Monthly Archives: August 2012

ANS Nuclear Matinee: Vogtle Construction Update

Posted on August 31, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

America’s first new nuclear energy reactors in 30 years are currently under construction at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia.  The ANS Nuclear Matinee takes viewers behind the scenes of this amazing project (courtesy of Southern Nuclear Company who produced the excellent video updates).

An on-site railroad, one of the world’s largest heavy lift derrick cranes, massive turbines, condensers, cooling towers… news from the AP1000 reactors under construction in China… and even a tour of Vogtle’s amazing nuclear reactor and plant simulators… it’s all here in this Vogtle construction update:

Vogtle construction highlights featuring US Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu:

→ 2 Comments

Posted in News

ANS’s Nuclear Technology journal for September

Posted on August 30, 2012 by rmichal| Comments Off

The September 2012 edition of the technical journal Nuclear Technology is available electronically and in hard copy for American Nuclear Society member subscribers and others.

Nuclear Technology is an international journal of the American Nuclear Society and is edited by Dr. Nicholas Tsoulfanidis.

The September issue contains the following peer-reviewed articles:

ANS journals are available for purchase by edition or by article. Please click here to go to the online journals page. A menu of ANS’s publications is available online by clicking here.

_______________________

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, News, Nuclear Technology, Publications

ANS Annual Meeting Dresden Station technical tour

Posted on August 29, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

by Will Davis

When I was registering for the various events scheduled to take place during the ANS Annual Meeting this past June, I was quite excited to see that one of the three technical tours would be at Exelon’s Dresden Nuclear Station, not too far from downtown Chicago where the meeting was taking place. Luckily, I made the cut for attendance and was issued a ticket for the tour when I checked in at the meeting desk.

The transportation for the tour was a comfortable, air-conditioned motor coach—which was good, because Illinois was in the midst of a heat wave. The ride to Dresden was quicker than I’d expected, given the distance. Those of us who hadn’t been there before were looking out of the windows all the time to see the first hint of the tall stacks, or perhaps the spherical containment for the now shut down Dresden Unit 1.

Permit a digression at this point; the aforementioned structure, which is a steel sphere 180 feet in diameter, is one of those “nuclear relics” of some note that we have in this industry. Spherical containment didn’t last too long in commercial nuclear plant construction before giving way to far easier to build (and less expensive) cylindrical containment buildings. Seeing a photo or drawing of a spherical containment building immediately brings to mind the early days of nuclear energy; structures like this are the pyramids of our field. (Note: They are less permanent, though—a number of them have been completely dismantled and removed at other sites.) This would be my chance to check off No. 2 on my list of viewing such containment buildings; I say No. 2 because I formerly walked daily past the only larger one, at the Kesselring Site in New York. Not far below this in rank in terms of “nuclear archaeology,” if you will, is the fact that Dresden-1 was the nation’s first privately financed commercial nuclear plant. All of these reasons make Dresden Station a top priority for those of us with an interest in preserving a record of our nuclear history. In fact, the American Nuclear Society has designated Dresden Unit 1 as a Nuclear Historic Landmark.

Dresden Unit 1 under construction, April 1958

When the bus arrived at the station, I noticed something immediately that I had not noticed before in photos:  The newer Dresden 2 and 3 units were built immediately adjacent to the Dresden-1 turbine building—and in fact the buildings abut and connect. Dresden-2 and -3 are later model GE boiling water reactor/3 reactors in Mark I containment buildings. The sight of the plant is thus a mixture of the old, or should I say original, and the more modern at once. Both units 2 and 3 were running at full power that day; the load on the grid from the heat wave was making the news.

After an orientation and welcome, along with issuance of dosimetry and a few questions, we were divided into groups of not more than five persons each; each group would have one or two escorts for security purposes who also doubled as our tour guides. My “group” as it were had only two members; our escort was Marisa Seloover, a young electrical engineer who acts as the plant’s systems engineer for compressor equipment. Marisa immediately showed her enthusiasm for her job, and was extremely informative and helpful at all times. In fact, everyone at the plant was extremely willing to tell us information and describe operations at the plant, as well as explain equipment.

The tour overall had to be cut a bit short, because the time was cramped and also because the temperature outside was about 102 °F that day. We toured a good portion of the operating plants, although since this was a BWR plant, close access to the turbine generators wasn’t allowed. We looked at control rod drive equipment, the access doors to the drywells, various pumps, and various labyrinthine spaces around the reactor buildings. We got a chance to stand on the refueling floor and look right down into the spent-fuel pool for Unit 3; yellow-clad workers were up on a ladder in the distance. The volume of the space was more impressive than I’d pictured it; the refueling floor level spans both reactors.

A fun moment of the tour occurred when we stopped next to one of the feed pump rooms. One of the escorts managed to yell to us over the din that the pump room held three electric feed pumps, each of roughly 7000 horsepower, and that much of the noise we’d heard outside the plant was actually the cooling air for these pump motors. He indicated that hearing was practically impossible if the access door were open; then he opened the door. He was correct. And yes, of course, we were wearing hearing protection, hard hats, and safety glasses issued by Exelon before leaving the training building outside the plants.

I myself had reserved a special enthusiasm for seeing Dresden-1, and we walked through the turbine hall of Unit 2 to an access door and immediately were in the turbine building of Unit 1. The turbine generator and associated equipment are long gone; the building is now used primarily for tool storage and maintenance work. As we walked along a level that would originally have been well above the turbine generator, I looked down and thought of the old photos I’d seen of when the plant was operating.

