7 Great Lakes States' U.S. Senators object to radioactive steam generator shipment from Canada to Sw

[bananas]

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2010/10/1/7-great-lakes-states-us-senators-object-to-radioactive-steam.html

7 Great Lakes States' U.S. Senators object to radioactive steam generator shipment from Canada to Sweden

Seven U.S. Senators from Great Lakes States -- Russell Feingold (D-WI), Robert Casey Jr. (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Carl Levin (D-MI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Richard Durbin (D-IL, Assistant Senate Majority Leader), and Charles Schumer (D-NY) -- have written to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the Canadian federal government, expressing serious concerns about a proposed shipment of 16 radioactive steam generators from Bruce Nuclear Power Plant in Ontario to Sweden for "recycling" into consumer products. The shipment, on board a single ship, would violate International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) limits for the quantity of radioactivity aboard a single vessel. The shipment would travel via Lake Huron to Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and connecting rivers (St. Clair, Detroit, Buffalo, and St. Lawrence), and then across the Atlantic Ocean (see route map). Shockingly, Bruce Power's CEO, Duncan Hawthorne, has stated that there is no emergency plan for dealing with the sinking of the ship, stating there would be plenty of time to determine what to do once the ship sank. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, as well as the US DOT PHMSA, must approve permits for the shipment before it can commence. PHMSA has recently been the subject of severe criticism for oil pipeline leak and natural gas pipeline explosion disasters, as well as for the close ties between its leadership and companies involved in these disasters. Beyond Nuclear, along with a coalition of environmental groups, has called upon PHMSA to conduct a full environmental analysis on the proposed shipment, in order to fulfill its National Environmental Policy Act federal legal obligations, before permitting the shipment to enter U.S. territorial waters on the Great Lakes -- 20% of the world's surface fresh water, drinking supply for 40 million in the U.S., Canada, and numerous Native American/First Nations, and regional engine for one of the biggest economies on the planet.

Date October 1, 2010

I applaud our Democratic leaders for taking this stand.
:applause:

[polly7]

1. I applaud it by all involved objecting to it, it seems way too dangerous to ship such a large amount

at once. If they can figure out a safer way to get it there, being able to break down 90% of the metals would seem a good thing.


About 80 groups from Canada, the United States and Sweden are testifying at a hearing to debate Bruce Power's plans to ship 1,600 tonnes of radioactive waste through Canadian waterways.

"This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg, because once they ship these 16 steam generators, they're going to be shipping more and more and more radioactive waste," Gordon Edwards, president of the Montreal based Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, told a news conference yesterday.

Edwards said the route would set a "dangerous" North American precedent, as it would be the first time a shipment of this size would travel on the Great Lakes. The generators would then move through the St. Lawrence Seaway and across the Atlantic Ocean.



Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays-paper/Critics+attack+plan+ship+radioactive+waste/3595022/story.html#ixzz11N2t3Quf

[DrGregory]

9. But it is NOT a large amount. - it's 1/50th of a gram

it seems way too dangerous to ship such a large amount
===========================================================

It's a large amount of non-radioactive metal.

However, bananas already gave me the amount of radioactivity;
and I calculated that it is due to 1/50-th of a gram of Cobalt-60.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=258185&mesg_id=258963

Dr. Greg

[caraher]

12. The gram is a silly unit to use

A more suitable measure would be ~1 TBq, or about 20 curies (estimated based on numbers in the Wikipedia article on Co-60). At 1 m from a 20 curie point source of Co-60 the dose rate would be something like 30 rem/hour. Of course, these things are not point sources, but in a way that only makes it worse; flux drops off with distance faster from a point source than any other distribution.

[DrGregory]

14. You need to brush up on your transport theory.

flux drops off with distance faster from a point source than any other distribution.
==================================

Yes - the flux drops off fastest from a point source.
What you are neglecting is that if you have a point source;
then you have MAXIMALLY CONCENTRATED the radioactivity.
That MORE than makes up for the flux drop off rate.

The point here is that we are dealing with a VERY SMALL
amount of surface contamination that wasn't fully cleaned off.

The contamination is distributed over the surface of the SG
pressure tubes.

The number is NOT 1 TBq; I quoted "bananas" at the top of my
post - the number is 0.65 TBq.

However, most people don't have a good intuitive feel for how
much or more to the point how LITTLE a TBq is.

