[ RadSafe ] Tritium Production

Thu Feb 2 12:19:44 CST 2012

With respect to 6 Mci annual production (I assume that 6,000,000 Ci),
CANDUs are notorious for production of tritium.  The moderator water is
heavy water which becomes activated in core to become really heavy
water, i.e. tritium.  The tritium activity can reach 30 Ci/kg of water
and there is over 300,000 kg of moderator water in each unit.  The PHT
water is also heavy water and is similar in volume with lower activity
levels around 5 Ci/kg.  Put 4 units on a single site and that is a lot
of tritium in one place.  Not sure as to the veracity of the 6 Mci
annual atmospheric production rate, but you can do the math for CANDU
production rate for comparison.

Larry Romanowich

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:14:40 -0600
From: Brad Keck <bradkeck at me.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 3H Vaporization at Oak Ridge
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <54260F7A-5B33-4020-AB77-787B7E5BAD84 at me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Another way to think of tritium is that there is a natural ratio of
hydrogen-3 that is in equilibrium due to the fixed rate of cosmogenic
production and radioactive decay.  While we humans can influence this
ratio in very limited ways, our efforts are ultimately futile and
short-lived.   :}    

I find this both humbling and comforting.  

Brad Keck

On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Jerry Cohen wrote:

> It should also be noted that tritium  occurs naturally. ~6 Mci
annually are 
> formed in the atmosphere due to cosmic ray spallation of atmospheric
nitrogen.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List 
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Tue, January 31, 2012 7:34:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim
that Film 
> exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC
> 
> All,
> 
> Releasing tritium is problematic. Most tritium is chemically combined
with 
> oxygen. Tritiated water cannot be decontaminated because it is
chemically 
> identical to water. It is water. So what to do? 
> 
> 
> For all of those folks who read RADSAFE and are not health physicists
or 
> radiation scientists, the regulations and release limits applicable to
tritium 
> are designed to minimize the risk to the public from the health
effects of the 
> tritium and or tritiated water. Dilution is the only solution for
tritiated 
> water. Gaseous tritium will eventually combine with oxygen to form
water.
> 
> Release of tritiated water to the oceans (i. e. eventually the rivers
flow to 
> the ocean) is preferable because of the oceans tremendous volume.
There is more 
> naturally occurring tritium in Earth's oceans than all of the
'artificially" 
> produced tritium releases on Earth combined. You will see that if you
do the 
> math.
> 
> Let's not get carried away with this thread on RADSAFE.
> 
> Regards,
> John E. Dixon, CHP
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan,
Mike (DOH)
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:16 PM
> To: SAFarber at optonline.net; The International Radiation Protection
(Health 
> Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim
that Film 
> exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC
> 
> Even worse, Brookhaven is within spitting distance of the sea (OK,
maybe a 
> really high powered spit, but still).  Dumping the "tritium
contaminated ground 
> water" into the ocean has equal risks of noticeably increasing the
tritium 
> concentration and decreasing the ocean's salinity.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Stewart
Farber
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:47 PM
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim
that Film 
> exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC
> 
> I have no idea of the total volume,  Bq/L and total activity of H-3
there was in 
> the water shipped to Oak Ridge for processing and release. Anyone
know, since it 
> would help in making the comparison presented below.
> 
> For reference the water flow at the mouth of the Mississippi is about
17 
> million/L/sec. 
> 
> http://www.americanrivers.org/library/river-facts/river-facts.html
> 
> This volume of water for the Mississippi, at the average H-3 activity
of surface 
> water in US [ or the world for that matter --very roughly 15 Bq/l]
will contain 
> about 260 MBq.
> 
> I posit that the water from Brookhaven,  which was sent to Oak Ridge
for 
> processing at a cost of many millions $ without doubt, contained a
total
> H-3
> activity which was dwarfed by the total H-3 activity flowing down the 
> Mississippi River draining its watershed in only a few seconds. 
> 
> 
> Why should the amount of H-3 equal to that present in a few seconds of
water 
> flowing down the Mississippi not be a concern, when that same total
amount of 
> H-3 activity in some water from Brookhaven is vaporized and free
released to the 
> environment? What a farce. 
> 
> 
> How does our society justify wasting millions in an airborne release
of
> H-3
> vs. releasing the Brookhaven water at some slow rate into a large
river flowing 
> to the sea? The airborne H-3 release at Oak Ridge will eventually come
to earth 
> in rainwater, end up as groundwater perhaps, or drain to some river in
any case.
> 
> Sometime in the future someone will write a book "The Decline and Fall
of the 
> United States". The absurdity of sending H-3 contaminated water to Oak
Ridge to 
> be released to the air after processing by Duratek vs.
> releasing it
> to a large river [or simply leaving it in the ground to decay in a few
years] 
> will be one of the minor examples of what contributed to the death
spiral for 
> the US.
> 
> Stewart Farber
> SAFarber at optonline.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan,
Mike
> (DOH)
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:14 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Claim that Film exposes ?regulatory capture?
> ofUSA?s NRC
> 
> Or pump it out of the ground and ship it to a BWR, to be processed and
used as 
> coolant.  Then challenge anyone to find the difference in the final H3
levels 
> between the water from Brookhaven and the water from the regular
source.  
> 
> 
> (actually, I agree that the low risk option would have been to leave
it in the 
> ground, or if that wasn't acceptable, pump it and dump it into the
ocean.)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dan McCarn
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:50 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Claim that Film exposes ?regulatory capture?
> ofUSA?s NRC
> 
> Fritz Niehaus at the IAEA suggested the same thing - simply release
it.
> 
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:00 PM, S L Gawarecki
> <slgawarecki at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> Do you know what happened to that tritium-contaminated water from 
>> Brookhaven?  It was put in tanker trucks and shipped to Oak Ridge, 
>> Tennessee.  There is was fed into a thermal treatment unit at Duratek
> at
>> levels below their air permit limit (and within their license limit)
> until
>> it was gone--up in the air.  What sense did that make?  The risk of
> all
>> those trucks on the road was probably much greater than the potential

