Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Nuclear Power’ Category

Jan 17

NUKE MATTERS: Groundwater pollution at Pilgrim Nuclear Station

The following is the fourth in an ongoing series of articles being published in the Old Colony Memorial newspaper of Plymouth and on the Wicked Local website.

By Meg Sheehan and Genevieve Byrne, Cape Cod Bay Watch
Published Jan. 17, 2013

Since 1972, the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station has been operating in Plymouth on the shore of Cape Cod Bay. It is owned and operated by Entergy Corporation of Louisiana. The past 40 years of operations have polluted our groundwater, and the pollution is ongoing.

There are two types of groundwater pollution at Pilgrim. First, tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, has been found in the groundwater under Pilgrim. Tritium is a gas in its elemental form and combines with oxygen to make tritiated water, which is radioactive. Second, Entergy runs an onsite waste-water treatment facility that discharges other types of pollution, including nitrogen, into the groundwater. The presence of radioactive tritium, nitrogen and other pollutants is documented in Entergy’s own reports.

Read more

Dec 18

NUKE MATTERS: Radioactive Waste Storage at Pilgrim – Why it is a Concern

The following is the third in an ongoing series of articles being published in the Old Colony Memorial newspaper of Plymouth and on the Wicked Local website.

By Meg Sheehan and Mary Lampert
Published Dec. 17, 2012

PLYMOUTH — Nuclear energy’s long-term legacy is well known: radioactive waste that needs to be safely stored for thousands of years. At Entergy’s Pilgrim nuclear reactor in Plymouth, operating since 1972, spent nuclear fuel is being stored on site – a solution that is not what was intended when the reactor was built and that is potentially dangerous.

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station

Photo credit Paul Rifkin

The core of Pilgrim’s nuclear reactor was built to operate with a maximum of 880 fuel assemblies. After a period of time, fuel assemblies cannot generate enough energy and have to be replaced. The used fuel assemblies are irradiated waste fuel, a high level radioactive waste that is at least a million times more radioactive than fresh fuel. At Pilgrim, about one-third of the fuel assemblies in the core are unloaded every 18 months to two years. The used fuel assemblies are transferred, one assembly at a time, by a lifting hook and put into the spent fuel pool located in the upper level of the main reactor building, outside the primary containment building. Equipment failures and personnel errors during reactor refueling activities have resulted in a few hundred safety incidents in the U.S., including at Pilgrim, which, fortunately, were minor.

Pilgrim’s irradiated fuel pool was originally designed to hold 880 fuel assemblies but now holds 3,279, about four times as much. The assemblies must be covered with water to prevent a fire that would release huge amounts of radioactivity – enough to contaminate an area more than 100 miles downwind, according to the National Academies of Sciences. Water loss in the pool can occur from mechanical failure, human error, acts of malice or the migration of a reactor accident to a pool accident. The Massachusetts attorney general’s expert estimates a fuel pool fire at Pilgrim would result in $488 billion dollars in damages and 24,000 latent human cancers.

Read more

Nov 29

Action Alert from Pilgrim Watch: To Filter or Not to Filter Pilgrim’s Vent; That is the Question with Only One Sane Answer

What: Contact the NRC Commissioners and ask your elected officials to do likewise.

Why: The Commission soon will decide whether to require filters in reactors designed like Pilgrim on the vent from the primary containment where the largest amount of radioactivity will be released in a severe accident. Filters are available, tested, and in place at reactors around the world. The NRC Technical Staff says “Yes.” Industry says “No.” What do you say?

Action: Email your request to the Commissions Executive Secretary at NRCExecSec@nrc.gov -either create your own message or simply say that you wish to sign on to the attached, Pilgrim Watch Comment Regarding Additional Requirements For Containment Venting Systems For BWRs With Mark I And Mark II Containments In Support Of Filters And Rupture Discs ( November 19, 2012).

Discussion: To Filter or Not to Filter Pilgrim’s Vent That Is the Question with Only One Sane Answer

The NRC Commissioners will decide in December whether to require filters on vents in reactors designed like Pilgrim. The NRC Technical Staff support adding filters; the industry is lobbying NRC against filters -simply to save money. The Commission needs to hear from you and elected officials, now.

