NRC Spokesman Says No Danger to Public From San Onofre Shutdown

We're seeing plenty of activity around the news coming out of San Onfre Nuclear Generating Station, and I think the most important piece of information I've seen thus far has come from Victor Dricks, a spokesman for the NRC.

The following is excerpted from a story that appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Small traces of radioactive gas from a leak at the San Onofre nuclear plant may have reached the atmosphere, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday.

A reactor at the nuclear plant 45 miles north of San Diego was shut down on Tuesday when evidence emerged of a leak in a radioactive steam pipe in the plant's recently replaced generator.

Air extractors apparently carried small traces of radioactive gas from the generator area to an unsealed auxiliary building outside the reactor dome, setting off radiation alarms, said NRC spokesman Victor Dricks. The leak and possible escape of gas poses no danger, he said.

"If there was any radiation that escaped from the auxiliary building it would not pose any danger to the workers on site or to the public's health and safety," Dricks said. "It would have been a small fraction of the natural background radiation."

More later if events warrant.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Was the gas Tritium? I'm curious, since that's what happened at Byron, IL earlier this week, about 60 miles to my west. Does the Tritium really migrate through the metal tube walls?

February 1, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog