Leaky pipes at Indian Point 2. Clean, green and safe nuclear power, ladies and gentlemen.

[bushmeister0]

The NYT reports:

"A one-and-a-half-inch hole caused by corrosion allowed about 100,000 gallons of water to escape from the main system that keeps the reactor cool immediately after any shutdown, according to nuclear experts. The leak was discovered on Feb. 16, according to the plant’s owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, a subsidiary of the Entergy Corporation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?_r=1&hp

No one it seems has gotten around to actually digging up the 8-inch supply pipe in question, since it was buried in 1973, to see what kind of condition its condition is in. Not to worry, they have back up systems if the reactor should shut down, like it did on April 3.

But . . .

"Paul Blanch, an electrical engineer and nuclear safety expert who worked at Indian Point in 2001 and 2002, said that because neither pipe has been inspected, except for a short section that was replaced when the hole was located in February, 'they shouldn't’be operating right now.' He said the plant could be operating with a backup system that is ready to fail."

Oh, pooh, pooh. There's always the the local municipal water system in case of an emergency.

But . . .

"Plant operators dislike using such water because city tap water is not as clean as reactor water. And critics point out that the system is not safety-rated, meaning it is not certified to work in adverse conditions like blackouts and earthquakes and is not maintained as carefully."

That's nice to know. Our drinking water isn't up to the high standards of the nuclear industry.

There's a number of disturbing things about this story. One other is the fact that all these ancient nuke plants are rapidly aging in ways no one can anticipate. It's totally Terra incognita as the NRC decides on whether to reissue their operating licenses. And we want to build more of them?????

Why does this image keep going through my head?

[crimsonblue]

1. Modern nuclear power plants are completely safe

and have orders of magnitude less waste as compared to coal plants. All of Europe uses nuclear power without much incident, why not here?

[bushmeister0]

2. Chernobyl comes to mind.

And what about the tech savviest of all, the Japanese?

Remember, the Hihama No. 3 nuclear power accident in 2004?

"The accident happened when the reactor was about to undergo routine maintenance. The accident was caused by a bursting steam pipe in the non-radioactive part of the reactor. In 27 years of operation that 56 cm diameter pipe had not once been checked for corrosion, let alone replaced. By the time it burst, its walls had worn down from an initial 10 mm of carbon steel to a mere 1.4 mm. Regulations required the pipes to be replaced when the walls were eroded to a thickness of 4.7 mm. Nine months before the accident a subcontractor company had alerted the operators to the need for inspections, but the warning was ignored.

Between 1998 and 2003, KEPCO replaced carbon steel steam pipes in two other power stations, Takahama Nuclear Power Plant No. 3 and Oi Nuclear Power Plant No. 1, with stainless steel pipes. Inspections had revealed that the original pipes had worn so thin they would not have lasted another two years."

http://www.joewein.de/mihama.htm

Again, a pipe problem. If the Japanese can't get their shit strait on this, I doubt we can. Four people died in that one, BTW.

[spoony]

30. People who cite Chernobyl as a "modern" plant

automatically lose all credibility.

[NNN0LHI]

41. Wasn't Chernobyl regarded as the flagship plant before it melted down?

Are the ones we currently have in operation considered better/safer?

Don

[Cleita]

3. Nuclear waste takes 50,000 years to lose its radioactivity.

The dirty little secret in Europe is that they are running out of places to dump their nuclear waste. It's a pesky little fact that they don't want to get out or the residents might get up in arms about it. Also, how agreeable are you to having to sign papers at school to allow them to give your children potassium iodide pills in case of a nuclear accident?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4597589.stm

[bushmeister0]

4. Yikes! Where can I get these potassium iodide pills?

I think the Europeans have the nuclear waste problem licked, though. I hear the coast of Somalia is perfect for that sort of thing.

[Cleita]

17. My county distributes them for free in case our nuke plant has an

accident. I suppose you could find them in a drug store.

[Massacure]

38. 50,000 years with the particular fuel cycle that is in use.

There was a research project done in Idaho with a reactor called the Integral Fast Reactor. The waste products would have been less radioactive than the original uranium ore in 400 years. Clinton killed the project.

Nuclear energy isn't so much a technological problem as it is a perception problem.

[MadHound]

43. Not all waste from a reactor is spent fuel

In fact the biggest waste by volume is the byproducts of running a nuke plant, swipes, gloves, activated aluminum, hot tools, various other samples, etc. etc., ranging on up to the containment vessel itself. And these things do have half lives of tens of thousands of years. Meanwhile the fuel itself has a half life in the hundreds of thousands of years.

