Authored by: Rolf on Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 05:28 PM GMT+5

He (Neil Sheehan) said despite the big increase, it presents "no public health and safety hazard and no detectable negative impact to the environment."

Well maybe not yet. Let's just wait and see if we have to replace our water supply they way they had to replace the town water supply when the Braidwood reactor leaked tritium.

The problem of course is that no one knows what the levels will be tomorrow, because no one knows the size of the leak, nor how much has already seeped into the groundwater. This uncertainty is only increased because VY continues to use the pipes that may be leaking.

Neil Sheehan has already stated that the leak could easily take a year or more to identify.

How many people feel comfortable waiting another month, and letting VY continue to operate at full power ?

Okay, now, how many people who don't work for Entergy feel comfortable waiting another month, and letting VY continue to operate at full power ?

I acknowledge that this is polarizing. But my guess is that whether one is comfortable letting them continue to run at full power without proof that the pipes are not leaking is directly related to whether one has a vested financial interest in either the plant continuing to run

OR

a vested financial interest in the leaking plant ceasing to use pipes that might contaminate our water supply and burden us with unforeseen costs.

I have little doubt that they will monitor the plume before it kills anyone, and they will monitor it all the way to the water supply, if need be, before they turn off the leaking kettle.

But I think that we all are vested now. The negative economic impacts that might be seeping our way are potentially longer lasting than tritium.

What's the count tomorrow ?

How many days before it leaves the confines of the plant?

Will other hotter, slower moving nasties make it off site in the future?

Anybody's guess.

Rolf





---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: Rolf on Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 07:26 PM GMT+5

This is Rolf Parker - Houghton's alter ego, Rolf Houghton-Parker

Dear Rolf, Give it a rest, will you?

Sincerely,

Rolf

---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: LisaFlanders on Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 07:45 PM GMT+5

Please DON'T give it a rest.

Authored by: shaw on Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 09:12 PM GMT+5

Because those tritium levels are sure not taking a rest.

I'm trying to find online when the NRC considers the
levels to be a "public threat".

It might be that it could continue to increase and, no
matter what the level of tritium contamination is, the
NRC will still continue to deem at as "not a public
threat".

Authored by: PutneyReject on Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 10:14 PM GMT+5

Plants are allowed to legally discharge tritium and many do. However, VY stopped discharging liquid radwaste over 20 years ago.

According to 2003 NRC data, one plant discharged 2,080,000,000,000,000 picocuries of tritium.

Since none of the tritium has left the VY site, I'd wager the NRC isn't going to shut down VY.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, February 04 2010 @ 10:27 PM GMT+5

***stopped discharging liquid radwaste over 20 years ago***
Intentionally discharging, anyway.

***Since none of the tritium has left the VY site,***
Technically questionable. In Vermont, groundwater is public resource. It may not have left the site, but it has seeped out of their plant and into our water.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 05:54 AM GMT+5

Is the number increasing in the same test well?

I thought I read a couple weeks ago that they were drilling a bunch of test wells so they could try to find the source of the leak, and that higher numbers were basically a sign of getting closer to where the leak was coming from. So it's not as though the amount is increasing, just that they are actually figuring out the origin of the leak, which is why the NRC would say the higher numbers were "expected." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 07:31 AM GMT+5

Getting closer to the source.

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 08:13 AM GMT+5

Yeah, right....and I have a bridge to Hinsdale I'd like to sell you.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 10:48 AM GMT+5

Pj asked if it was the same well or closer to the source of the leak.

From the Reformer:

"Officials at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, state Health Department and federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission said a newly dug monitoring well at the Vernon reactor turned up a reading of nearly 775,000 picocuries per liter"

I guess we can lump you in with the rest of the 9/11 and AGW denier conspiracy nutcases.

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 11:06 AM GMT+5

"AGW denier"

What is AGW?

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 11:02 AM GMT+5

No, really - a couple weeks ago, officials were saying that there would be higher numbers reported as they dug more wells to look for the source.

I heard Entergy trying to report this as "good" news this morning, while I would call it "neutral" news myself, but still. The higher readings in new wells are exactly how they find the source of the leak. They are LOOKING for higher readings. I would not read too much into this. It's good to get updates, but these higher numbers are not even really news. If they start getting higher numbers in wells they've already tested, then that's a different story.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 11:17 AM GMT+5

AGW = Anthropogenic global warming

MY conspiracy theory is obviously right, YOURS is stupid :)

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 11:32 AM GMT+5

"MY conspiracy theory is obviously right, YOURS is stupid :)"

Well, actually, the only big conspiracy theory I really buy into at all is the Kennedy assassination, and maybe not even that. I think small conspiracies happen all the time, like this business with the faked suicides at Gitmo, but really large ones that would rely on thousands of people to keep their mouths shut? Nah, not in the United States of Twitter.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Rolf on Saturday, February 06 2010 @ 09:11 AM GMT+5

Until they find the source and it is independently verified

higher levles in samples could logically indicate that they are merely closer to the source (assuming there is only one source)

or represent higher levels in the spreading plume.

