Tritium leaks found at many (- at least 48 of 65 - US) nuke (power) sites. (Often into groundwater)

[Turborama]

Source: AP

By JEFF DONN, AP National Writer – 1 hr 20 mins ago

BRACEVILLE, Ill. – Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping, an Associated Press investigation shows.

The number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as federal regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors across the nation.

Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records reviewed as part of the AP's yearlong examination of safety issues at aging nuclear power plants. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard — sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.

=snip=

At three sites — two in Illinois and one in Minnesota — leaks have contaminated drinking wells of nearby homes, the records show, but not at levels violating the drinking water standard. At a fourth site, in New Jersey, tritium has leaked into an aquifer and a discharge canal feeding picturesque Barnegat Bay off the Atlantic Ocean.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/ap_on_bi_ge/us_aging_nukes_part2

[Harmony Blue]

1. Ingestion of Tritium is very dangerous

Not surprised, but still worried the general public is unaware.

[LiberalEsto]

2. Oop, there goes the Jersey Shore

It was great while it lasted.

[Turborama]

3. GAO: leaks at aging nuke sites difficult to detect

By JEFF DONN and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press – 24 mins ago

U.S. nuclear power plant operators haven't figured out how to quickly detect leaks of radioactive water from aging pipes that snake underneath the sites — and the leaks, often undetected for years, are not going to stop, according to a new report by congressional investigators.

The report by the Government Accountability Office was released by two congressmen Tuesday in response to an Associated Press investigation that shows three-quarters of America's 65 nuclear plant sites have leaked radioactive tritium, sometimes into groundwater.

Separately, two senators asked the GAO, the auditing and watchdog arm of Congress, to investigate the findings of the ongoing AP series Aging Nukes, which concludes that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear power industry have worked closely to keep old reactors operating within safety standards by weakening them, or not enforcing the rules.

A third senator, independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, said the AP series has raised disturbing allegations about safety at aging plants and reiterated his demand that the Vermont Yankee plant be shut.

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110622/ap_on_bi_ge/us_aging_nukes_reaction

[bananas]

4. GAO: leaks at aging nuke sites difficult to detect

Source: AP

U.S. nuclear power plant operators haven't figured out how to quickly detect leaks of radioactive water from aging pipes that snake underneath the sites — and the leaks, often undetected for years, are not going to stop, according to a new report by congressional investigators.

The report by the Government Accountability Office was released by two congressmen Tuesday in response to an Associated Press investigation that shows three-quarters of America's 65 nuclear plant sites have leaked radioactive tritium, sometimes into groundwater.

Separately, two senators asked the GAO, the auditing and watchdog arm of Congress, to investigate the findings of the ongoing AP series Aging Nukes, which concludes that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear power industry have worked closely to keep old reactors operating within safety standards by weakening them, or not enforcing the rules.

A third senator, independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, said the AP series has raised disturbing allegations about safety at aging plants and reiterated his demand that the Vermont Yankee plant be shut.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j2TnyYfw5S7FPWcBgF5Y_hTCnzPQ?docId=f91f5b8b587b4aa0a1f6c5723b8e52fe

[bananas]

5. From Markey's website: No Way to Assess Integrity of Buried Pipes at Nuclear Reactors

From Markey's website: http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4399&Itemid=141

June 21, 2011: Markey, Welch: No Way to Assess Integrity of Buried Pipes at Nuclear Reactors

Lawmakers release nuclear safety investigation in wake of media report that 75% of nuclear reactor sites have leaky pipes

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressmen Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Ranking Member on the Natural Resources Committee, and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Chief Deputy Democratic Whip and member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled “Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Underground Piping Systems Commensurate with Risk, but Proactive Measures Could Help Address Future Leaks”. The report concludes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and licensees “cannot be assured that underground safety-related pipes remain structurally sound without having information about degradation that has occurred. Without such assurance, the likelihood of future pipe failures cannot be as accurately assessed, and this increases the uncertainty surrounding the safety of the plants.” Buried pipes at nuclear power plants carry water necessary to cool nuclear reactors. Other buried pipes carry diesel to fuel the emergency generators that power cooling systems in case of a blackout.

<snip>

“Just as a power outage was the root cause of the core meltdowns at Fukushima, a failure of buried pipes that carry cooling water to the reactor cores could lead to a similar emergency here in the U.S.,” said Rep. Markey. “There would be no warning because no one ever checks the integrity of these underground pipes. These pipes have more leaks than the Vancouver Canucks goaltending. The NRC must require inspections of these pipes before they deteriorate instead of its current policy of crossing fingers and hoping for the best.”

