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.


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…

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…

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…

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

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…