Not sure the question. Actually after looking at (my) reply I am not
sure about the answer either (g). Anyway, my point was supposed to be
that the problem with by-products falling into "bad" hands is less of an
issue at the US level because we have more ability to control our own
stuff. To the extent that this is a problem, isn't one for US plants.
Did that clear up the confusion? Or add to it?
Actually the more disconcerting concern in this area is
radioactive medical and industrial waste. Not all that well controlled
even in the US. Dirty bombs are much more likely than real nukes since
all you need is a bottle of medicine and a stick of dynamite. Get less
damage but about the same terror bang for the buck.
At The Yankee Nuke Facility in Haddam Connecticut, they had a big
problem with employees taking home unused construction materials that
were CONTAMINATED. It all had to be tracked down and recovered at huge
expense. The public paid that expense. Some of the materials have
never been found and are presumed to be part of various private homes.
Hopefully when your kids buy one of those homes, the contaminated
materials are not in the part of the home where your precious
Then again, it may not be safe anywhere in the home.
On Apr 30, 9:10 am, email@example.com wrote:
I'm having a hard time imagining how construction material from a
plant being built would be contaminated with anything radioactive.
The only part radioactive at all is the fuel rods which go in at the
very end of the construction process. And those are steel rods
with slightly enriched uranium inside, so there is nothing to cross
contaminate anything. Until the plant is actually started up, the
only way I could see any radioactive material leaving the site would
be for a worker to actually take a fuel rod.
The above story obviously has some major problems with it -- if there
were such amounts of material as this suggests leaving the site
contaminated, it would not be difficult to track the construction
workers to their residences and detect same.
There have been some instances where sources from such items as NDT
machines have been mishandled and either lost, stolen or simply carried
off as souvenirs, but that is quite a different scenario than the one
I haven't bothered to try to track down what might have been the initial
incident, if any, but I'm quite sure the story told here isn't much
related to whatever happened, if anything.
It would be impossible to take a single fuel rod from a commercial
reactor anyway--the individual fuel rods are bound into fuel assemblies
that weigh in the ballpark of 1000-lb each and are some 12-ft long.
Unirradiated U is an alpha emitter, anyway, so the cladding (which is
typically a Zircaloy alloy, not steel; iron is a neutron "poison" so is
avoided as much as possible for fuel components) will prevent virtually
all from being a hazard anyway.
Well, the story is true, and the materials taken were radioactive.
This plant was in use for a LONG time, and over the years, I would
think there were changes and modifications made in the normal course
of maintaning the facility. Parts of reactors and cooling systems get
rebuilt occasionally don't they?
They have never been able to account for all that is missing. Some of
the materials taken by workers may have been given or sold to others.
It may not be known exactly who even took the stuff, as no arrests
were made that I am aware of. Might have even been temporary employees
of a sub contractor who took the stuff to use on moonlighting jobs. I
don't know. I do know that the material was discovered misiing and
very little was recoverd after an investigation. It's still
Oh, yeah... Their spent fuel inventory is not exactly problem free
either. The company line is that it's a simple clerical error.
It gives me great comfort to know that a simple mistake by a bookeeper
could mean control and security is really not that tight, or a high
I can assure you it's a priority -- whether there was an error or not I
can't say. I'm quite comfortable there's not a fuel bundle accounting
anomaly the NRC hasn't required to be resolved fully.
As for the contaminated construction materials, again I'd have to look
at the incident reports and so on to comment more fully.
It's highly unlikely there was anything more than low-level
contamination at most I expect or the materials would have been in areas
of the plant that would have required passing radiation monitors before
I'd read accounts if you have them...
My knowlege of it is from local newspaper coverage from quite a few
years ago. This isn't a recent story. It somehow never made national
news. There was the initial front page reporting of the missing
materials, and then just a couple of follow ups inside the papers
reporting that only some of the materials were located and recovered.
I would suspect what it was may not have actually even been
contaminated, necessarily. Construction aterial that has been used in a
contaminated portion of the plant during an outage (scaffolding,
construction material, etc., etc.) is removed to an area that is still
within a confined area. If it is subsequently to be taken off-site, it
will then be verified to be "clean" and released or (if valuable enough)
decontaminated before moved to nonrestricted (radiological) areas. That
it could have been transported offsite w/o setting off alarms and
security indicates that it would have not been highly contaminated, if
contaminated at all. So, I'd caution between making an assumption that
the material was actually hazardous; only that it hadn't been officially
declared not so.
it appears that is exactly what you are doing.
you made an opinion without having ANY data on this,solely based on
even with Love Canal and other toxic waste sites,there were indicators
something was wrong.You don't have any of that.
Well, let's have some of them, then. I posted links to the wind
generation statistics--I make every effort to not make this stuff up.
I don't doubt you're quoting as you recall what was written, but we
don't have the luxury of having read those reports.
It was quite some time ago, and predates the era where virtually all
newspapers had an online presence. You can take or leave it as you
wish. I'm sure it makes you feel better to be able to pretend it
didn't happen because I can't produce the 20 year old (just a wild
I didn't say _something_ didn't happen and (as I noted) I know of
particular ways in which similar things _have_ happened.
I was actively in the nuclear business at roughly that time frame and
not all that far away geographically (VA) and interacting w/ the NRC
regularly and do not recall an instance at Haddam making any significant
news in the nuclear community. It certainly wasn't significant enough
to have caused the NRC to issue any changes in general plant directives;
that I would remember if it had affected our operations.
I am simply saying that without some way to verify what the actual facts
of the incident you recall were, there's no way to know what really did
happen. Consequently, in my mind it is simply an attempt to sow FUD.
On May 1, 1:48 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
They are online, as is any verifyable stuff and unverifyable crap,
which is there forever, online to ruin you. If you Cant Find it, it
never was there, or you dont know how to look, but how can that be
with Google. Because it aint there.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.