So I calculated the amount of Co-60 in grams for them to show
the size of the "problem" in units they are familiar with.

Dr. Greg

[caraher]

16. So we're fussing over a factor of two?

To the precision of my estimate - 1 sig fig - 0.65 TBq = 1 TBq. I didn't notice in writing this post that bananas had 0.65 Bq. Scale everything accordingly... it doesn't affect the main point.

Talking about a point source was just another way of putting the amount in context - because it's easy to calculate a dose rate. I know that's not what it would be for the distributed source in this case, and I'm certainly well-aware of the effects of differences in geometry. When I worked in PET we encased our plastic O-15 delivery lines in copper for this sort of reason - the positrons were energetic enough that many of them escaped the tubing without annihilating, but not copper tubing, so by jacketing the tubing where it ran across the radiochemistry lab we'd turn what was effectively a volume source into a line source, limiting exposure to people working in the room.

It's ironic that you tout 1/50 of a gram as a way to "show the size of the "problem" in units they are familiar with" yet decry (in some cases rightly) the scientific ignorance of those who disagree with you. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use appropriate units and then relate the dose to an everyday radiation exposure? Wouldn't that advance scientific literacy, to those willing to listen?

I'm sorry, but talking about this in fractional grams of Co-60 is not much more sensible than the other extreme of characterizing large quantities of low-level waste as "tons" of radioactively contaminated material.

[bananas]

19. No, DrGregory is wrong as usual, he misquoted me and got his numbers wrong. nt

[bananas]

22. No, it's more like two orders of magnitude.

I never said the total radioactivity was 0.65 TBq, it's much higher than that.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

30. No, I quoted an article which mentioned two isotopes

I was simply pointing out to OnlinePoker that tritium was not the only source of contamination.

[DrGregory]

32. Whatever the "story du jour" is...

I never said the total radioactivity was 0.65 TBq, it's much higher than that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well whatever level you claim; it can't be too high since people
can stand right next to the steam generators without shielding and
without protective gear:

http://depletedcranium.com/controversy-invented-over-bruce-power-steam-generators/

We can see in the pictures above the unloading of the new steam generators
( colored white and green in photo ) as well as the old steam generator on
a red truck trailer. The driver or workman is standing right next to the
old steam generator and doesn't require any form of shielding or protection.

From the following article, courtesy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation;

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/09/27/bruce-power-nuclear-waste-great-lakes-cnsc.html

which reports each generator contains a mere 4 grams of radioactive material.

Additionally, at the hearings, the engineering staff of the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission reported the operation to be safe. Courtesy of the Detroit News:

http://detnews.com/article/20100911/METRO/9110372/Nuclear-waste-shipping-on-Lakes-protested

"Commission engineers deemed the plan safe and recommended it be approved, said Gervais.

"CNSC staff conclude that this application is very low risk due to the negligible radiological impact,"
according to a 28-page report prepared by the staff last month."

Read the words of engineers of Canada's Nuclear Safety Commission:

"VERY LOW RISK" and "NEGLIGIBLE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT"

In essence; we have LESS radioactive material than one would find in hospital
radiotherapy machine; which are routinely delivered to hospitals using the
normal highways. However, this material is well shielded and well protected
inside a school bus sized steam generator that one can stand next to without
shielding or protective gear.

Let's just see what the Canadian Nuclear Safety board rules. Canada and the
USA have very good nuclear safety regulators.

We shall soon see this is all much ado about nothing.

Dr. Greg

[polly7]

18. Thanks.

I know very little of the science of radiology. It will be interesting to hear all the arguments for and against this.

[bananas]

21. DrGregory has his numbers wrong.

He's made numerous mistakes in his posts, this is just another example.

[DrGregory]

25. BALONEY!!

He's made numerous mistakes in his posts, this is just another example.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

OK - it's time for you to put up or SHUT UP.

The entire derivation is there. If there is a mistake - POINT TO IT!!

Of course, you dare not - because if you do; I'll PROVE mathematically
that you don't know what you are talking about.

So you slither away with a remark about "he's made mistakes."

For your information, I have NOT made any mistakes. There are things
you "think" ( term used loosely ) are mistakes - but we all know what
good your expertise in science and math is. So I would hardly call
that a "proof".