Reactors like Pilgrim have a vent to relieve excess pressure in order to save the containment in a severe accident. However the vent is not filtered so that when the radioactivity level to be released is as high as it gets, the least amount of protection is provided. Whereas under normal operating conditions, releases are processed through high energy particulate filters (HEPA) and charcoal filters that significantly reduce radioactivity discharged offsite; and during design-based accidents, gaseous releases are processed through another system with HEPA and charcoal filters designed to remove 99% of the radioactive particles. But in a severe accident, we will get “blasted” right into our neighborhoods.

This makes no sense. Filters are available, tested and in use around the world today. Sweden has had filters on its vents since 1985 required to retain 99.9% of the radioisotopes. Also, for example, vents are filtered in France, Germany, Switzerland and Romania. Japan will add filters having learned the hard way what happens when vents are released without them.The NRC is required to protect public health and safety. Tell them to do their job.

Pilgrim Watch and Cape Cod Bay Watch are both members of the Pilgrim Coalition, a network of citizens who are working to dedicated to raising awareness of – and reducing – significant risks to public safety, health and our environment arising from the continued operation of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, located in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Nov 27

Dirty Dozen Report Lists Pilgrim Nuclear for Third Time Since 2001

We share this media release from the Toxics Action Center of Boston. One note: the center tells us Entergy’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station has been named to the list three times since 2001.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Nov. 27, 2012

DIRTY DOZEN REPORT PROFILES NEW ENGLAND’S WORST POLLUTERS: Brayton Point Coal Plant, Pilgrim Nuclear, and New Bedford PCBs in the Top Twelve; Toxics Action Center calls on Dirty Dozen Winners to Clean up Their Act

Click to read the full report.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Sylvia Broude, Toxics Action Center, C: 203-589-9989, W: 617-747-4407
David Dionne, Coalition for Clean Air South Coast, 774-451-7681
Eddie Johnson, CLEAN New Bedford, 774-930-2962
Edwin Rivera, Hands Across the River, 774-305-9297
Pine duBois, Pilgrim Coalition, C: 781-424-0353, W: 781-585-2322

SOMERSET, MA-For years, Toxics Action Center has annually “celebrated” the Dirty Dozen Awards, profiling twelve of New England’s egregious polluters who the public health and environmental non-profit say have failed to take appropriate action to address their pollution problems. Today, advocates and community activists recognized Brayton Point Coal Power Station, Entergy’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, and New Bedford’s Harbor Superfund Site and Parker Street Waste Site with Dirty Dozen Awards.

“The Dirty Dozen Award winners are dinosaurs. Their business practices are antiquated and becoming extinct. They could stave off extinction, but they would need to move forward in adopting many of the recommendations we outline in this report, including moving towards clean renewable energy and energy efficiency and phasing out persistent toxic chemicals.” said Sylvia Broude, Executive Director for Toxics Action Center.

To mark its 25th anniversary this year, Toxics Action Center released a report today called “25 Years of the Dirty Dozen: Past and Current Pollution Threats in New England”, profiling 12 sites and companies across New England, naming them “the most notorious pollution threats in the region” and proposing solutions to long-term pollution trends. “These Dirty Dozen awards spotlight repeat offenders who have still not cleaned up their messes along with several emergent threats, and generally highlight a wide array of toxic hazards ranging from leaking landfills to power plants, trash incinerators and hazardous waste sites. All of the sites pose a significant threat to public health and the environment and need immediate action by industry and/or government officials,” said Broude.

“Dominion’s Brayton Point Coal Plant is worthy of this award,” said David Dionne of the Coalition for Clean Air South Coast. “Not only is Brayton Point the biggest polluter for all of New England, but its failing business model and commitment to uneconomic and obsolete coal-burning is a liability for our health and our economy. Coal is on its way out and we need to help Somerset plan ahead for a transition beyond coal.” The report suggested that in spite of spending more than $1 billion in mandated environmental upgrades, Brayton Point continues to be a habitual polluter, responsible for nearly half of all mercury emissions in the Commonwealth in 2010, and self-reporting numerous air permit violations over the past several years.

Entergy’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant was named another “winner” for Southeastern Massachusetts. Pilgrim Power Station’s waste and reactor contain 1,000 times the radiation levels of a Hiroshima-sized bomb. An attack on the plant could result in 100,000 deaths within a year of the accident.

“Pilgrim releases radiation daily into air and water and is built with the same flawed Mark I reactor design as Fukushima Daiichi,” said David Agnew from an active “Cape Downwinders” group and spokesperson for Pilgrim Coalition, an alliance of local groups across the South Shore and the Cape. “We need to heed the warning call of Fukushima and retire Pilgrim for good.”

