Vermont limits the plan to 20 millirems per year and last year they released 18millirems as reported by the Times Argus back in July. So to stay within spec, this leak can't be bigger than 2 millirems. Seems pretty slight to me.

The link posted by Melissa states that a normal exposure is 300 millirems. So Vt. Yankee might increase this by 7% to 320. Moving to Denver will increase your exposure to around 400 millirems due to altitude.

Sorry, I don't see any need to panic here.
-- Posted by Rene C. on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 5:21 pm EST

report this comment


Rene and Ed, are you two on the Entergy payroll?

As Kathleen pointed out, the water's radioactivity is not defined. As a guess, if the radioactivity was equivalent to a tritium glow in the dark watch, Entergy would define exactly how slightly radioactive the water is.

Entergy surely knows exactly how radioactive the water is (if they don't they darn well should!) so the question becomes why are they withholding the radioactivity of the water? Slim chance that slightly will increase to somewhat or perhaps mildly radioactive? Someone at Entergy want to drink some to prove how mildly radioactive it is?

One other question that is dying for an answer is where is the 3,600 gallons per day of radioactive water going? Pumped up? Pumped out? Draining away?

New VP OPs, new site manager, NRC on site, media crawling all over, applying for a license extension and after 3-4 tries they can't fix a leaky valve? For this we should renew their operating license for another 20 years?

On the other hand we do need that power. Should we be working with Entergy for a 10 year license extension while we build a new nuke plant?
-- Posted by Dick C on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 2:49 pm EST

report this comment


They don't really give any of the levels, just that it's slight... why is that?

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1994/safe-0105.html
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 12:53 pm EST

report this comment


"A valve leaking more than 3,600 gallons of radioactive water a day at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station, discovered seven weeks ago, still hasn't been fixed, an Entergy Nuclear official said Monday."

Sounds to me they are trying to 'down play' the seriousness of this. When the report starts out with this above, but further down it says, slightly radioactive'.


How many of you would hold a 'slightly radioactive' piece of matter in your hands?
How many of you would swim or let your children swim, in a river knowing it had 'slightly radioactive' matter in it?
We have notices on E. coli levels in water and when it's safe to swim in the water. But somehow, radioactive matter is nothing to you folks slamming kathleen, that's just amazing to me.

Worry about E. coli bacteria, but down play nuclear waste.. wow.

http://www.poultneymettowee.org/projects/assessments_research/water_quality_monitoring.php
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 12:49 pm EST

report this comment


The Vermont Departmetn of Public Health 2008 surveillance report says "The ionizing radiation to which people are exposed as a result of Vermont Yankke operations is a known human carcinogen.As with other carcinogens, it is impossible to prove that low doses are without risk. With radiation exposure it is assumed that no dose is without risk."
-- Posted by Kathleen Krevetski on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 11:04 am EST

report this comment


"slightly radioactive" means just that. Slightly. Same as driving slightly over the speed limit, not 'slightly pregnant'. The radium watches from the '80s are slightly radioactive. The smoke detector in your home is slightly radioactive. Radiation surrounds us all of the time. It's a natural part of our environment, not some mysterious boogie man to be thought of as immortal and instantly fatal.

Too much radiation is bad and can be fatal. However the plant is still within specifications. Vt Yankee is aware of the problem and trying to fix it. NRC is aware of the problem and watching over their shoulders. The press is aware of the problem and watching over both their shoulders. Sorry, but the sky is not falling.
-- Posted by Rene C. on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 10:41 am EST

report this comment


Water that is "slightly radioactive" is like a woman being slightly pregnant. Any radioactivity no matter how slight is harmful to human kind especially our young. And it is our future generations that will ultimately pay the cost for this nuclear debacle as our Governor does not want his constituents- "the me generation" to pay the true costs for this "cheap" energy. So our children will pay- our generation's legacy to them.
-- Posted by Kathleen Krevetski on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 9:35 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout