Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes fine for coal plant (Laramie River Station)

[phantom power]

Cesium 137 emits gamma rays. In coal plants and other industrial plants, the amount of radiation that passes through the material being measured gives an indication of its content, just as an X-ray gives an indication of what is inside a human body. Typically, the coal plants are measuring ash and moisture content of the fuel they burn, and the quantity passing through a coal chute.

Laramie River Station has 216 monitors that use radiation, some of them in the pollution control system. Daryl Hill, a spokesman for the co-op, said the monitor in question measures the flow from a coal bunker down to a feeder, which spits the coal into a boiler. “If the flow stops, it detects there’s no fuel and sends a signal to the control room,’’ he said.

The gauge has a shutter mechanism, akin to the shutter on a camera, and it was supposed to be closed and locked before the workers — welders — were sent into the area. But the shutter was left open.

Unlike workers at a nuclear plant, the welders did not have equipment to measure the amount of radiation they were exposed to. The calculated dose was 647 millirems, about what the average American receives in two years from natural sources. That amount would not be a violation in a nuclear plant, although inadvertently exposing workers there would have been a problem. For non-nuclear workers, considered members of the general public, the limit is 100 millirems.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/and-you-thought-radiation-was-a-problem-for-nuclear-plants/

[struggle4progress]

1. Gotta love the ever-increasing estimates of "average annual dose from natural sources"

I remember when average annual natural background was ballparked at 100 mrem/yr. Then it was 200 mrem/yr. Now, apparently, it is something like 325 mrem/yr. I expect the annual "natuyral background" estimate wuill be well above 500 mrem/yr before I die

[FBaggins]

3. That's likely less an issue of your memory...

...and more a growing recognition of what the natural sources are.

The average dose from radon inhalation is 200 mrem/yr by itself, so your memory of 100 mrem/yr is either from a period before we recognized the abundance of Radon, or was from a particular part of the country where Radon is significantly less abundant.

IOW, if you're trying to hint that mankind has been adding large amounts of UNnatural sources of radiation and pretending that it's really all natural... you're incorrect.

[struggle4progress]

6. I don't think so. Earlier this decade, the 300 mrem/yr was pushed, with an

estimate of 150 mrem/yr from radon (as opposed to your 200 mrem/yr); now I'm suddenly seeing estimates closer to 400 mrem/yr as "average"

The radon issue has been recognized for some years; mitigation is easy. For example, nothing is easier than reducing radon levels in drinking water: just aerate! So, given the ease of mitigation, the fact that many jurisdi8ctions have mitigation requirements, and years of public education efforts, average radon doses should be declining, rather than increasing

[FBaggins]

7. "Thinking so" doesn't make it so.

Can you document that "earlier this decade" number? That 360 average is almost 25 years old. It's based on the 1987 "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States" and hasn't changed substantially since then.


For example, nothing is easier than reducing radon levels in drinking water: just aerate!

Radon from drinking water is a comparatively minor source (combined with food ingestion sources to total 40 mrem). The 200 mrem number represents inhalation of Radon.

[struggle4progress]

8. Remediating household air radon levels is also rather easy, and

(as I already pointed out) remediation is required in many jurisdictions. So since the mid-1980s, radon exposure in the US should have fallen, not increased

[FBaggins]

9. The "average" home doesn't need remediation.

And remediation is only required at well above the normal exposure rate. While the far larger number of homes below the 4 pCi/L level are "tighter" than they were two decades ago (on average). It's pretty much a wash (while still protecting the minority in the worst areas). That 4 pCi/L level, BTW, equates to about 800 mrem.

So since the mid-1980s, radon exposure in the US should have fallen, not increased

You're the one who is claiming (without foundation) that something has increased. I've demonstrated that the level cited hasn't changed in at least 23 years.

[struggle4progress]

10. Ah. So now we see the nature of the official claims that the "average American" gets 200 mrem/yr

from radon, even though this "average" is produced by minority of homes with high radon levels and even though there has been for some decades a public health push to encourage fairly easy remediation steps. It doesn't change what I said: "average" radon exposures ought to be falling

[FBaggins]

11. You have a knack for making things up as you go along

don't you?

Now it's the "official claim" eh? Hinting that this isn't the real figure (which no doubt is hidden to keep the public from knowing how bad things have gotten due to nuclear power)?

The simple fact remains... you made up some BS about how the claimed average exposure rate has climbing significantly since you've been watching... how even the radon component has increased just this decade (obviously falsified to cover up other sources of exposure that they don't want people to associate with un-natural sources).

But you made the whole thing up... and now try desperately to spin to avoid that fact.