Pine duBois from Jones River Watershed Association, a coalition partner, also spoke, saying that the watershed group has been pursuing state and federal regulators since February, and she recently joined a lawsuit against Entergy. “Pilgrim has violated the Clean Water Act more than 33,000 times since 1996,” said duBois. “Our ocean is not Entergy’s dump: Cape Cod Bay belongs to all of us, and our regulators should enforce the laws that prevent this kind of pollution.”

New Bedford’s Harbor Superfund Site and Parker Street Waste Dump were also recognized with a 2012 Dirty Dozen Award. In New Bedford, U.S. EPA recently reached a proposed $366 million settlement with AVX, the largest company responsible for PCB pollution in the New Bedford Harbor. South Coast groups are concerned that the settlement falls far short of funds needed for a full cleanup, and want to see a ‘reopener’ clause in the final settlement should the cleanup cost more than expected. “I’m worried the proposed settlement is only a drop in the bucket for the harbor cleanup,” said Edwin Rivera, President of Hands Across the River Coalition. “The EPA has consistently underestimated the cost of the cleanup: It is now seven times what they originally thought it would be, and we don’t want taxpayers to be left holding the bag when AVX leaves town.”

Furthermore, the Parker Street neighborhood continues to be riddled with widespread PCB contamination. Eddie Johnson, President of the community group, Citizens Leading Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), called on EPA and the City of New Bedford to authorize additional testing for dioxins and PCBs and take stronger action for cleanup. “We’ve known about the contamination for years,” said Johnson, “and so it’s inexcusable that in some neighborhoods, testing and cleanup have barely begun. The New Bedford High School and Keith Middle should never have been built on these sites, and now the City needs to support the strongest possible action to clean up their mess.”

The recommendations in the report, available at www.toxicsaction.org, fall into four main categories:

1.Hazardous Waste Cleanups Need Resources & True Solutions. We should replace toxic chemicals used in today’s society with safer, effective alternatives. In order to deal with existing hazardous waste cleanups, state and federal governments should strengthen environmental laws, fund and staff environmental agencies, and restore the “polluter pays” principle of the Superfund program.

2.Moving Beyond Burning & Burying, Towards Zero Waste. A zero waste model offers a circular system of resource management in which discarded resources are looped back into the economy to be reused, reprocessed or composted. State administrators and waste management companies should retool their programs and operations to fit within a zero waste system

3.Ensuring a Safe, Renewable, Nuclear-Free and Coal-Free Future. Nuclear power and coal power is dirty, dangerous, and expensive. Existing coal and nuclear facilities should be decommissioned, not relicensed, and adequate resources should be provided by companies operating nuclear power plants and coal plants for decommissioning and site cleanup. Nuclear waste should be stored onsite in dry casks. New nuclear plants and coal plants should not be permitted or built. We must provide transitional support for workers and host municipalities and encourage clean, renewable energy development and energy efficiency.

4.Phasing Out the Persistent Toxic Chemicals. All chemicals on the market should be tested and approved from a precautionary viewpoint. We must ensure that unnecessary chemical use does not occur and that chemicals used do not harm human or environmental health.

The Dirty Dozen Awards were selected from a set of nominations by a thirteen-member panel of environmental and public health professionals. Other Massachusetts sites profiled in the report include Advanced Disposal’s South Hadley landfill and the General Electric PCB site in Pittsfield. Read more at www.toxicsaction.org.

FULL LIST 2012 DIRTY DOZEN AWARD RECIPIENTS
Advanced Disposal
Moretown, VT and South Hadley, MA

Brayton Point Coal Power Station
Somerset, MA

Casella Waste Management
Old Town, ME and Scarborough, ME

Central Landfill
Johnston, RI

Connecticut Environmental Council
Marlborough, CT

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority
Hartford, CT

Entergy Nuclear
Vernon, VT and Plymouth, MA

General Electric
Pittsfield, MA

New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site and Parker Street Waste Site
New Bedford, MA