Dresden Nuclear Power Station dedication ceremony, October 12, 1960

Then, we went through a door and into the spherical containment itself. One of our escorts immediately yelled—and the echo, which he knew he would get, made all of us laugh. We were on a level above that of the steam generators, which he said were below the flooring (remember that Dresden-1 was a dual-cycle BWR with both direct steam to the turbine generator and four steam generators that fed steam to it as well.) The height of the concrete structure rising block-like in front of us, which formerly contained the steam and water piping and on top of which was the central steam separator drum, was quite impressive. We walked around to our left and could see the opening in the center of this structure that essentially amounted to the refueling space—below the steam drum, and between the steam risers. I quickly imagined that this would have been entirely an exclusion zone when the reactor was operating. The emptiness of the rest of the structure, with few signs of equipment, made the area feel less like a nuclear power plant and more like some sort of test mockup, which of course it was not. As we left the sphere, I recalled that the original design plan included not only the turbine generator but the control room as well inside the sphere; GE and Bechtel eventually changed their minds about that.

After we returned to the training center, we were given water to drink because of the heat (we’d skipped the tour of the dry cask storage areas because of that factor) and got the chance to talk to our guides for a few moments. Marisa noted that Unit 2 had been upgraded over the years, and was rated about 960 MWe—although on that day, because of ambient temperatures being so high, the plant was limited to about 950 MWe. Unit 3 was at its full rated power of about 912 MWe; it had not received all of the upgrades yet that Unit 2 had (main generator rewind, new low pressure turbines and turbine casings, new and much more modern recirculation pump drives) but would receive the last of them during the next refueling.

She explained how tight the limits were on water that the plant can discharge to the rivers, and how the plant uses a combination of river water, cooling lake, and added cooling towers to meet thermal discharge limit requirements. Her descriptions of practice drills and events for the plant were very helpful and informative. She, and others like her, struck me as the bright hope for the future in the nuclear energy industry.

After this, it was time to complete the day’s events with brief tours of the control room simulator, and a presentation on the plant, its history, and its operation given by Work Management Director Joe Sipek. The control room tour was extremely informative; the personnel there answered all of our questions fully and clearly. The tour was very thorough, even including the alley behind the main panels and descriptions of how the simulator functions, as well as how the staff rotates through.

After Mr. Sipek’s presentation and some souvenir Dresden Station pens were handed out, it was time to get on the bus and leave for Chicago and our comfortable hotel. This was the final event for the whole annual meeting for me; I’d be flying home the next day. On the way in, I’d looked at the site and wondered about very many things—mostly about what I’d find inside, what I’d see. On the way out, I thought mainly about the people I’d met and how well they’d impressed me. Of course it goes without saying that any plant is primarily its people, and Exelon left this writer with an impression of a well-motivated, well-engaged, dedicated workforce.

All in all, as the bus made the journey down the access road out of the plant, I knew that my lasting impression would be not of things like structures that would someday be dismantled, but instead would be of the people who work and pass their knowledge on to others. It’s no overstatement to say that the time invested in the trip paid me great dividends.

I’d like to thank the following people from Exelon who helped make the trip possible: Natalie Zaczek, Paul Bembnister, Scott Ackerman, Joe Sipek, Marisa Seloover, Dan Murphy, Tom Mohr, Kyle Cook, Samantha Cosenza, Nick Oudin, and Marie Frese. Also, thanks to Robert Osgood of Exelon who handled pre-trip security and communications. Any omissions from this list are my error and I offer my apologies for any such.

__________________________

Davis

Will Davis is the author of the nuclear energy blog “Atomic Power Review,” and is a member of the American Nuclear Society.  A former US Navy reactor operator, Davis finds his calling to be presenting the public with information about nuclear energy technology and its history.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Meetings

Tagged , , , , ,

The Search For Nuclear Happiness

Posted on August 28, 2012 by pbowersox| 6 Comments

By Meredith Angwin

This year, and especially during these long tomato-filled days of August, I have been thinking a lot about happiness. Actually, I have been thinking even more about unhappiness.

I am a nuclear advocate, and sometimes I find myself thinking, Why am I doing this nuclear activism thing? Do I like confrontation? Do I like it when I get a hate email?

NRC officials with police escort evacuate meeting in Brattleboro VT

Do I like to go to contentious Nuclear Regulatory Commission meetings where the NRC people are intimidated into leaving the room? Or to Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel meetings where opponents ask endless questions about nuclear safety? The answer is no. I don’t like to go to such meetings!

On a recent day, I found myself reading The Happiness Project by Gretchen Rubin. My daughter had recommended this book. As I was reading it, I was also receiving a series of accusatory emails from a plant opponent.

Quite a contrast in mental tone.

Not a contrast

Actually, it was not that much of a contrast. One of the points of The Happiness Project is that happiness doesn’t necessarily make you FEEL happy. This contradictory statement can be parsed as follows: The activities that are meaningful to a person, and lead to long-term happiness, are often stressful, hard, and anxiety-producing while they are happening. At the time you are doing them, happiness-producing activities do not necessarily make you feel happy.

Gretchen gave a simple example of how she began to discover this. A friend who is a gourmet cook was giving a dinner party. As he dashed around the kitchen, trying to do too many things at once, Gretchen asked him if he was “enjoying his own party?” He paused only briefly and answered that he would “enjoy it when it was over.”

So, why does he give the party? I mean, how is “enjoying it when it is over” different from “enjoying it by not doing it at all”? The answer is that cooking for friends is a major source of satisfaction for this man. The short-term stress of cooking leads to the long-term happiness of friendship and cheerful memories. It also leads to the happiness of being admired for the gourmet meals he creates.

I don’t want to try to summarize the book here, but it made me think about how to stay happy as a nuclear advocate. I came up with three ideas that work for me, and I thought I would share them.

Three routes to happiness as a nuclear advocate

First: Do something

Try to do something most days, even if it seems small. As Gretchen Rubin writes: We overestimate what we can accomplish in an hour or two, but we underestimate what we can accomplish by small efforts over time. Write enough letters to the editor, and you may be asked to write some op-eds. Once you have some op-eds printed, you can send op-eds to other newspapers and get wider publication. Organize a small meeting, or a big rally. There’s always something to do, and it doesn’t matter if it is big or small, or if you don’t do it perfectly, just as long as you do it.

