"Dammit, and just when I think I've made up my mind, along comes something like this. This is a biggie. He should have withdrawn the bill before he allowed a toothless version to pass. This also affects how I look at nuclear energy for power. I was ready to consider it positively should the question arise, but with this..."

According to that article it didn't pass so neither did a "toothless version" nor a toothful version pass.

Why do you consider tritium significant? Tritium is something which is produced in nature- if that means anything.
You could call the act of watering your lawn a tritium leakage- or any rainfall as such.

If you lived 1000 years ago you would have had background radiation levels of Tritium in addition to other kinds of radioactive material in varying amounts of concentration- which in some cases could actually be considered dangerous levels.

The significant aspect would been the concentration of tritium which comes from a nuclear plant. And all we can know from the article is that the amount of tritium was at a lower level than allowed by law.

So, I don't understand what the "biggie" is. For instance, do you have any information which allows one to argue that the law allows tritium levels which are too high?

Let me try to put in quantitative terms. Is there any nuclear plant in the US which has released tritium over any year period, which which pose more threat to human life than someone burning a pile of leaves [say 4 wheelbarrows full].

Or in terms of just tritium, where are highest concentrations in the environment found in the world, and is there any possibility of these highest levels having any measurable heath risk?

Or does the exposure to varying amounts tritium levels pose a different type of threat than say varying amounts of sun bathing or living at higher elevations.