AP/ February 1, 2010, 4:32 PM

A Quarter of U.S. Nuclear Plants Leaking

Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen discovered in potentially dangerous levels in groundwater at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, now taints at least 27 of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors — raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants.

The leaks — many from deteriorating underground pipes — come as the nuclear industry is seeking and obtaining federal license renewals, casting itself as a clean-green alternative to power plants that burn fossil fuels.

Tritium, found in nature in tiny amounts and a product of nuclear fusion, has been linked to cancer if ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin in large amounts.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that new tests at a monitoring well on Vermont Yankee's site in Vernon registered 70,500 picocuries per liter, more than three times the federal safety standard of 20,000 picocuries per liter.

That is the highest reading yet at the Vermont Yankee plant, where the original discovery last month drew sharp criticism by Gov. Jim Douglas and others. Officials of the New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., which owns the plant in Vernon in Vermont's southeast corner, have admitted misleading state regulators and lawmakers by saying the plant did not have the kind of underground pipes that could leak tritium into groundwater.

"What has happened at Vermont Yankee is a breach of trust that cannot be tolerated," said Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, who until now has been a strong supporter of the state's lone nuclear plant.

Vermont Yankee has said no tritium has been found in area drinking water supplies or in the Connecticut River and that earlier, lesser tritium levels discovered last month were of no health concern. Messages left for a plant spokesman Monday were not immediately returned.

President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, called for "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." His 2011 budget request to Congress on Monday called for $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power.

The 104 nuclear reactors operating in 31 states provide only 20 percent of the nation's electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from non-greenhouse gas producing sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams.

Vermont Yankee is just the latest of dozens of U.S. nuclear plants, many built in the 1960s and '70s, to be found with leaking tritium.

The Braidwood nuclear station in Illinois was found in the 1990s to be leaking millions of gallons of tritium-laced water, some of which contaminated residential water wells. Plant owner Exelon Corp. ended up paying for a new municipal water system.

After Braidwood, the nuclear industry stepped up voluntary checking for tritium in groundwater at plants around the country, testing that revealed the Vermont Yankee problem, plant officials said.

In New Jersey last year, tritium was reported leaking a second time from the Oyster Creek plant in Ocean County, just days after Exelon won NRC approval for a 20-year license extension there. The Pilgrim plant in Plymouth, Mass., like Vermont Yankee, owned by Entergy, reported low levels of tritium on the ground in 2007. The Vermont leak has prompted a Plymouth-area citizens group to demand more test wells at the Massachusetts plant.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan says leaks have occurred at least 27 of the nation's 104 commercial reactors at 65 plant sites. He said the list likely does not include every plant where tritium has leaked.

The leaks have several causes; underground pipes corroding and the leaking of spent fuel storage pools are the most common. The source of the leak or leaks at Vermont Yankee has not been found; at Oyster Creek, corroded underground pipes were implicated.

Many radiological health scientists agree with the Environmental Protection Agency that tritium, like other radioactive isotopes, can cause cancer.

That worries Vermont public officials and lawmakers. Rep. Tony Klein, chairman of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee in the Vermont House, said he fears public officials may be downplaying the risk.

"When you have public officials that the public depends on for their health and welfare making casual statements that a radioactive substance is not harmful to you, I think that's ludicrous," Klein said.

There's disagreement on the severity of the risk.

"Somebody would have to be drinking a lot of water and it would have to be really concentrated in there for it to do any harm at all," said Jacqueline Williams, a radiation biologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York state.

But in 2005, the National Academy of Sciences concluded after an exhaustive study that even the tiniest amount of ionizing radiation increases the risk of cancer.

"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said when the NAS released its study.

Paul Gunter of the Maryland-based anti-nuclear group Beyond Nuclear, said in many instances, it's impossible to know how much tritium is getting into the environment.

"These are uncontrolled, unmonitored releases from these plants," he said.

Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, said the public shouldn't be unduly worried.

"These are industrial facilities, and any industrial facility from time to time is going to have equipment problems or challenges," Kerekes said. "Not every operational issue rises to the level of being a safety issue."

Vermont, with a strong anti-nuclear movement, is the only state in the country where the Legislature decides whether to relicense a nuclear plant. Vermont Yankee's current 40-year license is up in 2012, and Entergy is asking for 20 more years.
© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
13 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
rbrtwjohnson says:
There are nuclear technologies that do not produce radioactive wastes, aneutronic reactor can produce electricity directly without neutron hazards.
http://www.crossfirefusor.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ludvig1-2009 says:
Much ado about nothing.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
newsworthy8 says:
And....this country wants to build more..John McCain was a big pusher for nuclear plants..he dosn't care, he is a old man and will be gone soon...
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
luadda22 says:
It's really strange, I haven't heard anything about nuclear power plants until Obama mentions them in the state of the union, then all of the sudden we have a report of how bad they are. The timing just isn't right. The only non-carbon power source that is really viable for the next 100 years and they are just now reporting about problems??? It sounds like the environmental wackos are coming out of the woodwork.
reply
earthling76 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Large wind farms are a typical capitalistic response to wind energy. Now that most people recognize that we need to move away from burning fossil fuels the industries that are responsible for currently supplying America with its energy supply are scrambling to power us with yet another solution which can only be purchased. As for birds. Helical mills would solve that issue.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
mjlewis6 says:
The BEST and most telling argument for prevention of groundwater contamination:

Make sure Nuclear Plant Personnel, Engineers, Corporate officers, and elected officials get their drinking water from all source wells nearby. Best method of bio-feedback for any issues that could arise.

Ironclad agreements that there will be no inadvertant leaks? Names at the top of the list for cleanup would be the top men who made those promises (AND THEIR WIVES AND KIDS)to the public.

It is not about money when things go wrong...it is about LIFE.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
erasmus111 says:
There should be no more nuclear plants built. Obviously the ones that already exist are not being looked after properly.

And you may be hearing about a few leaking now, but I bet that's just the tip of the iceberg.

AND we all know that the first instinct is to COVER IT UP.
reply
erasmus111 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
by brian1920 February 1, 2010 9:12 PM EST
No drinking water was contaminated...



"The Braidwood nuclear station in Illinois was found in the 1990s to be leaking millions of gallons of tritium-laced water, some of which contaminated residential water wells. Plant owner Exelon Corp. ended up paying for a new municipal water system."


Did you even read the article?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
commenter777 says:
The number of nuclear plants is increasing all over the world also. I hope the other countries are as sharp as the US about this kind of thing.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Jim1900 says:
The obvious solution is to take the spent fuel out to Yucca Mountain, as originally intended. It is the over-reaction of the so-called environmentalists (really anti-nuclearists) that prevented it.
reply
earthling76 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
What happens when there is no more space there?
earthling76 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
"Yucca isn?t big enough to store all of the nation?s nuclear waste. More than 46,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste are already stored at more than 77 reactor sites across the country. That number increases by more than 2,000 tons each year. Yucca?s statutory design capacity is only 77,000 metric tons. By the time Yucca would be filled to capacity in 2036, there will still be at least the same amount of spent fuel still stored at the reaction sites, even if no new plants are built. "

http://ag.state.nv.us/yucca/yucca.htm
See all 13 Comments