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

31. So you're asking for a list of mistakes you've made - good!

I'll start compiling a list.

DrGregory (288 posts) Tue Oct-05-10 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #21

25. BALONEY!!

Edited on Tue Oct-05-10 10:23 PM by DrGregory

He's made numerous mistakes in his posts, this is just another example.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

OK - it's time for you to put up or SHUT UP.

The entire derivation is there. If there is a mistake - POINT TO IT!!

Of course, you dare not - because if you do; I'll PROVE mathematically
that you don't know what you are talking about.

So you slither away with a remark about "he's made mistakes."

For your information, I have NOT made any mistakes. There are things
you "think" ( term used loosely ) are mistakes - but we all know what
good your expertise in science and math is. So I would hardly call
that a "proof".

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

28. I found some interesting links

I know very little of the science of radiology. It will be interesting to hear all the arguments for and against this.
===========================================

Here's someone that has the right take:

http://depletedcranium.com/controversy-invented-over-bruce-power-steam-generators/

QUOTING:

"After being in operation for so long, you can still stand right next to one of these steam generators. There’s no need for remote handling, shielding or any other major precautions. The level of radiation is considerably lower than many natural materials. By most national laws, they are still classified as radioactive by regulatory agencies, but only at the lowest level."

UNQUOTE

"The level of radiation is considerably lower than many natural materials" Well that is
certainly consistent with what I have calculated based on the numbers ACCURATELY quoted.

Look at the pictures at right in the above. We see the new steam generators;
the white and green ones; being unloaded. We also see the old steam generators
sitting on the red flatbed trailer.

Look at the truck driver. He's standing right next to the old steam generator.

Does the driver have on a haz-mat suit? Does the driver have on a radiation suit?

The truck driver is standing a few feet from the steam generator that is "supposed"
to be deadly radioactive; and he's just wearing his orange safety vest.

BTW - the color orange does NOT protect you from radiation.

I just had to say that - you never know what the uneducated / unable to learn /
unwilling to learn contingent on this forum believes these days.

The uneducated / unable to learn / unwilling to learn believe that radioactivity
is "contagious" - a stable isotope can turn into a radioactive isotope merely
by being exposed or in the presence of some radioactive material.

If one is gullible enough to believe that - then they are gullible enough to
believe anything - including that the color orange protects against radiation.

So I thought I would spell it out for the less intellectually gifted.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

20. No, you're misquoting me, your numbers are way the fuck off. nt

[DrGregory]

27. Here's the quote

Here's your post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=258185&mesg_id=258387


"The estimations of the radiation exposure to the operators were based on measurements. Co-
60 was in the range of 0.65 TBq. For the long-lived isotopes, Ni-63 was the dominant in the
range of 16 TBq."

-----------------------------------------------------------

First let's deal with the Ni-63. From the chart of the nuclides at
Brookhaven National Lab:

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/

Type "Ni-63" in the box under "Nucleus"

We see Ni-63 is a 100% BETA emitter - it emits electrons.
Those electrons are stopped easily - aluminum foil will do it.
That's not a big radiological concern.

The Co-60 on the other hand is a GAMMA emitter. So there "could"
be a problem if we have enough of the stuff. As per your post;
you said the radioactivity of the Co-60 was 0.65 TBq. Bq is a
unit of radioactivity.

So I did the calculation - with all steps spelled out - that
shows from your figures we can derive the amount of Co-60 to
be 1/50-th of a gram. Only the amount 1/50-th of a gram will
give you 0.65 TBq of Co-60 radioactivity.

So how am I misquoting you?

NO - the whole "problem" is that you post stuff you don't understand.

Since you don't understand it - you post what you "think" is "dangerous"
or "a lot". Then when I prove that what you "thought" ( term used loosely )
was some big problem; and show it to be minor - then you have to back-pedal.

You have to back-pedal so fast that the Earth loses angular momentum.

I see it ALL the time; it's the typical anti-nuke behavior.

Dr. Greg

[HereSince1628]

2. We wouldn't want that on the bottom of a great lake, but

molding it into consumer products would be OK.

I know, I know, the solution to pollution is dilution it just makes me uneasy.

[DrGregory]

11. Try to find something that is NOT radioactive...

I know, I know, the solution to pollution is dilution it just makes me uneasy.
============================================================

Why does it make you uneasy? Try to find something that is NOT radioactive.