I would love to see some literatue on this Integral Fast Reactor, see the science behind this claim to reduce an isotope's half life by three magnitudes.

[northernlights]

7. is that why they dump their waste

off the shores of Somalia? Because there's not as much as coal plants?

[crimsonblue]

8. Bury it in the earth, like at Yucca Mountain...

plus, you don't get millions of tons of emissions from nuclear plants, as compared to coal plants. A coal plant is worse for your health than a nuclear power plant.

[Cleita]

16. Yucca Mountain is in an earthquake zone. It's not a very good

repository for nuclear waste. We don't need coal plants either. What is it with you guys that you seem to think the only other alternative to nuclear is coal and oil?

[crimsonblue]

18. only nuclear power has the capacity

to do a one-off replacement of coal plants. Don't get me wrong, I am ALL for wind, solar, biofuel, hydroelectric power, but nuclear power generates a helluva lot of energy, especially compared to its footprint.

[rhett o rick]

29. It takes a huge amount of energy to build a nuc plant. Do you know how many years

it takes before a nuc plants pays off it's construction costs? I don't have it at hand but it is a considerable number of years. Also, the high safety concerns are very expensive. Also, there are technological problems with the materials that haven't been solved.

[MadHound]

44. Actually a decentralized power generation system using wind, solar and other renewables

Has been shown to generate more than enough power to run this entire country. The footprint to power most building is actually smaller than the building itself. For instance, a 19 m2 array of solar panels, set on the roof of an average house can power that fully, and still have electricity left over to sell to the grid.

[northernlights]

24. and exactly how do we get it there...

safely?

By train?
By truck?
By airplane?
By psychokinetics?

Can Scotty beam it there?

[Old Hob]

33. until something goes wrong.

and frankly, I'm as opposed to burying nuclear waste in the earth as I am to dumping mercury in the water.

[KittyWampus]

20. Can we bury the nuclear waste products in your basement? Since it's so clean? Oh, and

just so we are being totally honest, there's the whole having to mine for uranium.

[girl gone mad]

21. Without much incident?

http://climateofourfuture.org/will-summer-heat-again-force-france-to-shut-down-nuclear-plants/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0728-06.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818689
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather
http://www.alternet.org/environment/132852/the_french_nuclear_industry_is_bad_enough_in_france%3B_let%27s_not_expand_it_to_the_u.s./

[Chulanowa]

23. There's a caveat, and it has nothing to do with the waste...

Nuclear is only as safe as its operators are competent or its infrastructure is maintained. Guns are perfectly safe too, unless they're in the hands of someone who's unfit to use one or the thing is damaged in some way.

And really? We don't compare to Europe. Our mentality is absolute bottom-line, scrape the last dollar, purely-for-profit. We're talking about an industry that lobbies as hard as any oil or coal company to cut regulations on themselves.

[rhett o rick]

28. It takes a lot of oil to build a nuc power plant. How many years until a nuc plant pays for itself.

It isn't the quantity of pollutant but the toxicity. The waste products are extremely deadly and extremely costly to handle. Also, there are tons of the waste just sitting around the nation awaiting a plan for disposal. So far we haven't solved the waste disposal problem.

Europe didn't have much choice, but now are switching to wind and solar, etc. Nuclear power isn't the answer.

[damntexdem]

5. Oh, nothing wrong here that a few million years of half-lives can't cure.

What is the image from?

[bushmeister0]

9. underneath the planet of the apes.

[bushmeister0]

12. Or can't Curie.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. So the leaked water was completely not radioactive.

Cleaner than tap water in fact.

I'm very concerned.

[bushmeister0]

10. The point is the pipe that supplies the water to cool the reactor

was leaking and they were taken by surprise because they haven't checked the pipe since 1973. I'm glad they have clean water. I'm just pointing out the irony that they didn't want to use public water because it isn't clean enough.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. One of many.

They hadn't dug up the pipe, that doesn't mean they haven't inspected it.

[bushmeister0]

13. How can they inspect the pipe if it's under the earth?

"Mel Gray, a branch chief at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who oversees inspections at Indian Point, confirmed in a telephone interview that inspectors 'have not dug up and laid eyes visually' on the pipes.

Mr. Gray acknowledged that the 12-inch line that delivers water from the 600,000 gallon tank during a shutdown might be rusted in places, too, but he said it was unlikely to fail suddenly when called on. But Mr. Blanch warned that if gravel or dirt leaked into the 12-inch supply pipe when the pumps started up, that could make them shut down."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=nyregion

That, to me is a problem.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Well, I'm no plumber...

But I'm under the impression that there are a number of methods of testing pipes without digging it up and looking at it. Of all the millions of miles of pipe carrying all sorts of things underground, I don't think most of it gets dug up for visual inspection on a regular basis, even the ones piping ultra pure water.

[bushmeister0]

15. Did you note the part I cited about how the pipe might be rusting

or crumbling allowing stuff outside the pipe to get in, which could cause the system to fail? If they haven't dug it up, now is probably the time. If it's that bad, it should be replaced.

Along with the rest of our pipe infrastructure, apparently.

NYT:

"Local and state officials across the country say thousands of miles of century-old underground water and sewer lines are springing leaks, eroding and — in extreme cases — causing the ground above them to collapse. Though there is no master tally of sinkholes, there is consensus among civil engineers and water experts that things are getting worse.

The Environmental Protection Agency has projected that unless cities invest more to repair and replace their water and sewer systems, nearly half of the water system pipes in the United States will be in poor, very poor or 'life elapsed' status by 2020 . . . In its 2005 'Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,' the American Society of Civil Engineers gave water and wastewater infrastructure across the country a D-minus and suggested it would take an investment of $390 billion to bring wastewater infrastructure alone up to par."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/us/08sink.html

[KittyWampus]

22. "I'm under the impression", in other words you pollute a thread with your usual snark

Since an actual expert is quoted in the opening thread about the need for sight inspections and lack thereof, I'd say your "impressions" are meaningless.

[struggle4progress]

26. "Cleaner than tap water" is a standard talking point, which should be regarded with skepticism

I once carefully followed the licensing of a radioactive waste "storage facility," in which the licensee repeatedly claimed the leachate would be drinkable. The regulatory agency finally suggested bluntly that it would be a wise idea to stop making that particular claim

And waters in reactor pipes almost always contain some radioactivity: in this case, the licensee admits that the water contains some tritium

The real issue here, of course, is the degradation of a critical reactor safety feature

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Tap water also contains some amount of tritium.

[struggle4progress]

35. Any measurable tritium in tapwater comes from human nuclear activities:

... The world-wide production of tritium from natural sources is 4 x 10^6 curies per year with a steady state inventory of about 70 x 10^6 curies ... http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm

Since the tiny natural production of T occurs worldwide, any natural tritium is widely dispersed: if the estimated 7 x 10^7 Ci of natural tritium were entirely concentrated in the oceans and seas, for example, with an estimated volume of 1.3 x 10^9 km^3 = 1.3 x 10^9 x (10^3 x 10^2 cm)^3 = 1.3 x 10^24 cm^3 = 1.3 x 10^21 liters, the concentration would be (7 x 10^7)/(1.3 x 10^21) = 5.4 x 10^(-14) Ci/l = 0.05 pCi/l. The detection limits for standard measurement are thousands of times larger than that:

PNNL-13217
Measurement of Tritium in Gas
Phase Soil Moisture and Helium-3
in Soil Gas at the Hanford Townsite
... The detection limit, using a 10-ml sample aliquot, was estimated to be 240 pCi/L ...
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:0vO8rOMb1AMJ:www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/781852-p0ZnMW/native/781852.HTM+tritium+measurement+limits&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[rhett o rick]

32. Let's try to keep our facts clean. Like other power plants these systems have steam generators that

produce steam that spins the turbines for power. This water/steam does not pass thru the reactor and is not radio active. This is completely different from radioactive waste.

The internets should have a good description of how this type of power plant works and why the steam system needs clean water.

[struggle4progress]

37. You misrepresent what I said, and then you misrepresent the fact. First, I merely

pointed out that "it's cleaner than your drinking water" is an off-the-shelf nuclear industry talking point, which reliably appears in a variety of contexts. The leak under discussion involves a shut-down coolant system, not steam generation -- and I pointed out clearly in my prior post that the major concern here should be the degradation of an important reactor safety system. Third, you are simply wrong about radioactivity in the released waters: the operator admits that the leaking water contained measurable tritium. One should also note that radioactive contamination of ground waters, from unknown leaks, has been a continuing issue at Indian Point, which is relevant to questions about uninspected buried piping

[struggle4progress]

