Report Blames NRC For VT Yankee Leak 136
mdsolar writes "A new report from a nuclear watchdog group finds that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 'is ignoring its oversight and enforcement responsibilities at the nation's increasingly leaky, uninspected and unmaintained nuclear power plants.' Because of this lack of oversight, 'at least 102 reactor units are now documented to have had recurring radioactive leaks into groundwater from 1963 through February 2009.' So, the leak at Vermont Yankee that Slashdot has been following is not just a fluke, but is systemic."
So says a site... (Score:5, Informative)
"Working for a world free of nuclear power..." right in their masthead.
Re:So says a site... (Score:5, Informative)
mdsolar is a well-known troll. Basically about 90% of all the submissions from this tool is basically FUD against nuclear power.
Nice Try (Score:2, Informative)
Nice try mdsolar. Maybe the mods are too stupid to realize you submit every story with a noted bias against nuclear plants but I'm not. All the other stories about the leak are submitted by this guy.
A better source... (Score:2, Informative)
The NRC’s regulations focus on systems necessary to safely operate the plant or safely shut it down in case of an emergency. These safety systems’ buried piping is subject to inspection and testing requirements laid out in agency regulations and standards from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. These standards call for regular flow testing and other surveillance for buried safety-related pipes, and NRC reviews have confirmed nuclear plants perform these tests several times every year.
Tritium exposure is relatively benign (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Impressive! (Score:2, Informative)
The U.S. has more watts of nuclear than any other country.
We also have more watts in general, so the above sort of gets lost in comparisons.
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Informative)
What's funny is that he's submitted like 10 or 11 stories in just the last 3 months on this plant.
Re:So says a site... (Score:4, Informative)
For one thing, the story here is billed as kind of a 'breaking news' 'new findings' kind of thing.
But the summary makes it clear it's a rehash, a dredging up of every bad thing the anti-nuke site it is hosted on could dig up, going back to 1963.
Re:Coal (Score:5, Informative)
The Soviet military invaded the plant for a "scientific test" and held the technicians at gunpoint while they bypassed every security feature that site had.
Umm, bullshit. The test was scheduled by the plant crew. It was originally supposed to be held during the day when more experienced operators were on duty but was moved to the night shift because the USSR's persistent electrical shortages would not allow the idling of a reactor during peak demand. The Soviet military had nothing to do with it until the disaster happened nor was anybody held at gunpoint and forced to conduct the test.
On a side note, I've often wondered why the thought of having the more experienced operators come in and work the night shift didn't cross anyone's mind. I guess communism doesn't encourage standing out from the pack and suggesting such "novel" ideas....
Re:Tritium exposure is relatively benign (Score:3, Informative)
This is not Chernobyl (Score:5, Informative)
I seem to notice that there is a lot of FUD and misinformation out there (not just from mdsolar and Beyond Nuclear) regarding nuclear power. This is helped in part because of ignorance by the general public. It's important to understand that there is a wide range of radioactive sources. Most of them are naturally occurring, or occur is such small amounts that they present no health hazard.
Radiation exposure is usually measured in Rem (or mRem). Let's take a look at some common activities [nyc.gov] and see how they compare.
One chest X ray (8 mRem)
One mammogram (70 mRem)
One X ray of the abdomen (300 mRem)
One renal nuclear medicine procedure (310 mRem)
One CT head scan (3000 mRem)
CAT scan of whole body (5000 mRem)
As you can see, there is a wide variance of radiation sources. Most people in the US receive approximately 300 mRem / year from natural background radiation sources (primarily from radon and sun exposure.) So, how much radiation exposure do you need to cause bodily damage [epa.gov]?
There is no agreed-upon level which is considered "safe", however there is relatively clear agreement on thresholds where radiation has noticeable effects on the human body. (NOTE: These are listed in Rem, not mRem)
Changes in blood chemistry (5-10 Rem)
Nausea (50 Rem)
Fatigue (55 Rem)
Vomiting (70 Rem)
Hair loss (75 Rem)
Diarrhea (90 Rem)
Hemorrhage (100 Rem)
Possible death (400 Rem)
Death within 1-2 weeks (1000 Rem)
Damage to central nervous system (2000 Rem)
Death within days (2000 Rem)
But what about cancer? The risk for cancer can be increased by radiation exposure, which resulted in increased mutation rates of cell growth. The EPA [epa.gov] estimates that in a group of 10,000 people 2,000 of them will die from cancer. If each person received 1 Rem (not mRem) of non-natural ionizing radiation exposure accumulated over their lifetime, 2,006 people would die from cancer.
So, now that we have an idea of just how bad different levels of radiation exposure are, what about these tritium leaks that have got certain people so upset? The highest reading that these monitoring wells have read was 2.45 microcuries / liter. This translates into roughly 425 mRem / year (assuming it was not diluted). 425 mRem is substantially higher than the current NRC limits, but still much too low to present a health hazard.
When people hear words like "nuclear reactor piping leak" they naturally assume that high-level radioactive particulates are getting out to the environment. The fact is that the incident at Vermont Yankee represents a very small health hazard to the public.
Re:So says a site... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Figures (Score:3, Informative)
As well as oil power. [washingtonpost.com]