Based on the other 20 some plants that have contaminated groundwater, finding the leak could take months or more than a year.

Right now, while it is comforting to assert that they are getting closer to the source, nobody knows for sure.

Just to make it more confusing, we can't really know whether VY is accurately reporting levels detected or actually sharing all the know.

These pipes "didn't exist" a mere month and a half ago, so who knows what their reproted numbers represent or reflect.

Sadly, the "facts" really are that murky at this point.

Rolf


---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: pjmelton on Saturday, February 06 2010 @ 02:57 PM GMT+5

I am merely applying Occam's Razor. The official explanation is the most obvious one, especially since they are being watched very, very closely at the moment.

Also, I think it's easy for people who have not been following this story to get alarmed about "ever-increasing" levels of tritium, when in fact higher levels are the very thing they're looking for in order to find the leak. You may doubt their credibility, for good reason, but when the anti-VY side omits this explanation in its reporting, that potentially puts their credibility in doubt as well. You can believe they are getting closer to the leak and still want the plant shut down until they find it and stop it.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Rolf on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 08:02 AM GMT+5

It is absolutely possible this newest high level at a new well that is reporting highest numbers is closer to the source.

On the other hand, we have seen levels at the first well steadily rise from a reading in the thousands upwards to above 30 k.

This stationary well is not moving closer to the source.

The simplest explanation for the increase in levels at the first well is that the leak continues unabated.

There is a spatial / time element too of course, and as the plume has travelled it might have moved through the area where the plume is, it and increased the concentration in that well.

To fully track a plume you need many wells.

The idea that the first wells would by chance definitely reflect the highest concentrations that we will see (when we don't know where the leak or leaks are or how long they will be allowed to leak) is possible but dubious. It would take among other things some real luck.

At other plants, repeated measures at some of the same wells have predictably gone up over time until the leak was stopped.

Thus we can expect higher and higher concentrations reported for two reasons. One, they are getting closer to the source. Two, they haven't stopped the leak and more liguid has leaked out over time into the same general area.

Both things are going on simultaneously.

The trick is to compare both the same wells to themselves over time with repeated measures and to each other.


Once the leaks are stopped, (if they are all identified) then we wait as the plume moves and the locations of the relatively highest concentrations move as the plume does. Eventually, once the plume has stopped being added to, some form of relative stasis will exist. While the plume is moving, (and the tritium is decaying over years) and the leaks continue, its highly dynamic and relatively hard to charecterize.

Saying all higher samples are the result of a worsening situation is simplistic (Occam or no Occam)

Saying all higher samples reflect that they are getting closer to the source is likewise simplistic.

Rolf


---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: Genie on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 10:38 AM GMT+5

So much spin, spin, spin by Entergy that I am dizzy.

My VY peeve of the day: Now the focus is on the source of the leak as if that is the real problem. The leak itself demands to be addressed. When they find the source they can also put a bandaid on that. My god, spare me the acceptable radiation level statements. Only god/goddess would know that.

When you make a mess it's bound to reach beyond the container.

---
Wonders Never Cease.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 10:52 AM GMT+5

"My VY peeve of the day: Now the focus is on the source of the leak as if that is the real problem"

What is the "real" problem they should be fixing instead of looking for and stopping the source of the leak?

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 11:04 AM GMT+5

PR, since you didn't answer me before - now would be a good time to disclose whether you work for the company. This is not a formal news organization, but disclosing any financial ties, past or present, is still the right thing to do when you are advocating for something or someone.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: vtjasper68 on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 03:19 PM GMT+5

Did you ask PR to disclose in this discussion or in another discussion?

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, February 05 2010 @ 03:39 PM GMT+5

A different one, but s/he did not answer then either. I'm going to go ahead and assume employment unless I hear otherwise.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Rolf on Saturday, February 06 2010 @ 11:26 AM GMT+5

This is from Congressman Ed Markey's website.



http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3829&Itemid=125


Here is an excerpt.

