[ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem

Mon Jan 30 21:58:23 CST 2012

I am more disturbed by the fact that BNL management allowed the fuel pool
of the High Flux Beam Reactor to leak into the aquifer for as long as 12
years before discovery.   Despite promising to install monitoring wells in
1994, Brookhaven management delayed the installations.  Later monitoring
showed tritium levels up to 32 times federal drinking water standards.

As the GAO Report<http://www.powerreactorrp.com/References/Groundwater/GAO_Brookhaven.pdf>states:
"Brookhaven's delay in installing the monitoring wells raised serious
concerns in the Long Island community about
(1) the laboratory's abiity to take seriously its responsibilities for the
environment and for human health and safety and (2) DOE's competence as an
overseer of the laboratory's activities."

While shipment of the water for disposal was not technically necessary, I
don't blame the population and elected officials for their distrust of this
explanation, since previous DOE assurances of adequate monitoring were
wrong.

Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Previously, on radsafe, the BNL tritium problem was discussed and, as I
> recall,
> it was shown that in no way was it a public health problem. In fact, there
> is no
> way that release of tritium to the environment could, in general, cause a
> significant health problem . Given this situation, I am disturbed that so
> much
> of my tax money has been squandered on a project that is little more than
> "show
> business". Given the technological ignorance of the news media, couldn't
> the DOE
> find a much cheaper way to assuage the concerns of a technologically
> ignorant
> public than shipping water to Oak Ridge?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> To: SAFarber at optonline.net; The International Radiation Protection (Health
> Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Mon, January 30, 2012 2:16:23 PM
> 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
>