Second: Work on curing the brownie deficit

Nuclear opponents tend to spend a lot of time together. They have potlucks, make costumes, have coffee and brownies in letter-writing groups. Pro-nuclear people have a brownie deficit; that is, a personal-interaction deficit. Try to cure it! Meet others in person whenever you can. I don’t know if I could do much for nuclear energy without the friendship of Howard Shaffer and my husband George Angwin. My female pro-nuclear friends tend to live farther afield, although I have developed a very close personal and pro-Vermont Yankee friendship with a woman in Brattleboro. It is over an hour’s drive between our houses, but we both think that getting together regularly is worthwhile, because personal friendships are important.

Yes, it is hard to get together, but humans were meant to get together. My best ideas don’t come from cogitation, they come from conversation. Don’t hide behind your computer. Get out there and cure the brownie deficit!

Third: Prioritize

Being a pro-nuclear activist means living in a “target-rich” environment. Every day, somebody will say or plan something ridiculous and anti-nuclear, and you want to answer them all. Every day, someone will ask for your help. You can’t do it all. Work on the situations where you have the most knowledge and the most credibility. Usually these are the events and talks that take place near your home. Prioritize! Time is your most precious commodity.

Another way to say that is to quote a friend of mine: “You don’t have to join every fight you’re invited to.”

The General Rule: Gratitude

My rules are specific to nuclear advocates, but I think there’s a general rule for increasing happiness that is true for everyone, in every circumstance.

Cultivate gratitude.

As a nuclear advocate, gratitude might mean appreciating your health (so you can be an advocate), appreciating your friends (so you aren’t alone in your advocacy), and appreciating your victories, however big or small. However, writing that list just for “nuclear advocates” feels much too petty. Advocate or not, I believe that gratitude helps everyone to happiness, to generosity, and to love.

In other words, being a nuclear advocate is just like being anyone else, and staying happy as a nuclear advocate uses the same techniques as anyone’s successful ”Happiness Project.”

____________________________

Angwin

Meredith Angwin is the founder of Carnot Communications, which helps firms to communicate technical matters. She specialized in mineral chemistry as a graduate student at the University of Chicago. Later, she became a project manager in the geothermal group at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Then she moved to nuclear energy, becoming a project manager in the EPRI nuclear division. She is an inventor on several patents.

Angwin serves as a commissioner in the Hartford Energy Commission, Hartford, Vt.  Angwin is a long-time member of the American Nuclear Society and coordinator of the Energy Education Project. She is a frequent contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

__________________________

→ 6 Comments

Posted in nuclear opponents, View from Vermont

August edition of ANS’s NSE available

Posted on August 27, 2012 by rmichal| 1 Comment

The August 2012 edition of the technical journal Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE) is available electronically and in hard copy for American Nuclear Society member subscribers and others.

NSE is the international research journal of ANS and is edited by Dr. Dan G. Cacuci.

The August issue contains the following peer-reviewed articles:

  • Best-Estimate Predictions and Model Calibration for Reactor Thermal Hydraulics, by Madalina C. Badea, Dan C. Cacuci, and Aurelian F. Badea
  • Fission Neutron Spectrum Sensitivity Study for the Case of Advanced Heavy Water Reactor, by Anek Kumar and S. Ganesan
  • A Robust Arbitrary High-Order Transport Method of the Characteristic Type for Unstructured Grids, by Rodolfo M. Ferrer and Yousry Y. Azmy
  • Nonlinear Acceleration of Transport Criticality Problems, by H. Park, D.A. Knoll, and C.K. Newman
  • Generation of Few-Group Diffusion Theory Constants by Monte Carlo Code McCARD, by Ho Jin Park, Hyung Jin Shim, Han Gyu Joo, and Chang Hyo Kim
  • Simulation of Neutron Pulse Height Distributions with a
    Response Matrix Method, by S. Prasad, S. D. Clarke, S. A. Pozzi, and E. W. Larsen
  • Neutron Interactions with 3He Revisited—I: Elastic Scattering Around and Beyond 10 MeV, by M. Drosg, R. Avalos Ortiz, and P. W. Lisowski
  • Theoretical Calculations and Analysis of n + 27Al Reaction, by Yinlu Han, Yongli Xu, Haiying Liang, Hairui Guo,
    Chonghai Cai, and Qingbiao Shen

The August issue of NSE also contains the following technical note:

  • Measurements of the 71Ga(n,γ)72m+gGa Cross Section
    in the Neutron Energy Range of 13.5 to 14.8 MeV, by Junhua Luo, Rong Liu, and Li Jiang

ANS journals are available for purchase by edition or by article. Please click here to go to the online journals page. A menu of ANS’s publications is available online by clicking here.

_________________________________________

 

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, News, Nuclear Science and Engineering journal, Publications

119th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on August 26, 2012 by dyurman| Comments Off

The 119th weekly Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Yes Vermont Yankee

The Carnival is the collective voice of blogs by legendary names that emerge each week to tell the story of nuclear energy.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by the leading pro-nuclear bloggers in North America to speak with a collective voice on the issue of the value of nuclear energy.

While we each have our own points of view, we agree that the promise of peaceful uses of the atom remains viable in our own time and for the future.

Past editions of the carnival have been hosted at Yes Vermont Yankee, Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, NEI Nuclear Notes, Next Big Future, and CoolHandNuke, as well as several other popular nuclear energy blogs.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brain Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

# # #

Comments Off

Posted in News

ANS Nuclear Cafe Matinee: Radiation Belt Storm Probes

Posted on August 24, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

NASA’s Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission is scheduled for launch early on Thursday morning, August 30. How and why? An ANS Nuclear Cafe double feature matinee:

Quite a lot of fascinating “right stuff” goes into getting a scientific mission into orbit. A behind-the-scenes look at Radiation Belt Storm Probes launch preparation:

Once these dual satellites are in orbit, the mission will allow us to better understand fundamental radiation and particle acceleration processes throughout the universe. So, what are the Van Allen Radiation belts, and what will the Radiation Belt Storm Probes do there?

 

→ 2 Comments

Posted in NASA, physics, Radiation

Video interview with ANS Special Committee on Fukushima Co-Chair Michael Corradini

Posted on August 23, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

On Friday, March 11, 2011, one of the largest earthquakes in the recorded history of the world occurred on the east coast of northern Japan. The earthquake generated a major tsunami, causing nearly 20,000 deaths.

Electricity, gas, and water supplies, telecommunications, and railway service were all severely disrupted and in many cases completely shut down. These disruptions severely affected the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, causing a loss of all on-site and off-site power and a release of radioactive materials from the reactors.

The leadership of the American Nuclear Society commissioned the American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima to provide a clear and concise explanation of what happened during the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and offer recommendations based on lessons learned from their study of the event.

In this video interview, ANS President and ANS Special Committee on Fukushima co-chair Dr. Michael Corradini provides an update on the Special Committee’s work, including the release of the committee’s final report and an upcoming embedded topical meeting on Fukushima at the ANS Winter Meeting in San Diego.

The ANS Special Committee on Fukushima website.

Direct link to the Special Committee’s report.

FAQs, Q&As, accident timeline, and appendices to the report.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Fukushima, Publications

Nuclear News’ 18th annual vendor/contractor issue

Posted on August 22, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

The August 2012 issue of Nuclear News is available electronically and in hard copy for American Nuclear Society members.

The issue contains a 128-page special section containing advertisements and “advertorial” information about products and services provided by companies serving the nuclear industry.

The August issue also contains a feature article on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s reorganizing nuclear information services, and international news on the restart of Japan’s Ohi reactors.

Additional news items covered in the August issue include Allison Macfarlane’s swearing in as chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Duke-Progress merger closes curiously; extended power uprate approved for St. Lucie-1; invalidated NRC rules spur filing of new contentions in license renewal and reactor licensing proceedings; the Energy Information Administration sees growth of nuclear power to 2025, then decline; the NRC agrees with FENOC on cause of shield building cracks at Davis-Besse; final EIS for Watts Bar-2 delayed until December; bilateral effort to convert Russian research reactors to low-enriched uranium fuel moves forward; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Sequoia computer is world’s fastest; Japan’s Diet enacts bill to create new nuclear regulator; Czech utility ČEZ receives three bids for two new reactors at Temelín; the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority considers options for managing plutonium stockpile; ASME certifies UAE’s Emirates Steel for nuclear work; Hanford Site’s N Reactor placed in safe storage; researchers at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider may have found the Higgs boson (or not); R&D magazine’s 2012 R&D 100 Awards recognize eight nuclear-related innovations; and much more, including editorials, events calendar, and regular monthly feature columns.

Past issues of Nuclear News are available here.

______________________

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, News, Nuclear News, Publications

Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2013: Call for Papers

Posted on August 21, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

February 25–28, 2013 • Albuquerque Marriott, N.M.

Abstract Submissions Due: September 4, 2012

On February 25–28, 2013, the Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Division of the American Nuclear Society will hold the 2013 Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS 2013) topical meeting in Albuquerque, N.M. This conference represents the second stand-alone topical meeting in Albuquerque since the previous Space Technologies and Applications International Forum, and follows a successful meeting in 2012 held in conjunction with the 43rd Lunar Planetary Science Conference.

Topic areas

NASA is currently developing capabilities for robotic and crewed missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Strategies that implement advanced power and propulsion technologies, as well as radiation protection, will be important in accomplishing these missions. NETS serves as a major communications network and forum for professionals and students working in the area of space nuclear technology. Every year NETS facilitates the exchange of information among research and management personnel from international government, industry, academia, and the national laboratory systems. To this end, the NETS 2013 meeting will address topics ranging from overviews of current programs to methods of meeting the challenges of future space endeavors.

Program

Track 1: Current Space Architectures and Missions
Space Science and Exploration Missions
Industrial Programs
Defense Architectures
Spacecraft Concepts and Design
Lunar and Planetary Surface Concepts
Mission Analysis and Validation Missions
Space Policy and Procedures

Track 2: Present Enabling Capabilities
Plutonium-238 Production
Radioisotope Power Systems
Power Conversion Systems and Components
Supporting Technologies (including Heat Rejection and Power
Management & Distribution)
Space Radiation Environment and Protection
Impact on Human Operations 

Track 3: Near-Term Nuclear Technologies
Reactor and Shield Design
Reactor Simulation
Fuels Development
Materials and Radiation Testing
Alternative Radioisotopic Systems and Applications
Systems Integration
Tools and Modeling
Testing and Validation 

Track 4: Augmenting Nuclear Capabilities
Advanced Reactor Concepts
Advanced Fuels and Materials
Hybrid Nuclear Systems
Enhanced Computational Methods
Improved Radioisotopic Power System Design
Nuclear Enabled In-Situ Resource Utilization 

Track 5: Innovative and Advanced Technologies
Low Alpha Multi-Megawatt Power Systems
Fusion Systems
Non-Traditional Methods
Novel Mission Design

 

Home Page for NETS 2013

Meeting Chairs and Contact Information

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, NASA, Professional Divisions, Space Applications

Introducing ANS Young Members Group Chair Gale Hauck

Posted on August 20, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

Gale Hauck, engineering project manager at Westinghouse Electric Company, is the new chair of the American Nuclear Society’s Young Members Group (YMG). YMG Secretary Elia Merzari caught up with her and asked her to introduce herself, as well as her plans for the YMG.

Elia: Hi Gale. We are excited to have this opportunity to know you better. Can you tell us a bit about yourself? How did you get involved with ANS and YMG?