>> exposure at either site.  Personally, I think it would have been
> smarter to
>> have left it in the ground back at Brookhaven to decay in peace.
>> 
>> Susan Gawarecki
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>> 
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>> 
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Dan ii
> 
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:59:21 -0800 (PST)
From: John Johnson <idias1000 at yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim
	that	Film exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	<1328032761.66972.YahooMailNeo at web125216.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Or ALARA,?as we sometimes call it.
?
John R Johnson
idiasjrj at gmail.com

________________________________
 From: Robert J Gunter <rjgunter at chpconsultants.com>
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List' <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:36:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim
that Film exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC

Asside from the fact that H-3 emits a relatively low E beta and
distributes
thoughout the body minimizes the relative dose to individuals should
they be
exposed.? The question should always be how much dose will a person get
and
how much does it cost to remediate if the dose is too high.

Robert J. Gunter, MSc, CHP
CHP Consultants/CHP Dosimetry
www.chpconsultants.com
www.chpdosimetry.com
Toll Free: (888) 766-4833
Fax:? (866) 491-9913 
Cel:? (865) 387-0028
rjgunter at chpconsultants.com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dixon, John E.
(CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:34 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim
that
Film exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC

All,

Releasing tritium is problematic. Most tritium is chemically combined
with
oxygen. Tritiated water cannot be decontaminated because it is
chemically
identical to water. It is water. So what to do? 

For all of those folks who read RADSAFE and are not health physicists or
radiation scientists, the regulations and release limits applicable to
tritium are designed to minimize the risk to the public from the health
effects of the tritium and or tritiated water. Dilution is the only
solution
for tritiated water. Gaseous tritium will eventually combine with oxygen
to
form water.

Release of tritiated water to the oceans (i. e. eventually the rivers
flow
to the ocean) is preferable because of the oceans tremendous volume.
There
is more naturally occurring tritium in Earth's oceans than all of the
'artificially" produced tritium releases on Earth combined. You will see
that if you do the math.

Let's not get carried away with this thread on RADSAFE.

Regards,
John E. Dixon, CHP

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:16 PM
To: SAFarber at optonline.net; The International Radiation Protection
(Health
Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim
that
Film exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC

Even worse, Brookhaven is within spitting distance of the sea (OK, maybe
a
really high powered spit, but still).? Dumping the "tritium contaminated
ground water" into the ocean has equal risks of noticeably increasing
the
tritium concentration and decreasing the ocean's salinity.? 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Stewart Farber
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:47 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] H-3 Vaporization at Oak Ridge -was: RE: Claim that
Film
exposes ?regulatory capture? ofUSA?s NRC

I have no idea of the total volume,? Bq/L and total activity of H-3
there
was in the water shipped to Oak Ridge for processing and release. Anyone
know, since it would help in making the comparison presented below.

For reference the water flow at the mouth of the Mississippi is about 17
million/L/sec. 
http://www.americanrivers.org/library/river-facts/river-facts.html

This volume of water for the Mississippi, at the average H-3 activity of
surface water in US [ or the world for that matter --very roughly 15
Bq/l]
will contain about 260 MBq.

I posit that the water from Brookhaven,? which was sent to Oak Ridge for
processing at a cost of many millions $ without doubt, contained a total
H-3
activity which was dwarfed by the total H-3 activity flowing down the
Mississippi River draining its watershed in only a few seconds. 

Why should the amount of H-3 equal to that present in a few seconds of
water
flowing down the Mississippi not be a concern, when that same total
amount
of H-3 activity in some water from Brookhaven is vaporized and free
released
to the environment? What a farce. 

How does our society justify wasting millions in an airborne release of
H-3
vs. releasing the Brookhaven water at some slow rate into a large river
flowing to the sea? The airborne H-3 release at Oak Ridge will
eventually
come to earth in rainwater, end up as groundwater perhaps, or drain to
some
river in any case.

Sometime in the future someone will write a book "The Decline and Fall
of
the United States". The absurdity of sending H-3 contaminated water to
Oak
Ridge to be released to the air after processing by Duratek vs.
releasing it
to a large river [or simply leaving it in the ground to decay in a few
years] will be one of the minor examples of what contributed to the
death
spiral for the US.

Stewart Farber
SAFarber at optonline.net

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:14 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Claim that Film exposes ?regulatory capture?
ofUSA?s NRC

Or pump it out of the ground and ship it to a BWR, to be processed and
used
as coolant.? Then challenge anyone to find the difference in the final
H3
levels between the water from Brookhaven and the water from the regular
source.? 

(actually, I agree that the low risk option would have been to leave it
in
the ground, or if that wasn't acceptable, pump it and dump it into the
ocean.)

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dan McCarn
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:50 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Claim that Film exposes ?regulatory capture?
ofUSA?s NRC

Fritz Niehaus at the IAEA suggested the same thing - simply release it.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:00 PM, S L Gawarecki
<slgawarecki at gmail.com>wrote:

> Do you know what happened to that tritium-contaminated water from 
> Brookhaven?? It was put in tanker trucks and shipped to Oak Ridge, 
> Tennessee.? There is was fed into a thermal treatment unit at Duratek
at
> levels below their air permit limit (and within their license limit)
until
> it was gone--up in the air.? What sense did that make?? The risk of
all
> those trucks on the road was probably much greater than the potential 
> exposure at either site.? Personally, I think it would have been
smarter to
> have left it in the ground back at Brookhaven to decay in peace.
>
> Susan Gawarecki
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>

--
Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list