39. 5. WATER AND IMPURITY ACTIVATION PRODUCTS 5.2 TRITIUM IN PWRs

... The study of tritium in PWRs is important because tritium’s long half-life (12.3 years) permits long-term buildup within the plant systems. Since reactor coolant is recycled, tritium is retained within the plant as tritiated water and release may occur as liquid, water vapor or gaseous tritium. The primary sources of tritium in the reactor coolant system in a PWR are: (1) diffusion of tritium from the fuel through the zircaloy cladding; (2) neutron activation of boron in the burnable poison rods and subsequent tritium diffusion through the stainless steel cladding; and (3) neutron activation of boron, deuterium and 6Li in the reactor coolant ... http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9263&page=113

[rhett o rick]

40. My response in the message.

You said: “I merely pointed out that "it's cleaner than your drinking water" is an off-the-shelf nuclear industry talking point, which reliably appears in a variety of contexts. “ What does that sentence even mean? Do you agree or disagree that the nuclear industry uses water that is higher quality than tap water? And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You said: “The leak under discussion involves a shut-down coolant system, not steam generation -- and I pointed out clearly in my prior post that the major concern here should be the degradation of an important reactor safety system. “ The leak under discussion involves an emergency back-up system. If that is what you are saying, then I agree. The important question here is, does the leak compromise the safety of the reactor. One engineer is quoted as saying that it might. Not a very complete survey. Also important is whether that system is the only back-up cooling system. The mere fact that there is a leak in a backup system doesn’t by itself mean much.

You said: “Third, you are simply wrong about radioactivity in the released waters: the operator admits that the leaking water contained measurable tritium.” Help me out here, is tritium a major environment concern? I hadn’t heard that it was but would yield to links showing otherwise.

You said: “One should also note that radioactive contamination of ground waters, from unknown leaks, has been a continuing issue at Indian Point, which is relevant to questions about uninspected buried piping”. What type of radioactive contamination are you talking about here? Tritium again? I believe that there might be problems with contamination in the ground but more likely from waste product storage than reactor operation.

You said: “The study of tritium in PWRs is important because tritium’s long half-life (12.3 years) .....” Once again, how significant is tritium as a contaminant? A half life of 12.5 years is short compared to some radioactive compounds having half lifes of 80 million years. Now that’s a significant problem.

I am not a fan of privately owned nuclear power plants, but don't like the usual rhetoric.

[struggle4progress]

42. When I say "cleaner than tap water" is "an off-the-shelf talking point" what I mean, very simply,

is that industry PR-flacks babble such nonsense regularly, without much justification. If you want to drink the crud that flows around through reactor pipes, I suppose I couldn't stop you -- but in my view nobody in their right mind will take seriously the claim that what's flowing in the pipes is potable

You claimed the coolant water "does not pass thru the reactor and is not radioactive." I provided you a link pointing out that such loop water does contain activation products, including tritium; and if you search a bit, you can easily find statements from the operator of Indian Point indicating that it does in fact contain tritium. So your claim was simply crap. The hazard associated with T-3, of course, depends on the nature of the exposure: I'm not terribly worried about strolling by a small puddle that contains a few thousandpCi/l; I'm rather less sanguine about inhalation or ingestion

You can also find links indicating that the groundwaters around Indian Point are contaminated with a variety of radioisotopes, including T-3 and Sr-90. The facility not only has had a leaking fuel pool, it also has buried pipes that haven't been inspected for decades. Some of the piping in question is apparently related to the coolant system. Such leaks ought to raise concern about the continuing degradation of the facility

Short half-life, by the way, is not necessarily synonymous with low hazard

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. Lovely to know... I live 15 min away from there by car..........

[dysfunctional press]

25. "Why does this image keep going through my head?"

hmmm...maybe because the scare tactics against nuclear energy have worked on you? :shrug:

seeing as you seem to be equating nuclear energy with nuclear weapons, and all.

[konnichi wa]

31. It's still the safest way to make large amounts of electric power outside hydroelectric

which has a bothersome disadvantage of having to be built on a large river which must be dammed, causing enormous ecological damage. There will be a day, probably not very far in the future when the demands for power will outstrip the limited amounts that can be produced from solar and wind, and will overcome the irrational fear of reactors that's dominated the discussion for the last 40 years.

[diane in sf]

34. Wind and conservation are the safest and cheapest. There is enough wind power on the

plains and coasts to overcome the intermittency problem.

[konnichi wa]

36. As I said, demands (people who aren't interested in conservation)

will require other significant production methods. Wind is nice but it's completely undependable.