Gale: I got involved with the American Nuclear Society during my undergrad work at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute because I heard they had free pizza at their meetings! But I kept going because I discovered that I really enjoyed working with others that were as interested and passionate about nuclear science and technology as I was. Once I started attending national meetings regularly, it snowballed from there.

Elia: What are your priorities as YMG chair?

Gale: I want to continue the great focus YMG has had on integrating new members into ANS, and making the transition from student to professional member as straightforward as possible. We are currently updating the strategic plan, and I will be focusing on what we can do to best serve our membership.

Elia: You have become YMG chair while ANS is undergoing some dramatic changes. What are your thoughts on how young members should approach their membership at ANS ?

Gale:  These are exciting times!  My best advice for young members is: Remember that your opinion is important to ANS. Don’t be afraid to speak up and let others know what you think. ANS isn’t a “good ol’ boys” club—that sort of model is not sustainable. ANS realizes that meeting the needs of young members is extremely important for future growth of the organization—let people know what your needs are.

Elia: Do you have any message for our Young Member readers?

Gale: It is such a blessing to be a young member in ANS at this time; we have so many experienced members that would be thrilled to share their knowledge with you. Don’t squander your opportunity to learn from these folks. Take the first step—reach out, ask questions, and discover something new. You’ll be happy you did.

Hauck

Gale Hauck is chair of the ANS Young Members Group.  She is an engineering project manager at Westinghouse Electric Company.  She is chair of the Pittsburgh Local Section of ANS and has been an ANS member since 2004.

 

 

Merzari

Elia Merzari is the secretary of the Young Members Group. He works as a nuclear engineer at Argonne National Laboratory, where his research interests include nuclear thermal-hydraulics, modeling and simulation of nuclear reactors, and accelerator driven systems.

 

 

_________________________

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Young Members Group

118th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on August 19, 2012 by dyurman| 1 Comment

Mettallic Butterfly ~ photo by: Margaret Harding

The Carnival is the collective voice of blogs by legendary names that emerge each week to tell the story of nuclear energy.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by the leading pro-nuclear bloggers in North America to speak with a collective voice on the issue of the value of nuclear energy.

While we each have our own points of view, we agree that the promise of peaceful uses of the atom remains viable in our own time and for the future.

This week’s Carnival

Mothra – a fantastic fantasy creature created in 1961 by Japanese film makers in response to public fears of the radiation effects of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific.
Image: http://godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Mothra

Media reports of radiation-induced mutations of butterflies near Fukushima in Japan produced a lot of head scratching over their significance.

Unlike the 1961 Japanese horror film Mothra, a giant, radiation-mutated insect did not destroy Tokyo nor did it do battle with other film fantasy creatures like Godzilla.

Here are three reports from nuclear bloggers which address the “so what” question.

Nuclear Diner – Radioactive Mutant Butterflies – Really?

Susan Voss points out some weaknesses in the much-publicized study of damaged butterflies from the Fukushima area. Sample sizes are too small to be analyzed statistically or extrapolated, and it’s not clear why the authors of the study chose to emphasize the parameters that they did and ignored others.

NEI Nuclear Notes – Eric McErlain

Keeping a level head about nuclear butterflies

Ralph Andersen, NEI’s chief health physicist. Here’s what he had to say about the study:

“Please note that there are species of plants, insects and animals that are particularly sensitive to changes in environmental conditions, including radiation. The pale grass butterfly is among the most sensitive, which is why it was selected for study following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi.”

Atomic Insights – Rod Adams

Butterflies are not human analogs

Radiation was not the only mutagen released in Fukushima by the tsunami. At first Rod was ready to yawn and say, “So what?” The headlines seemed almost tailor-made for tabloids or TV news – “Radiation from Fukushima power plant meltdown ‘triggers genetic mutations in butterflies’.

Then he realized that the story had some legs and deserved a response – after taking time to read the full paper and reviewing the reactions of other experts.

& & &

News about the ANS Utility Working Conference garnered two blog posts including a radio show.

Atomic Show #188 – Rod Adams

Wheeler and Harding discuss ANS Utility Working Conference ~ John Wheeler and Margaret Harding joined Rod Adams to share their impressions and take aways from the 2012 ANS Utility Working Conference.

Four Factor Consulting – Margaret Harding

Margaret Harding has another installment on the Utility Working Group Conference organized by the American Nuclear Society. This time she reviews a session where Bill Borchardt, EDO of the NRC, presented the NRC’s view of the status of the Industry.

Yes Vermont Yankee – Meredith Angwin

Black Start, BlackOut and Diesels: Some Clarity is needed. Intervenors are getting set to intervene against Vermont Yankee acquiring a new diesel because Vernon Dam will no longer be a “black start” plant on the New England grid.  After an initial reaction of “huh?” Meredith Angwin investigates what this means. In this post, she explains the three shades of black: 1) grid blackout, 2) black start, and 3)station blackout. Conclusion: the new diesel should be no big deal.

Hiroshima Syndrome – Les Corrice

Tepco/Tokyo executives considered full F. Daiichi abandonment It now seems that Tepco/Tokyo may have actually deliberated full abandonment of F. Daiichi during the accident. Tepco teleconferencing during March 14, 2011, reveals that the possibility was discussed among some Tokyo executives. This shows that Tepco’s incessant denial of considering abandonment has been less than forthright.

Thorium MSR – Rick Maltese

Why Canada should look at LFTR or DMSR ~ Rick just happens to be rooting for molten salt reactors but there are other reactors that provide process heat for industrial use. Canada is getting pressure to reduce their CO2 emissions. The industry in question is the oil sands of Alberta. If we have to live with it then process heat can reduce the environmental damage. How it does this is thought for another article. The conference July 18/19 in Washington DC features Dr. Tim Birtch, John Kutsch and Bob Prince all discussing their own non LWR methods of of making useful energy in small modular reactors.

Atomic Power Review – Will Davis

Will Davis continues the story of Sylvania-Corning Nuclear Corporation’s progress in the late 50′s through the eyes of a former employee, using the wonderful collection of papers now here at APR.