The only "indigenous" elements to the Universe - the ones that were created
as a result of the Big Bang are Hydrogen and Helium.

EVERYTHING ELSE came from nuclear fusion in a STAR!! Everything that is
not Hydrogen and Helium is nuclear waste from a star. The star went nova;
and spewed the waste products out into the Universe to become the Earth
and everything on it.

Remember also - YOU are radioactive.

Grow up and get used to it.

Dr. Greg

[Kolesar]

3. Lake Erie is shallow. This cargo could be easily retrieved if it took a swim

(1) It is a steam generator, so it is not as "hot" as a pressure vessel
(2) Barging seems like a cost efficient way of recycling the metal and recapturing the imbedded energy that was used to create the steel.

It's invasive species, nitrates from manure, and Davis-Besse that concern me for "the Lake"

[One_Life_To_Give]

4. Methyl Bromide OK, but an old turbine ??

And just how many shipments with atleast ten times the risk are transported without comment from our politicians? This shipment isn't being flagged because of the statistical engineering risk of environmental damage and death. But on public perception of a perceived risk being far higher than than that which we commonly accept without a comment or word in the press. Just how do we think those cans of Wasp and Hornet Killer came to be manufactured, and distributed to every hardware and big box retailer across the country?

[kristopher]

5. You seem to be an advocate for allowing the nuclear industry to ignore environmental laws.

That is the fundamental issue - the shipment is in violation of existing legal restrictions on shipping nuclear materials.

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Hardly

I am simply pointing out that an an equivalent probability of XXX deaths being caused from a shipment. That what is being proposed here is lower than risks for which the press and politicians make little or no comment about. Or maybe we are just comfortable in our ignorance of the thousands of tons of deadly chemicals used to manufacture common everyday items.

[kristopher]

7. Chemical are a problem, but that isn't relevant to the issue at hand - it is a red herring.

The issue is whether the industrial interests behind nuclear power can ignore the laws established to ensure the safety of the public for the sake of expediency or enhanced profits. It is extremely difficult to see your argument as anything other than an endorsement for turning a blind eye towards such corporate behavior.

Glad to hear that isn't the case, but perhaps you might reconsider your message.

[DrGregory]

8. WRONG AGAIN!!

That is the fundamental issue - the shipment is in violation of existing legal restrictions on shipping nuclear materials.
==============================================

There's nothing illegal about shipping nuclear / radioactive materials!!!

You do need to have the proper permits from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The NRC decides if this goes forward - not Senators. They can rewrite the
law next year ( sigh ) - but under current law - it's the NRC's call.

After all, we ship nuclear weapons, old reactors, nuclear medical waste....

Besides, isn't this the same story where you gave me the amount of radioactivity
and I calculated for you that it was due to 1/50-th of a gram of Cobalt-60?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=258185&mesg_id=258963

Gee if only the Senators realized this was all about 1/50-th of a gram of Co-60!!

Boy would they be EMBARRASSED!!!

Much ado about nothing.

Dr. Greg

[caraher]

13. Learn to read

Nobody said shipping radioactive materials is illegal. What was said is that the planned shipment violates existing legal restrictions, which is not quite accurate either (what it violates according to the article is guidelines set forth by the IAEA; its not obvious that this violates any statute).

I've purchased radioactive sources, and what's kosher is all about quantities, packaging and paperwork. If there are regulations on this kind of shipment - and it appears there are - they should be followed, period. I'm personally not worried by this proposed shipment and agree the risk is minimal; but that doesn't mean it should be rubber-stamped, especially if it really does violate established guidelines for shipping radioactive materials.

[DrGregory]

15. Learn to read your own writing

Nobody said shipping radioactive materials is illegal. What was said is that the planned shipment violates existing legal restrictions, which is not quite accurate either (what it violates according to the article is guidelines set forth by the IAEA; its not obvious that this violates any statute).
----------------------------------------------------------------

The above is correct. It is NOT illegal.

Read the HEADING from kristophers post. He said they were "ignoring environmental laws"

IAEA guidelines are NOT law. So they are NOT ignoring a law, which
is what I said.

Contrary to your first contention above, kristopher DID say it was
illegal; in the HEADING. When you "ignore environmental laws",
you are doing something environmental laws say you shouldn't.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

17. IAEA guidelines do have the force of law.

They are embodied in international treaties that have been ratified and accepted by the US as domestic law.