In a May 2009 letter to the NRC, Rep. Markey and then-Rep. John Hall questioned the NRC’s process for inspecting buried pipes and asked what assurance the NRC could give the public that underground pipes would withstand an earthquake, terrorist attack or other event. On February 16, 2009, a 1.5-inch hole that had already leaked more than 100,000 gallons of water was discovered in a buried cooling water pipe at the Indian Point nuclear power plant near New York City. According to media reports, the broken pipe had not been inspected since 1973, when the reactor was built. The broken pipe was part of the primary cooling system, which must cool the reactor during any unexpected shutdown.

<snip>

A copy of the GAO report, “Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Underground Piping Systems Commensurate with Risk, but Proactive Measures Could Help Address Future Leaks” can be found HERE and HERE .

[kristopher]

6. Where is that "bathtub curve" information.

This is a sample of that information taking the form of reality around us.

[bananas]

8. Wikipedia has some good information on the Bathtub Curve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

[kristopher]

10. Thanks. nt

[bananas]

11. An article at Nature, reports by UCS, and many more

I googled "nuclear reactor bathtub curve" and got "About 48,600 results"

Looks like a long list of good articles, here's just a few of them:

- a report by UCS from 2004: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/us-nuclear-plants-in-the.html

- an article at Nature magazine from April: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110421/full/472400a.html

So there is multiple confirmation that nuclear reactors do follow a bathtub curve.

On edit: the 2001 JNES report says the curve slope is slower than a bathtub curve, that contradicts the other sources and may not be accurate:
- a 2001 report by Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) titled "Aging Management of Nuclear Power Plant" (2.33MB pdf): http://www.jnes-elearning.org/contents/tt/JNESeL-TT-004.pdf

[bananas]

13. I tried to find the NRC position on this

Here's something from the NRC website in 2002:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0230/ML023020462.pdf

PRA Basics for Regulatory Applications P-105
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Bill Galyean, INEEL
Mike Calley, INEEL
June 25 -27, 2002
NRC Headquarters
Rockville, MD

<snip>

The "Bathtub" Curve (cont.)
Most PRAs assume constant failure rates -- in "flat" portion of bathtub curve
+ May not be all that bad of an assumption
considering quality level of equipment, maintenance, and, testing requirements
+ However, this assumption does imply that aging
(increasing failure rate) may not be modeled in the PRA

<snip>

Here's something written in December 2000 by David Lochbaum:

http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_9/9-1/nrcrisk.html

Nuclear Plant Risk Studies: Dismal Quality
By David Lochbaum

<snip>

Assumption: Plant aging does not occur; that is, equipment fails at a constant rate.

Fact: The NRC has issued more than one hundred technical reports about the degradation of valves, pipes, motors, cables, concrete, switches, and tanks at nuclear plants caused by aging.6 These reports demonstrate that parts in nuclear plants follow the "bathtub curve" aging process illustrated in the figure below. A telling demonstration of the effects of age occurred in 1986. Four workers were killed at a nuclear power plant in Virginia because a section of pipe eroded away with time until it broke and scalded them with steam.7 Yet most PRAs assume no aging effects.

<snip>

Assumption: Risk is limited to reactor core damage.

Fact: The PRAs only determine the probabilities of events leading to reactor core damage. They do not calculate the probabilities of other events that could lead to releases of radiation, such as fuel going critical in the spent fuel pool or rupture of a large tank filled with radioactive gases. Some of these overlooked events can have serious consequences. For example, researchers at the Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a spent fuel pool accident could release enough radioactive material to kill tens of thousands of people.10

History shows there is a greater probability of a flipped coin landing on its edge than of these assumptions being realistic. Unrealistic assumptions in the PRAs make their results equally unrealistic. In computer programming parlance, "garbage in, garbage out."

<snip>

He lists several other bad assumptions made in the PRAs.

[fascisthunter]

7. suicidal psychopaths and sociopaths are running the show

and placing every human on this planet in jeopardy. All for wealth...

[ixion]

9. Oh, it's okay. Ever since Fukushima, high does of radiation are good for you!

I guess you missed the memo. :sarcasm:

[PoliticAverse]

12. Don't worry, if you keep operating the aging plants eventually the leaks will be easy to detect...