ANS Nuclear Cafe – Paul Bowersox

Anomalies detected in a reactor vessel at the Doel nuclear power station in Belgium may be tiny cracks, prompting further investigation. Will Davis at the ANS Nuclear Cafe provides background and analysis, and possible significance for other reactors.

Dan Yurman writes that competition for Turkey’s second and third nuclear power stations has heated up, but it isn’t clear whether any deals will be signed soon. China, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and Russia all want to supply the plants, which are expected to be about three-to-five GWe each depending on how many reactors are built at each site.

Next Big Future – Brian Wang

Offshore wind turbines are 2.5 to 3 times more inefficient than onshore wind in terms of usage of concrete and steel needed to generate the same level of power. Wind turbines use about 10 times more steel and 5 times more concrete to generate the same amount of power as a nuclear power plant. One thousand 3 megawatt wind turbines are needed to equal one 1 GW nuclear power plant. The wind turbines have about 30% capacity factor. Those wind turbines would be 60 stories tall.

The Navy is funding EMC2 (inertial electrostatic fusion project) an additional $5.3 million over next 2 years to work on the problem of pumping electrons into the Polywell. Big new pulsed power supply to support the electron guns (100+A, 10kV). WB-8 has been operating at 0.8 Tesla (8 times stronger magnetic field than any previous version). There was a review done of the work and the recommendations were to continue and expand the effort.

& & &

Past editions of the carnival have been hosted at Yes Vermont Yankee, Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, NEI Nuclear Notes, Next Big Future, and CoolHandNuke, as well as several other popular nuclear energy blogs.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brain Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

# # #

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Carnival of nuclear bloggers, News

Friday Matinee: Idaho National Laboratory’s CAVE

Posted on August 17, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Idaho National Laboratory‘s Computer Assisted Virtual Environment (CAVE) at the Center for Advanced Energy Studies allows scientists and engineers to literally walk into their data and examine it.

Users can tour a building still under design, plot a new transmission route over terrain, open a valve, or… delve into the core of a nuclear reactor.

_____________

→ 1 Comment

Posted in National Laboratories

Carving up Turkey’s nuclear energy market

Posted on August 16, 2012 by dyurman| 2 Comments

The question is how big is the bird and will any of the proposed deals fly?

By Dan Yurman

Competition for Turkey’s second and third nuclear power stations has heated up, but it isn’t clear whether any deals will be signed soon. China, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and Russia all want to supply the plants, which are expected to be about three-to-five GWe each depending on how many reactors are built at each site.

Turkey’s goal in pursuing a nuclear energy strategy is to gain energy independence from imported oil and natural gas and to boost export earnings through sales of electricity to other countries in the region.

The second plant is slated to be built at Sinop on Turkey’s Black Sea coast. The third plant would be placed north of the Bosporus channel along the Black Sea coast, but within spitting distance, as the crow flies, of Bulgaria’s border with Turkey.

Russia’s contract at Akkuyu

In May 2010, Turkey signed a contract with Rosatom to build Turkey’s first nuclear power site—4.8 Gwe of nuclear-powered electrical generating capacity at Akkuyu in Mersin on the country’s Mediterranean coast. The deal hinged on Russia’s financing and building four 1,200-MW VVER type reactors and operating them for 15 years, after which Rosatom expects to cash out to Turkish investors. The reactors are slated to be completed in 2019.

Rosatom was the sole bidder on the Akkuyu project after three western consortiums withdrew from responding to the tender over roller coaster disputes about protection of intellectual property and guaranteed rates. For its part, after a long-tangled process, Turkey agreed to guarantee rates to the Russian plant.

Now the Russians want to build the second and third nuclear power stations, but they have competition. There is another reason why Rosatom is not a slam dunk for the second and third power stations. The price has gone up on the first one.

On July 12, Interfax, a Russian wire service, reported that Vladimir Ivanovskiy, Russia’s ambassador to Ankara, said that the Akkuyu nuclear power plant might cost Turkey more than planned.

“Inititally its cost was estimated at $20 billion, but I think it will be much more—about $25 billion,” he told Russian journalists in Moscow. That’s not going to make the Turkish government willing to give the Russians an unconditional green light for either of the next two projects.

South Korea pulls out of Sinop

South Korea, which inked a $20-billion contract with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in December 2009 to build four 1,400-MW reactors, is still interested in doing business with Turkey. Despite two rounds of negotiations, however, the two side still hadn’t come close to signing a contract, as in late 2010, South Korea and Turkey were at loggerheads over whether the Turkish government would guarantee financing from South Korea.

The South Korean government, which is already deeply committed to the UAE deal, may have looked at its books and decided it didn’t have the ability to do another project of that size. Since then, South Korea has been exploring international financing without much success.

Playing the China card

China also has shown interest in the Turkish deal, and clearly has the money to pay to play. China, however, does not have a reactor design of its own to offer for export and no experience in financing reactor deals in global markets.

These drawbacks didn’t stop Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan from leading a trade mission to China in February 2012 to talk nuts and bolts about a nuclear energy deal.

Babacan reportedly told the Chinese that the second nuclear power station at Sinop on the southern Black Sea coast was pretty much a toss-up between Russia and Japan. He added, however, that the third site, near Turkey’s border with Bulgaria, was fair game. China has not asked for financial guarantees for a nuclear power station, which has been a sticking point with South Korea.

By the time Turkey is ready to build that plant, probably around 2015, China is expected to have its own 1,400-MW version of the Westinghouse AP1000 ready for export. China’s state-owned nuclear power firms—China National Nuclear Corporation and China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation—have growing ambitions to play in the global nuclear export markets especially for nations like Turkey.

The February 2012 trade mission was followed by an official state visit to Beijing in April by Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He signed a memorandum of understanding for cooperation on nuclear energy with his Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao.