[struggle4progress]

13. Alleged natural background doses in the 60s/70s were in the 90-130 mrem/yr range

Website here has references to print: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/background_radiation/background_radiation.htm

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Well, fancy that

So let me get this straight:

1) In the 60s and 70's, the predicted doses were around the 100 mrem mark

2) In the 80's, we discover there's an extra 200 mrem from radon

3) Since then, the figures come out around the 300 mrem mark.

Wow. It's almost as if we learned something.

Well, some of us.

[FBaggins]

15. "Learned something"

Like... maybe about radon?

There's really very little difference between those three estimates except on whether or not the author knew about the amount of radon in the air we breath. The man-made contribution has remained effectively unchanged.

[struggle4progress]

16. "we discover .. 200 mrem from radon" is the sloppiest possible description of the process

Have you ever looked at the "calculations" leading to this so-called "discovery" of 200 mrem/yr from radon?

One begins from some overall average estimate of indoor and outdoor radon concentrations, makes some other assumption about how an average person partitions their time between indoors and outdoors, and then from this attempts to calculate how many radon decays occur in the lung and the corresponding energy absorbed by pulmonary epithelial cells. This is multiplied by a fudge factor called the "relative biological effectiveness" to "convert" the result from a genuine physical quantity to mrems, which allegedly (and perhaps questionably) provides a common measure for the "dose" regardless of radiation type. This result is multiplied by a second fudge factor called the "weighting factor" which allegedly converts the "tissue dose" in mrems to an equivalent "whole body dose." So one has at least four uncertain multipliers in this allegedly scientific calculation, and there's no agreement (fror example) about what the so-called "weighting factor" should be. Color me unimpressed with arbitrary arithmetic masquerading as science

Definite political-economic pressures exist to inflate these phony background dose estimates

[Dead_Parrot]

17. OK, I'm confused.

If you think the numbers are all made up anyway, why is this even an issue? :shrug:

[struggle4progress]

19. I'll talk slow and use small words:

(1) An old and imprecise notion like mrem can only give a crude ballpark idea of exposures. The crudeness and imprecision of the notion, with all the associated fudge-factors, prevents one from doing fgood epidemiology based on the notion

(2) So-called "background" estimates are produced under political and economic pressures, as anyone who has followed the politics of the committtees knows There are at least two ideological reasons the industry pushes for encourage high background estimates:
(2a) A higher background estimate will automatically reduce the modeled risk associated with exposures, which is useful when arguing unwanted exposures are harmless
(2b) A higher background estimate has a direct propaganda value, in that one can use it to argue that an alleged exposure is minor compared to background

(3) I don't know what radon exposures are typical. Averages might crudely help one to gauge expected associated lung cancers. However, indoor radon levels vary quite widely, and any "average" value is skewed by outlier high concentrations: most buildings probably have much lower than "average" radon concentrations, and so most people are not experiencing the cited "average" radiological exposure from radon, though (of course) some buildings do have much higher than "average" radon concentrations, and so some people experience well above the cited "average" radiological exposure from radon. But then it is highly misleading to suggest most people that they are getting an "average" dose from radon -- though telling people this serves specific propaganda interests

[FBaggins]

21. Lol. Better stick to shorter words.

(1) An old and imprecise notion like mrem can only give a crude ballpark idea of exposures.

mrem is by no means "imprecise"... in fact it's very precise. And is a measure for exposure. Your statement is as wildly wrong as claiming that m/cm/mm are an imprecise notion and can only give a crude ballpark idea of a person's height.

(2) So-called "background" estimates are produced under political and economic pressures,

And yet... despite your made up scenario... have remained essentially unchanged for almost 25 years?


(3) I don't know what radon exposures are typical.

You should have started and ended with that statement.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Hmm

(1) As FB points out, the mrem is astonishingly precise - in the case in point, it's the energy of 11,165,486 ²²²Rn atomic nuclei decaying, per kilo of weight (1 decay = 5.59MeV = 8.956171107x10^-13J). You can argue that that the absorption factor is incorrect - in which case just prove it - but if you think 11,165,486 atoms is "a crude ballpark" I hope to hell I never get stuck behind you at the deli counter.

To be fair, I must confess that I rounded that to the nearest atom - I couldn't figure out how 65.29% of a single atom could decay, leaving the other 34.71% intact.

(2) Gosh, if only a scientist would write a paper on radiation, then we'd have some figures to check. Curiously, a quick check for "background radiation" -cosmic on Google scholar throws up "about 52,700" articles: Please list the ones you think were written by a commitee, and we'll take a look.