Public Service of New Hampshire Coal Power Plants
Bow, NH and Portsmouth, NH

Raymark Superfund Site
Stratford, CT

Tar Sands Pipeline
South Portland, ME

_______________________________________________
SELECTION COMMITTEE 2012 (organizational affiliation listed for identification purposes only)
Ann Hulick, Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut – Danny Faber, Northeastern University – David Brown, Environment and Human Health, Inc. – Dick Clapp, UMass Lowell – Doug Ruley, Vermont Law School – Jamie Rhodes, Clean Water Action – Jonathan Peress, Conservation Law Foundation – Mark Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental Health Associates and Founder of Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice – Mary Booth, Partnership for Policy Integrity – Paul Burns, VPIRG – Paul Morse, UMass Lowell – Sean Mahoney, Maine Advocacy Center, Conservation Law Foundation – Sylvia Broude, Executive Director, Toxics Action Center

###

 

Nov 20

NUKE MATTERS: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima…Plymouth?

The following is the second in an ongoing series of articles being published in the Old Colony Memorial newspaper of Plymouth and on the Wicked Local website.

By Karen Vale
Campaign Coordinator
Cape Cod Bay Watch

Published Nov. 16, 2012

Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and most recently Fukushima – these catastrophic nuclear accidents thrust the debate about the safety of nuclear power into the public spotlight. Fukushima also triggered a critical examination of nuclear stations with the same type and operational design as the reactors that failed in March 2011. In the U.S., there are 23 reactors with the same design as Fukushima – including Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim) on Cape Cod Bay in Plymouth.

Like Fukushima, Pilgrim is not immune to serious natural disasters or human error. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC; the regulatory body that oversees nuclear safety in the U.S.) risk estimates rank Pilgrim second in the nation for likelihood that an earthquake could cause core damage – a risk that has increased 763 percent since the 1980s. In 1986, an emergency shutdown was required due to recurring equipment problems, which lead to a Senate hearing on the safety of Pilgrim. Again, just this past spring, the facility was shut down after an equipment failure.

Mark I reactor

Pilgrim is a General Electric Mark I reactor, a design criticized by both nuclear experts and the NRC as being susceptible to containment failure and explosion. The Mark I reactor is designed to contain steam that builds up from overheating. It diverts steam into a tank, or “torus,” where it condenses and reduces pressure inside the reactor containment building.

The inability of the Mark I reactor to handle immense pressure buildup in an emergency led Pilgrim to install a relief vent as a quick “fix.” The same vent design was tested three times in Fukushima and failed, resulting in three explosions. The unfiltered vent would also release harmful radiation directly into the environment if an accident were to occur.

Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry leader, told Democracy Now that all reactors with the Mark I design should be shut down – due to the faulty relief vents and the fact that Mark I reactors are set up so fuel is stored unsafely near the facility roofs.[i] Essentially, they are inherently unsafe. Mr. Gundersen stated, “there’s more nuclear Cesium-137 in the fuel pool at the plant in Pilgrim, Massachusetts, than was ever released by every nuclear bomb ever exploded in the atmosphere.”

Aging structure

Nuclear facilities are licensed to operate for forty years and all have experienced age-related degradation before the termination of their original license. Despite this, the NRC continues to extend licenses to facilities throughout the U.S.

· Pilgrim’s reactor has the same design flaw as Fukushima – a relief vent installed as a quick “fix” for a containment structure that cannot withstand pressure buildup; the vent was tested three times in Fukushima and failed, resulting in explosions.

· There have been incidents of radiation-linked disease in surrounding communities.

· Pilgrim uses more than 500,000 gallons of Cape Cod Bay’s water each day to cool its reactor – harming marine life and degrading biologically important habitats.

· Pilgrim’s permit to operate its “once-through” cooling system expired 16 years ago.

· Radioactive tritium is polluting groundwater, which flows into Cape Cod Bay.

Working toward a Solution

If Pilgrim is to operate for another 20 years, concerned residents must insist that government regulators take notice of the issue, request assessments of the effects Pilgrim has on species and habitats in the bay, and demand Pilgrim obtain valid permits and certifications required under the law. It’s up to individuals to hold regulators accountable for failing to implement various laws and regulations.

Karen Vale is the campaign coordinator at Cape Cod Bay Watch. Cape Cod Bay Watch is dedicated to protecting and restoring water quality and marine life in Cape Cod Bay through public education, networking, and advocacy. Its current priority is addressing the harmful effects of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station – especially its destructive “once-through cooling” system – on water quality and marine life in the bay.

Click here to read the article on the Wicked Local Plymouth website.