In a change from the February meeting, Erdogan noted that plans for Turkey’s second power station, originally slated to be built by Japan or South Korea, were in flux.

Japan tries to re-enter the market

Japan originally proposed a team composed of Toshiba and the Tokyo Electric Power Company. With the collapse of TEPCO’s finances due to the Fukushima crisis, however, that consortium pulled out of the Turkey venture.

In October 2011, Mitsubishi said that it would explore bidding on the contract for the Synop project in cooperation with Japanese utility Kansai Electric Power Company. Construction would be handled by GDF Suez, a French multinational construction company. Japan’s government has also supported Hitachi’s plans to build nuclear reactors in Vietnam. It isn’t clear, however, whether or not Japan has put forward a solid proposal to Turkey.

Can Canada succeed with Candu?

Meanwhile, SNC Lavalin, a Canada-based company and owner of the reactor division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, approached Turkey in April 2012 with a proposal to build 3 Gwe, the equivalent of four Candu-6 pressurized heavy-water reactors, at Sinop. At an energy conference held in Istanbul, Turkey’s energy minister Taner Yildiz said that SNC-Lavalin had six months to prepare a feasibility study as part of its proposal.

What’s interesting about this deal is that SNC Lavalin vice president Ala Alizadeh told the Anatolia News Agency, a Turkish wire service, on April 20 that financing would be provided by Chinese investors, which means state-owned nuclear firms.

The future is still unknown

Turkey has a history of mercurial negotiations with reactor vendors. It doesn’t have the capital to finance the units, which is why the Russian and Chinese offers look promising right now.

Russia’s cost increase at Akkuyu, however, and the lack of a market-ready reactor for export from China, complicate what appears to be a choice of one or the other that could be made solely on available capital.

Japan’s bid seems like a long shot because it isn’t offering financing as part of its proposal.

An option by a Chinese state-owned nuclear organization to finance Candu-6 reactors could be the wild card in the Turkey nuclear market.

_____________________

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Atomstroyexport, News

Tagged , , , , ,

Doel-3 in Belgium reports possible pressure vessel flaw

Posted on August 15, 2012 by pbowersox| 8 Comments

Findings could be significant for other reactors

by Will Davis

Ultrasonic testing of a reactor vessel at the Doel nuclear power station in Belgium has revealed what may be tiny cracks, causing the owner-operator group and Belgian regulatory authority—the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC)—to commence further testing. Belgian authorities said that they would notify other plants around the world using reactor vessels manufactured by Rotterdam Drydock Company, the company that made the reactor vessel used in Doel-3.

Doel-3 was shut down on June 2 for a 10-year in-service inspection requiring examination of thousands of plant components as per local procedure. During the inspections, testing of the reactor vessel was conducted using a new type of ultrasonic detection equipment. This testing—which is focused on high-stress areas near the pressure vessel belt-line or barrel section welds—has turned up what appear to be a number of cracks, according to public statements made by FANC.

FANC’s website indicates the discovery of a single larger crack, running parallel with the (curved) surface of the pressure vessel, in the lowest ring section of the body (or barrel area of the vessel). This vessel is of forged ring design; see illustration below.

An illustration from FANC showing the original forged ring sections of the reactor vessel separated for clarity

According to FANC, this single crack is between six-tenths and eight-tenths of an inch long. The crack is not in a direction “normally subject to tension,” according to FANC’s site, and is thus theoretically of no risk. Reports have been made fairly widely that the cracking discovered in the vessel is due to radiation embrittlement of the steel, but FANC has reported that this crack is thought to be an original manufacturing defect.

According to FANC, this defect is in the body of the forged ring, and not near one of the circumferential welds.  Previously, only the weld areas were inspected under such tests in Belgium, but this test sequence for the first time inspected the body areas of the vessel away from welds.

FANC and the plant’s operator, Electrabel, have commenced a second round of tests with an older, widely used type of ultrasonic testing equipment in hopes of determining whether the anomalies detected in the Doel-3 pressure vessel are real, or are byproducts of some phenomenon associated with the new testing equipment/method.

FANC has reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency that these events constitute a significance of a Level 1 occurrence on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale—Level 1 is an “anomaly,” with no hazard to the public. The scale runs from Level 1 to Level 7, with Level 7 being the most serious threat to the public.

In the meantime, press attention has focused on the fact that the pressure vessel in this plant may not be unique. One other plant in the Netherlands, two in Spain, one in Switzerland, and one in Sweden also have pressure vessels manufactured by Rotterdam Drydock; as many as 21 total plants may be implicated.

There are nine operating plants in the United States that have pressure vessels manufactured by this same firm. Catawba-1, McGuire-2, North Anna -1 and -2, Sequoyah -1 and -2 and Watts Bar-1 have ring forging pressure vessels like that shown above, fabricated of SA-508 Class 2 steel.  In addition, Surry-1 and -2 have composite fabrication pressure vessels partly made by Babcock & Wilcox and by Rotterdam Drydock.  AEC (now NRC) documents, as well as statements by FANC indicate ten vessels were ordered from this firm, and it is believed that this tenth plant is the unfinished Watts Bar-2.

Rotterdam Drydock entered the field for manufacture of pressure vessels for U.S. nuclear plants in 1969 when a backlog of orders for pressure vessels (among the longest lead time items of the entire plant, and usually second to the turbine-generator as a whole) began to build up. American manufacturers Babcock & Wilcox and Combustion Engineering, the two suppliers of pressurized water reactor pressure vessels for U.S. vendors at the time, were then busily expanding their facilities, but a delay in the startup of Babcock’s then-new facility on the Ohio River at Mount Vernon, Indiana, forced the ordering of two vessels in 1969 from Rotterdam Drydock on Westinghouse vendor contracts as substitutions. Eventually, as many as 10 vessels were ordered for U.S. plants from Rotterdam—all for use in Westinghouse PWR plants.

Rotterdam Drydock went out of business in the mid-1980s.

