Updated 6/30
Fukushima accident: March 11, 2011
The Vermont Yankee state liaison engineer documenting my concern....
I find it highly suspicious they can’t come up with a preliminary or back of a napkin estimation of the flow and the radioactive content in the plume.
New Oct 18, 2011I find it highly suspicious they can’t come up with a preliminary or back of a napkin estimation of the flow and the radioactive content in the plume.
There is an expectation this pathway released radiation unmonitored...it is openly controversial now if their environmental reports ever were completely accurate. Now it is a nationwide concern at BWRs if their radiological environmental reports were ever accurate if they had a LO vapor extractor...
It doesn't get passed any of us with the NRC answering me on Oct 4 "because the petition failed to provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiy", while on Sept 12 Entergy wrote up CR-VTY-2011-036328 completely validating a response to my concern. Entergy has contracted with Areva nuclear to preform a investigation over this and measure vapor extractor radioactivity and evaluate if it reportable and radioactive environmental reports are accurate.
New Oct 17, 2011
Mr Kim,
For the PRB's interest, I got the Vermont nuclear engineer going into VY this week asking Entergy questions about the turb building plume and the vapor extractor.
mike
New Oct 12, 2011
Oh, I get it now, if Entergy and NRC don't have to disclose the facts, then there is never enough evidence for a 2.206 to be accepted.
Like I always have said, transparency is a enabler to meaningful public participation...
Mr. Mulligan,
On October 4, 2011, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition and to make the initial recommendation. The PRB determined that some of the petition requests do not meet the criteria for review because the petition failed to provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. The remaining requests within the petition meet the criteria for rejection because they have already been reviewed, evaluated, and resolved by the NRC during prior 10 CFR 2.206 reviews. Therefore, the PRB’s initial recommendation is to not accept your petition.
Thanks
James Kim
Project Manager, DORL
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
301-415-4125
Yankee hearing leaves unanswered questions
" David McElwee, an Entergy engineer, told the legislative panel Tuesday that it was a result of rain washing off radiation from a roof on the turbine building, and getting into the storm drain. The ventilation problem was discovered in 1993, but there was no explanation about why the Cobalt 60 wasn't discovered until 1997."
By Susan Smallheer STAFF WRITER - Published: September 17, 2009
BRATTLEBORO – Entergy Nuclear refused to say Wednesday how Cobalt 60, a radioactive byproduct of the nuclear fission process, ended up in the Connecticut River in 1997, an issue that surfaced earlier this week during a legislative hearing on radiation monitoring at the Vermont Yankee plant.
Robert Williams said Entergy was preparing a report on the issue for the Committee on Administrative Rules and said it would decline further comment.
Williams said Cobalt 60 had gotten into the storm drains at Vermont Yankee and had ended up in the Connecticut River as a result of a ventilation problem, but he declined to say how the Cobalt 60 got out of the plant itself.
I bet you I am the first one in the history of Vermont Yankee who ever captured in a picture a steam or vapor plume emanating from the turbine or reactor building. My photograph of the any vapor plume was the first...
You can click on the Picasa link on the title...it is about 1.25 miles from my camera. You can keep clicking on the picture until it gets big enough for you.
Remember, on a yearly bases this is huge amount of water....this goes on day in and day out.