[DrGregory]

24. WRONG - as ALWAYS

They are embodied in international treaties that have been ratified and accepted by the US as domestic law.
--------------------------------

NOT for the USA!!!

The IAEA radiation protection guidelines are empowered by Article III of
the NonProliferation Treaty. From the IAEA's own publication of the
standards:

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1258_web.pdf

Under the terms of Article III of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized
to establish or adopt standards for.....

The "Statute" is the Treaty that authorizes the existence and powers
of the IAEA - namely the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty.

The text of the NPT is at the United Nations website:

http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html

The premise of Article III reads as:

"Each non-nuclear-weapons State Party to accept safeguards as set forth
in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic
Energy Agency...."


Look at the first clause; "Each non-nuclear-weapons State Party..."

The USA is a nuclear weapon state - Article III and the IAEA rules
do NOT apply.

I know it offends the goofy liberal senses; but the NPT is NOT "fair".
It establishes different rules for "nuclear haves" and "nuclear have-nots"

Nuclear States get to set their OWN guidelines; they don't have to
go by the terms set by the IAEA.

Additionally, under Section 3; it states the safeguards shall be implemented
in a manner to avoid hampering economic or technological development..
including the international exchange of nuclear material for the processing
or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes.

The purpose of the Bruce Station is to generate electricity - a peaceful
purpose and therefore the IAEA can not hamper exchange of material, in
this case the steam generators for processing; since the purpose is peaceful.

That's just the way the Treaty was written - and as you point out
it is LAW.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

33. WRONG AGAIN!!

IAEA guidelines do have the force of law.
--------------------------------------------

From the IAEA guidelines themselves;

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/pub1269_web.pdf

In the foreword, IAEA Director General ElBaradei states:

"The IAEA's Statute authorizes the Agency to establish
safety standards to protect health and minimize danger
to life and property - standards which the IAEA MUST
use in its own operations, and which a State CAN apply
by means of its regulatory provisions for nuclear and
radiation safety."

Basically, the IAEA established guidelines for its own
operations, and is holding them out as an example for
member States to adopt. However, the member states
have to adopt them via their own legislative processes.

The guidelines were written AFTER the NPT Treaty, which
creates the IAEA, came into existence. When the
US Congress ratified a Treaty, they didn't cede their
legislative power to an international agency to write
laws for the USA.

When Treaties become US law when the Senate ratifies;
the already written provisions of the Treaty are what
the Congress is agreeing to.

Congress doesn't "give away" its legislative power
to an international agency to then write regulations
that have the effect of law in the USA.

In 1998 when the US Supreme Court struck down the
federal "line item veto" statute, the Supreme Court
said that Congress couldn't give away its legislative
power, and could not give the President a veto over
duly enacted statutes. If the President can't veto
duly enacted legislation, then an international
agency surely can't. If IAEA guidelines were
different than US guideline; then the IAEA guidelines
would be a veto or overruling of duly enacted
legislation by the IAEA. The Supreme Court surely
wouldn't allow that.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

10. Michigan's my home state...

Michigan is my home State.

I think I'll send my calculation to my family
members back in Michigan and have them write
Levin and Stabenow, and show them the calculation.

Boy - they will sure be EMBARRASSED that someone
has got them looking like a bunch of IDIOTS.

What's next; should the Senators protest the
transport of Tc-99m to hospitals?

Should the Senators protest the transport of
alpha sources to high school physics classes?

I know, the Senators should protest all the
naturally-made TRITIUM in the water that flows
from the Great Lakes down the St. Lawrence to
the Atlantic.

Yes - now there's a LOT more radioactivity there
than in these steam generators..

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

23. Good, maybe then your family will get you the help you need

when they see that your calculations are so divorced from reality.
:applause:

[DrGregory]

29. It's all there....

when they see that your calculations are so divorced from reality.
===============================

It's all there. If there is something wrong with the calculation -
then just POINT to the error.

Just say - the error is on line 5; where you....

But you can't do that - because the calculation is CORRECT.

It is CORRECT and it IS the proper calculation.

That's the nice thing about science; you can't "spin" science
and math. There is one and only one right answer; and the
anti-nukes NEVER have the right answer.

Dr. Greg