Talking about a Tritium Release
Ann S. Bisconti, PhD
July 1, 2021
Who would drink water that is “contaminated”—just a tiny bit “contaminated”? And what if that “contamination” were radioactive material that leaked from a nuclear power plant? Sounds terrible. How does one explain a situation like this in a way that is honest and accurate and does not spread undue fear? Our research provided some guidelights.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRC) describes this issue on its website section entitled “Groundwater Contamination (Tritium) at Nuclear Plants. ¹
Tritium is a mildly radioactive type of hydrogen that occurs both naturally and during the operation of nuclear power plants. Water containing tritium and other radioactive substances is normally released from nuclear plants under controlled, monitored conditions the NRC mandates to protect public health and safety. The NRC recently identified several instances of unintended tritium releases, and all available information shows no threat to the public. Nonetheless, the NRC is reviewing these incidents to ensure nuclear plant operators have taken appropriate action and to determine what, if any, changes are needed to the agency's rules and regulations.
We worked closely with a utility that found higher than normal concentrations of tritium near an underground pipe inside the plant’s boundary in shallow groundwater. As soon as they discovered the leak, the company immediately issued a press release and began to assess and fix the problem. The company’s press release stated that the amount of tritium found posed no health or safety risk, including to water in neighboring wells.
The utility hosted regular community forums to inform residents of progress fixing the problem, including extensive testing, constant monitoring, regulatory oversight. At this community forum, information stations were set up for interested persons to talk directly with experts from the plant and from state and federal regulatory agencies. Also, a temporary repository of information on the topic was made available to the public at a local library.
While the company’s technical experts worked to identify the extent of the problem and to fix it, they turned to us for research to understand public opinions and the best ways to talk about the situation and its impact—or lack thereof—on plant neighbors. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) provided some support to the research, as the topic has broad relevance to the operators of nuclear power plants.
We surveyed 300 adults across the state and 300 in a county with a nuclear power plant but not the county where the tritium was found. We also conducted focus groups in large cities to gain insights for communications.
Widespread Awareness of the Issue, But Prior Outreach Paid Off
Given significant news coverage of the tritium discovery, awareness of the issue was widespread; 30 percent in the statewide survey and 62 percent in the county survey had heard about it. However, long-term community outreach by the nuclear power plants in the state clearly paid off; 62 percent statewide and 76 percent in the county reported a favorable impression of the nuclear power plant nearest to where they lived. Only 17 percent in statewide and 21 percent in the county had a negative impression of the nearest plant.
When asked about their impressions of the nearest nuclear power plant, most talked about the plants’ excellent performance and their value as an alternative to fossil fuels. Six percent statewide and 21 percent in the county mentioned something about leaks, releases, drinking water, contamination, or tritium. No one statewide and 3 percent in the county used the word, “tritium.”
Responsible Actions
Focus groups tested messages in relation to a generic, hypothetical tritium release without mentioning any nuclear power plant name. We learned that, of all the things a company can say and do in this situation, first and foremost is taking responsible actions to find and fix the problem. Among tested messages, this one stood out as most reassuring:
The company considers any unintended release of any radioactive material unacceptable and is committed to finding and fixing the problem, working with federal and state regulators.
The utility’s actions in this case are a noteworthy example. They also focused communications from the start on their actions, keeping the public informed all along the way.
Safety Assurances Need Standard Illustration
Safety assurances require some back-up. The following message was helpful because it referenced credible sources:
The Department of Public Health and the Environmental Protection Agency have both confirmed that scientific measurements of drinking water wells around the plant show no tritium above the safe limits set by the federal government.
Note that the language used here is important. Technical explanations with the following terms can be confusing:
Below or under safe limits—may communicate less than safe.
Within safe limits—may communicate a variety of limits or a band, which is confusing.
The research found an urgent need for some standard way of illustrating graphically how an amount of tritium found in drinking water compares with the regulatory standard. In case tritium is found in drinking water, the best way to put the amount in perspective is to show a picture. The example shown on the next page was helpful to respondents.
Example of Putting Tritium in Perspective, If Tritium were Found in Drinking Water
One wonders why the term “contamination” is used when tritium found in drinking water does not exceed the regulatory standard. Saying that something is a tiny bit “contaminated” is a little like saying that someone is a tiny bit pregnant. Because the word is scary and conveys something bad, it conflicts with any statement that the water is safe to drink. Regulators should re-consider the term.
Don’t Present Fractions in Decimal Points
Two communicators who observed the focus groups made a bet on whether the amount found, compared with the safe limit, would be easier to understand in microcuries or picocuries. We asked respondents which comparison was clearer:
.002 microcuries found .02 microcuries safe limit
2,000 picocuries found 20,000 picocuries safe limit
The communicator who bet on picocuries won. The picocuries numbers were immediately and strongly preferred. In general, people have trouble with portions presented in decimal points. In this case, the decimal points were confusing because many people thought that .002 was larger than .02.
Monitoring the Plants Site is Good—Say It and Show It
Every focus group thought that all the monitoring associated with finding and fixing any leaks is impressive. They liked the following message, but they wanted to know more:
The industry routinely monitors the environment around the plant, including surface and ground water, shoreline sediments, and samples from food sources such as milk, fish, and other animals.
Respondents wanted to know who conducts the monitoring, who has oversight, where the monitoring takes place, and type of monitoring equipment is involved. Here is an opportunity to use diagrams and pictures or videos of experts taking measurements so people can put themselves in the picture.
Any pictures would require captions and explanations.
Describing Tritium
Explanations about tritium are helpful:
Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that is produced naturally in the earth’s
atmosphere and is found in water everywhere.
Tritium is one of the least hazardous radionuclides because it emits weak radiation and
leaves the body relatively quickly.
Tritium transforms into helium.
The third point is understandable because everyone has experience with helium balloons. It is also interesting that tritium is used in exit signs and is found naturally in orange juice. However, pointing out these facts may cause the audience to put these items on their subconscious list of things to avoid. None of this information gives a clue to how a release is being safely handled and controlled.
Factors for Reputation Preservation
The research found that these factors contribute to preservation of a company’s reputation in the face of an incident like a tritium release.
A long-term history of good performance and community outreach.
Taking responsible actions.
Admitting mistakes and acting quickly to fix them.
Being the first to find and report problems.
Being open with information and interested in public concerns (holding an information fair gives evidence of that openness).
Having third-party endorsements to back what the company is saying, especially statements by multiple state and regulatory agencies.
While the company can take actions to find and fix the problem and communicate in a way that maintains its good reputation, not every hoped-for outcome can be expected. In the focus groups, after reading all the messages and materials, would participants drink the water just a tiny bit contaminated with tritium? Not one.
¹ https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html
© Ann Stouffer Bisconti, 2021.