“Under current regulations, miles and miles of buried pipes within nuclear reactors have never been inspected and will likely never be inspected,” said Markey. “This is simply unacceptable. As it stands, the NRC requires – at most – a single, spot inspection of the buried piping systems no more than once every 10 years. This cannot possibly be sufficient to ensure the safety of both the public and the plant.”

Here is the text in its entirity.

JAN. 14, 2010: REPS. MARKEY, HALL AND ADLER REQUEST INVESTIGATION INTO LEAKY PIPES AT NUCLEAR PLANTS
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.), and Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.) sent a letter yesterday to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an investigation into the integrity, safety, inspection, maintenance, regulations and enforcement issues surrounding buried piping at our nation’s nuclear power plants. These pipes serve critical functions within power plants. In some cases, these buried pipes carry the water which would cool the reactor core in the event of an unexpected plant shut-down. In other cases, the pipes carry diesel fuel to emergency generators. Despite the critical importance of these pipes, most have never been inspected. After decades underground, neither the NRC nor the plant operators can be absolutely certain that the pipes are intact.



The letter to the GAO was prompted by a rash of recent failures in the buried piping systems of nuclear reactors. For example, just one week after the 40-year-old Oyster Creek (NJ) reactor’s license was extended for another 20 years, plant workers discovered standing water in an on-site cable vault. This water, apparently leaking from two different buried pipes, was contaminated with the radioactive isotope tritium.

A similar leak at the Indian Point (NY) reactor occurred last February in pipes that are part of the primary backup cooling system, which cools the reactor during any unexpected shutdown. The pipes at the Indian Point reactor had not been inspected since 1973 – when the plant was built. These cases are not isolated incidents. Other known or suspected leaky buried piping systems at our nation’s nuclear power plants were found in Ohio, California and Illinois.

“Under current regulations, miles and miles of buried pipes within nuclear reactors have never been inspected and will likely never be inspected,” said Markey. “This is simply unacceptable. As it stands, the NRC requires – at most – a single, spot inspection of the buried piping systems no more than once every 10 years. This cannot possibly be sufficient to ensure the safety of both the public and the plant.”


"Recent leaks at Indian Point indicate a serious potential for disaster that must be understood and sufficiently monitored to prevent problems," said Rep. Hall, whose Congressional District includes Indian Point. "The aging buried infrastructure at Indian Point should not be ignored and needs to be a major consideration in Indian Point's re-licensing process. With eight percent of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of Indian Point, any breakdown there would be catastrophic."


In their GAO request, the Congressmen lay out their questions about the NRC’s buried pipe inspection processes, current relevant regulations, and whether they are both adequate and enforced in a manner that is sufficiently protective of reactor and public safety.

A copy of the letter can be found here http://markey.house.gov/docs/gao_buried_pipes.pdf

---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: PutneyReject on Saturday, February 06 2010 @ 11:58 AM GMT+5

Maybe Markey should come up with an original thought once in a while....

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/buried-piping-activities.html

Keep grinding those axes, maybe the Dems will lose Obama's old seat next.

Authored by: Rolf on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 05:51 AM GMT+5

The voluntary monitoring program at VY has now revealed that the groundwater near the apparent source of the leak is almost as radioactive as the reactor water.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2010/02/05/windham_legislators_say_consider_vy_shutdown/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Vermont+news

As noted in the above article, "2.7 million picocuries per liter found in the sump sample was near the maximum that could be reached at the plant; water that passes through the reactor has readings close to 3 million picocuries per liter."

"William Irwin, radiological health chief with the Health Department, said the latest groundwater level was higher than levels reported at any other plant listed on a federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission Web page devoted to tritium leaking from nuclear plants into groundwater."


Higher than Braidwood ?

The plume that escaped from Braidwood contaminated the town water of Godfrey, which had to be replaced with bottled water to the town, at a cost of more than 10 million dollars. Exelon payed for it.

It's great that they may be close to finding one of the sources. It's not so great that the concentration in the groundwater as almost as high as water that passes through the reactor.

How concentrated this water will be when or if it eventually leaves the confines of the plant property is anyone's guess. Of course it will be less than the concentrations of water that passes through the reactor. That's not saying much.

Plumes take time to move, They are funny like that.

But who knows ? Maybe none will escape the confines of the plant.

But what's the upside of gambling on that?

This is why state legislators have (finally) asked VY to consider not running the plant at full power until after the leak is identified and repaired. Use the pipes that are essential to the operation of the plant AFTER they have been PROVEN to NOT be addind to the leak.

Right now VY is doing it the other way around. Use the pipes until they are proven to be leaking.

