Skip to main content

New Report Falsely Claims Nuclear Plants Leaking Radioactive Materials Into Ground Water Supplies

Sound the alarm bells—a new report by Environment America and U.S. PIRG wrongly claims that nuclear plants pose a threat to ground water supplies in the United States. The report, “Too Close to Home: Nuclear Power and the Threat to Drinking Water,” states:
With 49 million Americans drawing their drinking water from areas within 50 miles of nuclear power plants—and with three-quarters of all U.S. nuclear power plants already leaking radioactivity into groundwater supplies—it is time for the U.S. to move toward cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives for our energy needs.
It comes as no surprise that four authors without environmental monitoring backgrounds are pushing their own agenda—to shut down all U.S. nuclear plants—and distorting the facts about the industry’s ground water protection initiatives to support their case.

Let’s review the facts:

First, the nuclear industry considers any unintended release of radioactive materials to be unacceptable. Period. This is why the industry has programs in place to monitor ground water and underground piping at all U.S. plant sites. It is also why every company operating an U.S. nuclear plant informs local, state and federal authorities of an unintended release, even if it is below the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s threshold for reporting.

The industry’s voluntary ground water protection and underground piping programs enhance the capabilities for early detection of tritium in ground water, and complement the redundant, protective measures set forth by the NRC. They also ensure that licensees are taking appropriate actions to stop the release and to make stakeholders aware of unintended releases at levels well below those deemed safe by federal authorities for public health and the environment. In the rare instances when higher-than-expected levels of tritium have been detected at nuclear plant sites, it has been these dual industry environmental monitoring and protection programs which have brought them to light. After careful review and examination of these instances, the NRC independently verified that the public has never been in danger:
The NRC recently identified several instances of unintended tritium releases, and all available information shows no threat to the public.
The industry’s extensive environmental monitoring programs have proven very effective. In the U.S. nuclear industry’s 3,500 combined reactor-years of operation, there is no scientific evidence that any member of the general public has ever been harmed by a radiation release from a U.S. nuclear energy facility, including tritium.

Second, there has not been an increase in harmful levels of tritium reaching drinking water supplies from nuclear plants. The report claims that an Associated Press investigation has found a greater number of tritium leaks in the last decade, stating:
Tritium leaks have occurred with great regularity at U.S. nuclear plants. An investigation by the Associated Press found that leaks have occurred at 75 percent of U.S. plants, and that a great number of them have taken place in the past five years. On at least three occasions, tritium leaks from nuclear plants have contaminated nearby well water.
As you may recall, we responded to the shoddy AP series last summer to correct a number of factual errors and misleading reporting in their news coverage. In particular, on the topic of tritium leaks into ground water, NEI had this to say:
There has been no known adverse impact on public health or safety from a tritium release at commercial nuclear power plants. As the AP acknowledges, no tritium is known to have reached public water supplies.
No drinking water supply has exceeded the allowable limit set by the EPA for tritium in the Safe Drinking Water Act. AP reporter Jeff Donn acknowledged this fact in a June 24 interview on “Democracy Now!” when he said, “The main danger from tritium, the main health danger, is if you were to drink it. The EPA sets a limit on how much can be in drinking water. None of the leaks have entered drinking water in amounts that would violate the EPA limits so far.”
The Environment America-U.S. PIRG report also claims that older nuclear plants are more likely to have ground water problems, another claim that simply is not true. The report states:
As plants have aged, the risk of tritium leaks has risen, since aging equipment has had more time to develop leaks and weaknesses.
However, in our same fact sheet that corrects the AP’s inaccurate news coverage, we also pointed out that older nuclear reactors are still subject to the same NRC requirements regardless of their age or condition.
U.S. nuclear power plants are subject to a rigorous program of NRC oversight, inspection, preventive and corrective maintenance, equipment replacement, and extensive equipment testing. These programs ensure nuclear plant equipment continues to meet safety standards, no matter how long the plant has been operating.
Despite Environment America and U.S. PIRG’s best efforts to scare the American public into thinking all U.S. nuclear plants are leaking radioactive materials into ground water supplies, they need to let the facts speak for themselves and not cite sources, like the AP, which have already been debunked.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I really have to wonder why these bums are going after the absolutely miniscule releases from nuclear plants when there is so much other low-hanging fruit for them to go after. The chemical industry for example (Love Canal). Petrochemical plants? Just take a trip up the Houston Ship Channel, or the NJ Turnpike between Exits 12 and 15E-W. In my town alone there is an abandoned coatings plant and roller bearing plant, releasing who knows what into the groundwater. The city can't give those sites away because of the lack of history on environmental effects. Just 40 miles south of me there are abandoned steel mills and coke ovens leeching all sorts of effluents into the environment. Why is PIRG wasting its time on attogram quantities of materioals released from nuclear plants, when the whole world is being poisoned by these other industries?
jimwg said…
One way to curb this hit-and-run bogus misinformation crap is to permit industries or individuals to issue slander and defamation lawsuits when no solid research or proof is offered - and I mean _severe_ penalties, like for trying to incite a public panic. You can't make jokes or teases about bombs in planes without being hauled off. Same goes here.

James Greenidge
Rod Adams said…
@Anonymous:

The difference is that there is a well established, well funded, reasonably well organized movement that focuses on doing all it can to eliminate nuclear facilities that produce useful energy.

At least part of the explanation for the frequently successful efforts to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt about nuclear energy is the fact that nuclear plants effectively displace profitable fossil fuel sales.

Industry people often point to the fact that replacement power for a single shutdown nuclear plant can cost $1-2 million per day depending on natural gas prices. They forget to look at that situation from the other side of the accounting leger - that cost is revenue to the people selling the natural gas.
Anonymous said…
James,

The federal government established a law (SLAP, SLAPP or something like that) specifically to outlaw what you suggest.

Don Kosloff
jimwg said…
"The federal government established a law (SLAP, SLAPP or something like that) specifically to outlaw what you suggest.
Don Kosloff"

Please point out where as my nuke bloggers seem unaware of such. Even so, were it so, one must really wonder why the gov't would discourage presenting the truth...

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Anonymous said…
James,

Sorry, the information that I provided about anti-SLAPP laws was inaccurate. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Anti-SLAPP laws are state laws. There is no federal anti-SLAPP law. There is an anti-SLAPP law in New York. I found several discussion of the New York anti-SLAPP law by doing an internet search on SLAPP NEW YORK.

Don Kosloff
Anonymous said…
"One way to curb this hit-and-run bogus misinformation crap is to permit industries or individuals to issue slander and defamation lawsuits when no solid research or proof is offered - and I mean _severe_ penalties, like for trying to incite a public panic."

This would require repeal of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Probably difficult to get that passed.

In the US, one is not required to provide proof acceptable to a panel of judges in order to be granted permission to exercise their speech rights.

The answer to false speech is more speech. If they're so stupid, just refute them, rather than complaining that you wish you could sue them.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…