Seriously, that argument is identical to ignoring every paper on climatology because "global warming is a librul hoax". I do not hold people who make that argument in high regard, BTW.

(3)I don't know what radon exposures are typical.

So as I said, how is this an issue? How can you possibly argue against something when you haven't the foggiest idea what it is?

[struggle4progress]

26. That is a peculiar definition of an mrem -- and in fact, it is not the definition,

since it would be operationally useless in practice, even if it is a cute sort of calculation to do

The objections to mrem as the definitive measure of dose are many. I have already commented on the bizarre round numbers used as fudge-factors in the calculation, but there are other cogent objections. Among these, we might note that actual radiodamage potentially depends on many factors other than energy absorbed per unit mass: energy dissipation in a cell from (say) P-32 incorporated in DNA phosphate backbone is very likely to have rather more substantial effects than the same energy dissipated in the cell from a radiocontaminant in nearby intercellular water; similarly, the effects of radiodamage are likiely be influenced by age in various ways

The fudge factors that I have mentioned are largely the product of advisory committees: careful scientific investigations tend not produce nice round whole number fudge factors like 1, 10, or 20

What I said about radon exposures is: it is misleading to use "averages" -- based on many buildings with low radon and a much smaller number with very high radon -- as an indication of "typical" exposures. The idea that an American "on average" receives 2/3 of his/her background radiological exposure from radon is not at all the same claim as the claim that a "typical American" receives 2/3 of his/her background radiological exposure from radon: the first claim is based on averaging doses and potentially misrepresents the situation, since it is based on many persons with relatively low radon exposure and a much smaller number with very high radon exposures. This should not be a difficult statistical point for you to understand

[Dead_Parrot]

28. As I've already said...

...You are more than welcome to provide your own figures. "I think this factor should be xxx, and here's why:" is a valid form of criticism for science: "Ooh, that looks a bit round" is only a valid criticism in a beauty pageant.

And yes, there are variations in the types of radiation and the associated vectors. From the UNSCEAR '08 report Annex B, again focusing on Radon:

The health risk due to exposure to ²²²Rn (radon) and ²²⁰Rn (thoron) comes principally from the inhalation of the short-lived decay products and the resulting alpha particle irradiation of the bronchial airways. The radiation dose delivered to the respiratory system. and the resulting potential health detriment, are a complex function of the radon decay product aerosol characteristics and the physiological parameters of the exposed individual. The radon and thoron dosimetry described in this annex is a summary of section II in annex E of the UNSCEAR 2006 Report U1.
Radon and thoron decay product exposure rates are expressed by the measure of potential alpha energy concentration (PAEC). with units of joules per cubic metre (J/m³) for the equilibrium equivalent concentration (EEC) or becquerels per cubic metre (Bq/m³) for the working level (WL: unit of concentration of radon progeny in one cubic metre of air that has the potential alpha energy of 2.08 x 10^-5 J for ²²²Rn). The PAEC is derived from a linear combination of the activities of the short-lived decay products in each radon decay series (see paragraph 122. annex B of the UNSCEAR 2000 Report U3). The constants in the linear combination are the fractional contributions of each decay product to the total potential alpha energy from the decay gas. The EEC (in units of Bq/m³) can be converted to the PAEC by the relationships:
1 Bq/m³ = 5.56 x 10^-6 mJ/m³ = 0.27 mWL (²²²Rn)
and
I Bq/m³ = 7.6 x 10^-5 mJ/m³ = 3.64 mWL (²²⁰Rn)

Seriously, they're not just saying "Ooh, about 50 mrem". You will also find 20 pages of referenced papers, not one of which appears to have been written by some shady "advisory committee".

The criticism about using a single background value for a population as varied as that of the US would be valid is that was all there is, but it really shouldn't take you too long to find more accurate information for people who live in upstate NY, people who fly a lot and people who live in their mom's basement. I suggest you write to the NYT and chastise them for giving an average, rather than an individual estimate for each reader, if this bothers you so much. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear from you. You'll also find it clears up that troubling modal vs. mean vs. median issue.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the changing figures bother you when you clearly think the whole thing is bunk.

[FBaggins]

18. Sorry S4P. There's a difference between "doesn't make sense"

and "s4p doesn't get it".

You've invented a theory out of whole cloth. You might try actually backing something up before continuing.

[Nihil]

2. Gotta love the unrec crowd ...

> Unlike workers at a nuclear plant, the welders did not have equipment to
> measure the amount of radiation they were exposed to. The calculated dose
> was 647 millirems, about what the average American receives in two years
> from natural sources. That amount would not be a violation in a nuclear plant,
> although inadvertently exposing workers there would have been a problem.