Rolf

---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: annikee on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 08:49 AM GMT+5

Since water seeks its own level, and the reactor sits beside a river, I'd say it's a question of time before it reaches the CR. Here's Howard Weiss-Tisman's article:
http://www.reformer.com/ci_14355542

Authored by: PutneyReject on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 01:10 PM GMT+5

Your ignorance is showing again. The water in the sump and new well (both ~2.5M pCi/l of tritium) is nowhere near as "radioactive" as reactor coolant.

You are the equivalent of a Freeper discussing AGW.

Authored by: pjmelton on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 01:27 PM GMT+5

Perhaps instead of calling people names, you should take up your quibble with the Vermont Department of Health: "VERNON -- The state Department of Health announced Saturday that water tested in a well near the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor contained so much tritium that it approached that of reactor process water."

from http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_14355542

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Rolf on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 01:39 PM GMT+5

Hee hee hee ?

and I meanwhile was merely quoting, VY yankee officials.

"Vermont Yankee plant officials said they found levels of tritium in a sump pit at the plant that far exceeded those recently found in groundwater monitoring wells. The discovery suggested that an underground pipe connected to the pit might be the source of the leak, and officials said they planned to investigate that possibility over the weekend.

They said the 2.7 million picocuries per liter found in the sump sample was near the maximum that could be reached at the plant; water that passes through the reactor has readings close to 3 million picocuries per liter."


Note the "they" in the second paragraph refers to the Vermont Yankee officials in the first paragraph.

My ignorance, such as it may be is merely based on theirs, I suppose.

Now, since you work at VY, perhaps you could tell the Vermont Yankee officials their error.


Rolf


---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: PutneyReject on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 01:53 PM GMT+5

Saying that the level of tritium in the well/sump is almost the same as reactor coolant is not the same as saying it is almost as radioactive as reactor coolant.

You weren't quoting anyone when you said "The voluntary monitoring program at VY has now revealed that the groundwater near the apparent source of the leak is almost as radioactive as the reactor water."

Why don't you go post about brain surgery, quantum physics, or any other topic you are equally as ignorant about?

Authored by: Rolf on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 02:12 PM GMT+5

You are correct.

It's not the same.

So just keep running the water through the pipes.

Rolf

---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: PutneyReject on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 02:25 PM GMT+5

Do you know for a fact that VY hasn't been systematically isolating pipes to try to find the leak?

Do you know for a fact that some pipes may/may not be used whether the plant is operating or not?

Authored by: Rolf on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 03:25 PM GMT+5

What everyone knows, is that the cocnetration in the groundwater apparently exceeds that which was ever reported in groundwater at Braidwood.

We also know that Braidwood managed to contaminate private wells, and ended up replacing the the town water supply. This doesn't mean that the plume coming from VY will definitely drift to the water supply. That's a matter of luck at this point.

I have asked Dr. Irwin whether the tests for the leaks could not be performed after any pipes ceased to be used, ie, after the plant was powered down. I asked if there was any reason other than financial interests at Entergy, why this would not be more prudent. Especially in light of Braidwood, (no pun intendend) prudence now would seem like, well as recommended not burying pipes without a vault.

He replied in a factual manner, that the plant was continuing to run at full power and that tests were running concurrently. He did not answer whether the plant needed to run in order for some of the tests for leaks to be performed. As I don't work there, I didn't know, and asked someone whom might know.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

Perhaps you could elucidate without snarling. Oh go ahead, snarl. But elucidate, if you can.

Here by the way is Irwin's latest comments concerning the pipes in the Times Argus...

"William Irwin, the radiological health chief for the Department of Health, said the high concentrations indicated the contamination was very close to a source, and something that had recently been in the reactor."

"He said he was concerned that the pipes carrying these high levels of radioactivity weren't in any kind of tunnel or vault so they could be routinely inspected for leakage."

"It's personally disappointing," said Irwin, who said he believed that the pipes uncovered Saturday were some of the 40 pipes finally listed by Entergy Nuclear last month, after more than a year of saying such pipes didn't exist at Vermont Yankee."

Notice he said he "believed" they were some of the 40 pipes listed. Maybe he is leaving a little wiggle room just in case they are some "extra" non-existent pipes than the ones now acknowledged ?

It's just a mess, in every which way.


Rolf


---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: pjmelton on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 04:28 PM GMT+5

"Saying that the level of tritium in the well/sump is almost the same as reactor coolant is not the same as saying it is almost as radioactive as reactor coolant."

Surely you are mature and level-headed enough to make what appears to be a purely semantic point without calling people names.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: PutneyReject on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 07:24 PM GMT+5

Like the difference between "buried pipe" and "underground pipe"?