What we don’t know

Many facts have yet to be reported that will bear mightily on the decisions to be made about Doel-3′s safety. It’s important to consider the alloy with which this vessel is made (1), the total embrittlement of that material over the life of the vessel so far due to neutron exposure, the number of pressurized thermal shock cycles the plant may have endured, the number of times the plant has overcooled or operated outside of its normal parameter bands (if any), and more.

One limiting factor for Doel-3, which is a 3-loop PWR supplied by a consortium known as FRAMACECO (consisting of Framatome, ACEC and Cockerill) and which first achieved criticality in 1982, will be the exact composition of its vessel and how that relates to embrittlement, and reduction in strength by any flaws. Pressure vessel steel specifications for reactors were changing during the time this plant was built, and it is not known if the vessel for this plant conforms to later criteria specifying especially low content of copper and phosphorus. (Standards changed under a supplement to the ASME code prior to the time that the vessel for Doel-3 would have been made, and reduced the trace elements that most seriously contributed to higher rates of embrittlement.)

What we do know: Flaw analysis and embrittlement

All reactor pressure vessels experience embrittlement—that is to say, a change in characteristics over time that makes the material less ductile due to neutron bombardment—which largely determines a plant’s life span, since the reactor vessel itself is considered non-replaceable.

In terms of what cracking the new crack at Doel-3 might imply, and whether or not PWR vessels have sufficient margin to survive such defects if unfound, we might look to a study performed in France over a 10-year time span in the 1970s and 1980s. This study is described in ASTM STP 819, “Radiation Embrittlement and Surveillance of Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessels: An International Study.” We find the following summation of the French program on page 31 in description of graphed test results:

“The results are compared with the minimum embrittlement as predicted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.99. It appears that in practically all cases the measured embrittlement is less than predicted. In Fig. 1 [not included here] all data points above the curve correspond to steels with phosphorus and copper content greater than 0.08 and 0.8% respectively.

The major conclusion of this study is that it is possible to produce steels and welds with relatively low sensitivities to radiation embrittlement if copper and phosphorus contents are maintained at a low level. This is easily achieved for copper content, but seems more difficult for phosphorus.”

The clear implication of this French study (cited from among the many other studies available due to the fact that it was, entirely, conducted by the French nuclear industry that participated in the construction of Doel-3) is that there is often a significant margin between predicted embrittlement and actual embrittlement, both of which are less than the minimum allowed. This will be the “playing room,” so to speak, that the FANC and Electrabel will have in determining the fate of the plant vis a vis the reduction in local material strength from the defects.

Many other studies have been performed worldwide on the behavior of irradiated reactor vessel steels, not only in terms of their embrittlement and reduction in strength due to neutron exposure but also as to the nature of crack propagation and the ability of the material to arrest crack growth. Should the defects in Doel be found to actually exist, it will be up to FANC to determine whether or not to consult such studies and bank on the safety of the vessel (which has already survived three decades with this flaw, if indeed it is an original defect), to perform more tests, or perhaps even to shut down the plant. Replacement of a reactor vessel has never been performed; these are always disposed of when a plant is decommissioned and dismantled and are considered one of the few “lifetime” components of a nuclear power plant.

Basic analysis for reactor safety includes—as a prerequisite of the determination of the vessel’s ability to avoid fracture due to embrittlement and due to temperature changes—a given or assumed initial flaw that is used for calculational analysis. This is not to say that this flaw exists in a (or any) vessel, or that it is allowed to exist; it is simply a basic assumption that provides an extra margin of safety and serves as a launching point for further calculation.

A short while back, this calculational assumption took on a life of its own when activists got hold of a report about the Genkai plant in Japan and assumed that the vessel had a known flaw built in; it did not. The people reporting on this simply did not understand the “pre-existing flaw” assumption made to ensure safety (2).

Possible significance for U.S. plants

How this applies to the ten U.S. plants that have vessels made by Rotterdam Drydock is as follows: What must first be determined is whether or not the defects in the Belgian plant exist or are anomalous. If they do exist, and are determined to be manufacturing defects present since the vessels were made, then it might be logically assumed that such defects might be present in the U.S. built vessels—assuming they were built to exactly the same manufacturing requirements, post-manufacturing quality assurance checks, and handling specifications, and are made of exactly the same alloy with the same trace element content. Further, it would have to be determined that similar inspection for identical flaws has not been carried out in any of the plants. Were all of that to be the case, an inspection of the U.S. vessels might be warranted.

As of this writing, only North Anna-1 and -2, and Surry-1 and -2 in the United States have been publicly identified previously (in Platts, on Friday) as having pressure vessels manufactured by Rotterdam Drydock. Dominion Virginia Power/Dominion North Carolina Power told Platts on August 10 that none of these plants has shown any indication of such cracking in inspections.

In Belgium, another inspection is planned: Tihange-2 also has a pressure vessel manufactured by Rotterdam Drydock that will be inspected in several months.

As should now be clear, the whole situation regarding even the Doel-3 vessel is at this time not yet fully known, and thus any implications for the U.S. plants cannot be accurately made as of yet.

 

Illustration from FANC of the actual reactor vessel in the Doel 3 nuclear power plant

Notes:

(1) For a discussion of the pressure vessel alloys and trace contents, see this link at Atomic Power Review

(2) For background on the Genkai assumption, see this link at Atomic Power Review

Reporting from the following sources has been used in preparing this report: World Nuclear Association / World Nuclear News, Marketwatch, Platts, The Turkish Weekly, Energy Business Review. Documents consulted from US Department of Energy, US AEC (now US NRC), and American Society for Testing and Materials.

______________________________

Davis

Will Davis is the author of the nuclear energy blog “Atomic Power Review,” and is a member of the American Nuclear Society.  A former US Navy reactor operator, Davis finds his calling to be presenting the public with information about nuclear energy technology and its history.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in News, nuclear technology, reactor pressure vessels

Tagged , , , , , , ,