If this had been at a nuclear plant, it might not have been a "violation"
but it would have been recommended to the "Greatest Page" (along with all
of its duplicate postings) amidst great screaming, gnashing of teeth, etc..

As it was only at a highly polluting coal plant, the post gets unrecommended
and zero attention.

There are days when I can see exactly where Nnadir is coming from with
respect to his contempt for "the anti-nuke brigade" ...
:argh:

[Dead_Parrot]

12. If it had been a nuclear plant...

...there would be much shitting of pants and feverish bloggasms.

Coal plant? Fuck it.

[struggle4progress]

20. Cs-137 source in the camera, undoubtedly from spent nuclear fuel, which probably

explains the NRC involvement in the regulation. The NRC wouldn't be assessing a fine if it didn't have regulatory authority, and its regulatory authority here is over the radiological camera used to monitor something like feed rate

In a post downthread, I have indicated why some of us have opposed such uses of Cs-137 for years

[Dead_Parrot]

23. That, and because it's radioactive.

The NRC has regulatory authority over all nuclear materials outside of the military.

Stop me if I'm going too fast, here.

[struggle4progress]

24. That's crudely true. The actual picture is a bit more complicated

because the regulatory environment is not established by a single statute but by several, some of which carve out roles for other federal agencies, because the NRC can hand regulatory authority to states, and because in some matters the states themselves (sometimes in conjunction with EPA) regulate some materials that the NRC might arguably regulate but has not chosen to regulate

Moreover, the slogan "DOE authority has over military materials" doesn't necessarily apply in all cases, as shown by the following example:

Schofield Army Barracks ...
Type of Site: Complex Decommissioning Site
Location: Wahiawa, HI
License No.:
Docket No.:
License Status: Possession Only License
Project Manager: John J. Hayes
2.0 Site Status Summary
The Schofield Army Barracks site is ... approximately 22 miles northwest of Honolulu. Depleted uranium from M101 spotting rounds was initially discovered at locations within the Schofield Army Barracks ... The M101 spotting rounds were manufactured and distributed under NRC License SUB 459, and a total of 75,318 rounds were originally produced. Details are not known regarding the specific number issued to a given installation, previously recovered from ranges, or disposed of as radioactive waste ... http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/schofield-barracks.html

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Thanks!

Given that you think 11,165,486.6529 atoms is "a crude ballpark", I've got my own notions of what you mean by "crudely true".

Although, you could have just said "Yes."

[struggle4progress]

27. I didn't just say "Yes" because it would have been inaccurate to agree with your statement

[Dead_Parrot]

29. Well, feel free to correct it.

You'll notice, hopefully, that the not-actually-the-same topics of whether the NRC excersises it's regulatory powers, or it's powers over materials inside the military, aren't ones I covered.

But, feel free to discuss anything you like.

It rained here earlier, but it's cleared up now.
Wouldn't surprise me if there was a frost tonight.

[FBaggins]

4. "The calculated dose was 647 millirems" ???

That can't possibly be true. Why... I'm pretty sure that the current estimated dose from the tritium leak at Vermont Yankee is 0.00035 millirem per year.

Surely the coverage here would be at least comparable to that of VT Yankee if people were subjected to such massively higher doses. No?

:sarcasm:

[struggle4progress]

5. Isn't the major industrial source of Cs-137 spent nuclear reactor fuel?

In fact, the nuclear industry has been pushing such "beneficial uses" of Cs-137 for decades, because it is the source of much of the immediate heat and radiological hazard in spent fuel: spent fuel from which the Cs-137 has been removed is somewhat simpler to deal with

So in some sense, one could regard this as a nuclear power plant waste accident that happened where the waste had been sent: namely, a particular coal plant

One ought to add: radiocesium is not a particularly happy choice for industrial monitoring uses, because this radiosource is typically used in the form of a water-soluble ionic salt: a combination of moisture and cladding defects can sometimes produce a spray of radioactive salt solution. I discussed this once with a top state regulatory official, who told me that he DID NOT EVER license radiocesium for such purposes, precisely because of the contamination potential if cladding failed

"We know what we're doing! So don't worry your little head about it!" is really a terrible attitude: dumbfug "Oops! We left the shutter open!" accidents like this occur with some frequency. In another discussion I had with another top state regulatory official (from a different state), the regulator described a case he was aware of, where one group of workers amused themselves during a facility maintenance operation by using radiation cameras to observe the passage of other workers through a tube

[Nihil]

30. Kick for the people who seem too busy posting OPs to notice other news ...

I'd hate people to think that their silence on the subject was
either denial or embarrassment ...

:P