Like the Burlington Free Press editorial chastising Entergy for breaching the trust when the same editorial purposely misleads the readers about Curt L. Herbert Jr. (NRC vs. FERC) Either that or the Free Press is just incompetent and we can never trust anything they print again (sound familiar?)

Ignorance isn't an sin, willful ignorance is.

Authored by: pjmelton on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 07:35 PM GMT+5

"Like the difference between "buried pipe" and "underground pipe"?"

Yes, just like that. Did you come up with that quibble as well?

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Rolf on Wednesday, February 10 2010 @ 05:22 AM GMT+5

Technical distinction between buried pipes and underground pipes appears to be that a buried pipe is just that.

An "underground pipe" appears to be a pipe that is first "encased" and the encased pipe is covered with earth.

But, seeing as VY apparently has pipes carrying radioactive water that are not encased in a vault, but merely buried,

as well as pipes that are encased and underground,

ie they appear to have both buried and underground pipes as technically defined,

what difference does it make ?

Allso, both underground pipes and buried pipes have now a history of leaking.

So again, while underground pipes are a better design,

the are merely a design. They both are flawed in design in that they cannot be visually inspected for signs of leak. Either one can add to a developing plume with plausible deniability after a plume has started to make its way to wherever it is going.


Who knows ?



---
Dreams Trump Video

Authored by: javanyet on Tuesday, February 09 2010 @ 02:33 AM GMT+5

To listen to Rob Williams, we could all gargle full-strength nuclear waste with "no risk".

---
"No guts, no glory."
Bette Davis

Authored by: pjmelton on Tuesday, February 09 2010 @ 11:47 AM GMT+5

Yes, as long as you don't refer to the water as "radioactive," you'll be fine! Happy gargling!

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Tylerhillgarden on Tuesday, February 09 2010 @ 12:52 PM GMT+5

Hi all concerned neighbors,

From the Rutland Herald today...

http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100209/OPINION02/2090311

Now is the time. It will never be easy.

Vernon Resident for decommissioning.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, February 09 2010 @ 10:15 PM GMT+5

Here's a brief roundup of the latest news on VY:



Vt. health chief: Tritium may in Connecticut River
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jo7gytGIVNSxu_MnfEbvaelD0zcQD9DOV5K00

The state's top health official says it's reasonable to assume a radioactive substance leaking from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is getting into the Connecticut River.

Health officials previously have said measurable levels of tritium have not shown up in the river. But Department of Health Commissioner Dr. Wendy Davis told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the volume and direction of flow of tritium-tainted groundwater leads to the conclusion that it's reaching the river.

A Vermont Yankee spokesman says the plant agrees.
____________________________________________________________________________


Groundwater Contamination At Vt. Yankee As Big As Football Field
http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87152/

"The zone of groundwater now contaminated at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is about the size of a football field."

"(Dillon) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it's too early to make conclusions about the size of the contaminated area or the number of leaking pipes. Neil Sheehan is a spokesman for the NRC.

(Sheehan) "This is a process that really needs to play itself out. And as they get more data points, as they drill more wells, as the hydro-geologists do more work, we'll have a much clearer picture of the exact dimensions of this. But this could take some time, and to say that we know the exact dimensions at this point would probably be premature."
_____________________________________________________________________________

Nuclear experts debate at UVM
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=11954770

Slocum says the problems at Vermont Yankee have exposed a serious credibility issue.

"And I think this is kind of indicative of a national trend where the cooperate nuclear power industry really does not have the kind of credibility that it needs in order to secure from american taxpayers the tens of billions of dollars in new subsidies to build a new generation of these things," says Slocum.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, February 10 2010 @ 06:42 AM GMT+5

Thanks for keeping us on top of things!

Football field. Jesus.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Rolf on Wednesday, February 10 2010 @ 02:36 PM GMT+5

The size of the contamination is most likely to grow as the plume moves.

The hope is that there are no macro pores in the soil that could cause the plume to spread more quickly than average.

When I worked for Cooperative Extension at UMass, there was a contamination of a town's water supply with a pesticide called aldicarb. This had not been thought to be possible, at the time, because the model for movement of the chemical (also called Temik) did not consider "macro pores".

It was an honest mistake. But it was a big one.

The article below talks about macropores, but not just in a general way, except for the introduction.

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/6/2281

Again, who knows how much was added to the head of the plume today?

The size of the contaminated field will grow, that much is a safe bet.

Rolf

---
Dreams Trump Video