OT: Nuclear Energy

Page 6 of 7  


I too remember a long time ago, of off site contamination.
fact is a old babcock wilcox plant in vandergrift area had to be decontaminated and the entire area was checked because some materials were taken and used for building projects. hot spots all up and down strreets.
strictly speaking it wasnt a nuke plant but was invloved in processing nuclear materials...... perhaps that caused the confusion?
a westinghouse plant near new stanton had similiar issues.. forget name of plant? it was closed a long time but is again being used. i drove by there recently.
off site contamination has always been a issue..........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

This thread suggests that the character of those hired to work on reactors is a bit less than desirable. I've not read of contamination from stolen items being a problem around military weapons facilities. DoE might benefit from instruction by DoD on how to screen employees, and implement security practices.
Boden
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

military has theft problems too. recently some navy guys tried selling alunimum, as scrap. except it was titanium.
too traceable the guys were arrested when they brought in the scrap. although this wasnt nuke related
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Boden wrote: ...

DOE doesn't have anything (directly) to do w/ _commercial_ nuclear power -- that's the NRC's province.
DOE handles the defense weapons material/research sites (Hanford, Oak Ridge, Savannah River, etc., ...)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This doesn't talk about the missing materials at Yankee, but it's pretty interesting reading!
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/hadverge.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote: ...

I'd have to go look at the NRC incident reports but I'll note the incident itself was 12 years ago, now.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The CT Yankee was shut down 11 years before it was scheduled to shut down, after a history of safety problems, both minor and major, including the final straw when it was discovered that the backup cooling system was totally useless and they came within 52 minutes of boiling off the water. They determined that the safety system was defective from day one and had been useless for all of it's 28 years. They knew it, and had been lying to cover it up all that time. After the decommisioning, they continue to have safety problems, including finding a leaking containment wall a couple of years ago. I think it was leaking into the Connecticut River.
The ratepayers took a major radioactive bath paying for all this malfeasense and stupidity. The State sued them over it and got a judgement.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

...
Their initial operational license was issue in '66 or '67 iirc, and they shut down in '96 (?). That would be right at original 40-yr design life by my calculations (I'm only a NucE, so arithmetic can be hard. :) ). I don't know their situation well enough to know what they had earlier intended if anything re: filing for extended operating license.
I'd have to read in more depth to know whether the motives you impugn behind actions are or are not reflective of actual facts. The utility certainly did not design the system--I would have to research far than I care to where the shortcoming(s) would actually fall (that is, the reactor vendor or the A/E. I don't know ottomh whether C-Y was a turnkey unit or not). I don't dispute something apparently went wrong but I do tend to doubt seriously motives that are ascribed by outsiders, particularly those who appear to have an agenda.
Another side to the financial aspects... http://preview.tinyurl.com/572fqp
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just google "Haddam Neck" "Yankee" and do your own homework.
There is an old saying about leading a horse to water. YOu are looking more and more like at least some part of a horse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

I looked at the NRC docket at a fair extent already, thanks.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote: ...

Absolutely no question they have training even before they can step on site even if they're simply "casual labor". The extent of access to the site and level of training will be dependent on their job responsibilities.
OTOH, crooks are a fact of life and even cleared people w/ DOE Q or DOD Top Secret clearances have been known to do naughty things so even that is no guarantee if malfeasance is an intent...
I did a search at the NRC Docket and found nothing on this incident. Doesn't say it didn't happen, only at least the search terms I used didn't uncover it.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

It's interesting to note that far more of the security problems are attrbutable to government employees, not contractors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Boden wrote: ...

I don't know about that -- 20+ years w/ DOE Q in Oak Ridge worked most all other DOE facilities at least some (other than Rocky Flats--wouldn't go to Rocky Flats; even _I_ have my limits :) ). Of the incidents I recall over that time, I venture they were about proportional to the ratio of employees vis a vis contractors--that is, I don't think the population of "crooks" was much different between the two classes of employees from my observations. Some of the headline cases from NM and CA were, but those kinds of cases are the rarity as well in the humdrum.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

In addition, I'll note the scenario outlined above has happened in other locations I'm aware. However, in those where there was actually any contamination released offsite, in each that I'm aware of testing of employees' clothing uncovered traces left by their handling the material.
I can certainly imagine the local press made every effort to make the incident seem as bad as they possibly could which undoubtedly would reinforce the opinion that something really, really bad happened when in all likelihood it didn't.
That such incidents are to be avoided w/ all reasonable precautions is, of course, true. I don't know of one within the last 15 years or so which tends to indicate current procedures are adequate. The last sizable case I know of happened in Oak Ridge during demolition/decommissioning of the old gaseous diffusion barrier buildings from the era of the Manhattan project.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote in

yeah,but HOW MUCH,what sort of emitter,and what was the half-life? chances are it was low-level stuff and no serious threat to anyone. Nobody has shown up with radiation poisoning.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We don't know that, and it's besides the point. There may very well be a family whose kids all have lukemia, with no other family history.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote in wrote:

so,you're basing your opinion without having any data,just irrational fears. "may be,might happen....."
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I might have done that, but you appeared to have that market cornered, so I had to fall back on the truth..
HAND
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net writes:

...
Not sure where this part of the thread started or what the point was but after a plant operates for a while the entire plant becomes radioactive.
The rods emit neutrons which are mostly absorbed by the sheilding but some do escape. Anything that absorbs a neutron becomes unstable (from the extra neutrons) and is radioactive.
There's little contamination in the sense of material spreading around the building but the reactor and it's sheilding do become radioactive.
That's where the reprocessing comes in. All that stuff can be separated by material type. The radioactive bits of the concrete or lead or whatever can be separated out and isolated.
Instead of tons of radioactive material that lasts for 1000s of years you have a little of the dangerous stuff and a lot of stuff that's very safe or has a short half life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan Espen wrote: ...

That depends on what you mean by "entire"...

There are essentially no neutrons "escaping" outside containment--they're absorbed by something long before.

Contamination that is "spreadable" is mostly carried by the cooling water and other processes and is, for the most part, gamma radiation that is the major issue. There are a few alpha and beta emitters, but both being charged particles (especially alphas) are so easily shielded as to be of much less practical problems.

Reprocessing is only really practical for the spent fuel. Contaminated portions of reactor internals, etc., are not really viable candidates but they're also generally not the long-lived isotopes that are contained in fission products nor nearly as "hot" so as to not pose a major health hazard (that is, the amount of shielding is fairly minimal, they don't create enough heat to pose a thermal cooling problem, etc., etc., ...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.