Oct 27

The Wave: October News & Updates

Local Residents Claim Entergy Violating the Clean Water Act
Entergy’s once-through cooling water system at Pilgrim is the subject of a notice of intent to sue letter sent by local residents on October 5, 2012.  The letter is a prerequisite to a lawsuit under the Clean Water Act. The notice of intent to sue letter claims that Entergy is causing water pollution and could be liable for more than $831 million in penalties. Meg Sheehan of EcoLaw, one of the attorneys representing local residents who sent the letter, was interviewed on Living on Earth, along withVermont Law School Professor Patrick Parenteau who discussed the wider implications of the case for the nuclear industry. Listen to the interview here.

Read more about Entergy’s pollution violations >>

Help Us Protect Cape Cod Bay – Sign Our Petition!
Your help is needed to stop Entergy’s water pollution at Pilgrim.  Please sign our petition urging Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Rick Sullivan, the state’s top environmental official, to enforce the Clean Water Act! State regulators need to hear from concerned residents!

Sign the petition >>

We Need Your Help!
We need volunteers to help us spread the word.  Could you spend a few hours a month helping us out?   There are all sorts of things we need help with: getting petitions signed, talking to friends and neighbors, and more.  Get in touch with Karen Vale, CCBW Campaign Coordinator, at karen@capecodbaywatch.org or 508-746-9400.

NUKE MATTERS: America’s Hometown Goes Nuclear
The first in a new series of ongoing articles to be published in the Old Colony Memorial newspaper and Wicked Local Plymouth website.

U.S. Map of Nuclear Power Plants

Graphic published by Old Colony Memorial newspaper/Wicked Local Plymouth website, courtesy of NRC/CNN Money.

By Karen Vale
Campaign Coordinator
Cape Cod Bay Watch

In the late 1950s, the peaceful use of atomic power became a symbol of progress and a hopeful future to Americans – a solution to impending shortages of fossil fuels, an icon of scientific achievement and a way to promote cooperation among nations. The first U.S. commercial power station opened in 1958 in Pennsylvania, and within 20 years there were 58 nuclear power facilities in operation in the U.S. By the 1970s, however, safety and environmental problems associated with nuclear reactors gained increasing attention. This became especially true after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear disasters in 1979 and 1986, respectively. Click here to read the rest of this article.

Jul 17

Licensed to Kill

Licensed to KillLicensed to Kill is an informative and compelling report detailing how once-through cooling operations like the one at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth are irreversibly harming our marine life. Click here for the report.

Summary
Marine life in all forms, from endangered manatees and sea turtles to essential microscopic organisms, is being harmed and killed by once-through cooling systems, used to remove waste heat at nuclear power stations. A typical once-through cooling system draws into each reactor unit more than a billion gallons of water a day, 500,000 gallons a minute. After cycling through the power generating station, the heated water is discharged at temperatures up to 25 degrees F hotter than the water into which it flows. A total of 59 out of the 103 U.S. reactor units rely on this system, either exclusively or in conjunction with closed cycle canals or cooling towers.

This report examines the toll the once-through cooling intake and discharge system takes on marine biodiversity around nuclear plants, including sea turtles and other endangered marine animals. The report takes into account the already severe problems affecting the health of U.S. oceans and waterways and the impacts of nuclear power plant operation within the context of this crisis. The authors review the cumulative impact of marine ecosystem destruction by coastal nuclear reactors as well as the local effect on marine life in the vicinity of the plant. Particular attention is given to the effectiveness of regulatory oversight and the adherence to and implementation of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

Jul 3

Danger Zone: Aging Nuclear Reactors

This video was produced by the Center for Investigative Reporting and released on March 6, 2012. It starts back at March 10, 2011, the day the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved a 20-year license for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant just before the Fukushima disaster. The NRC began reviewing safety at the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants, but the Center for Investigative Reporting states:

“Our reporting has uncovered serious problems with NRC oversight that could be putting over 100 million Americans who live near nuclear plants at risk.”

Click here to watch the video and read a full video description. 

Jun 21

Dial “M” for Meltdown

“A meltdown occurs when cooling functions in a reactor are lost. If cooling functions are not restored, the fuel rods will enter a complete meltdown and will reach temperatures in excess of 3000 degrees celsius. The fuel rods will burn through all containment and into the Earth. Releasing large amounts of radiation and radioactive hot particles…”

Switch to our mobile site