Author Archives: pbowersox

A young girl and high technology

Posted on February 22, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

By Jane LeClair

When I was a young girl, I fell in love with science and technology. I was intrigued by famous physicist and chemist Marie Curie and her pioneering research on radioactivity. I wanted to know how such a small piece of uranium could be turned into so much energy. And my curiosity about the nuclear plant that was being built about 50 miles from where we lived only grew as I reached my teens.

My fascination with science was perhaps an unusual passion for a girl at the time. Still, despite the downward pressure that came with trying to navigate a world that pigeonholed women within certain career paths, my passion for science and technology never wavered. In truth, I devoted my life to it, spending nearly two decades in the nuclear industry before leaving for academia and occasionally consulting with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

With changing demographics and retirements, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts increasing demand for engineers. Yet, when I left the field I became just another statistic and part of an alarming number of women (56 percent) who leave the technology fields by mid-career. We’ll need to reverse that trend to fill the labor gap.

This is why the 11th Annual Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day, on Thursday, February 23, is critical in raising awareness of an important issue: Opportunities for women in engineering. Historically, as a professional field, and as a nation that values scientific achievement, we have failed to engage generation after generation of young women—many of whom with a bit of encouragement, mentoring, and most importantly, acceptance could have grown up to lead the next generation of engineers.

The sobering reality is that many young women don’t understand what a career in engineering offers: A creative outlet, great pay, and a chance to positively impact the world. It is a field for the independent thinker, the individual who loves to solve puzzles and find solutions to problems. A career in engineering is also an opportunity to see the world. Throughout my career, I’ve trotted the globe, from Ukraine to Hungary, Sweden to Vienna, visiting nuclear plants and engineering programs and working with the IAEA. I’ve also visited nuclear plants throughout the United States to bring academia and industry together to meet their mutual needs and the needs of our global community.

As a young girl, I never would have dreamed I would be doing what I’m doing. I’ve faced many challenges along the way as I negotiated the glass maze of prerequisite positions, interviews, qualifications comparisons, time in grade, and other confusing practices typical of high-end technology careers. But I am proud of my accomplishments. If it wasn’t for the encouragement of those close to me growing up, and the help of mentors along the way, none of this would have been possible. I know that many of the women engineers I have worked with throughout my career share my sentiments.

Let’s mark Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day by refocusing our priorities and affording all young women of science the encouragement they need to pursue careers in the technology and engineering fields.

_________________

Dr. Jane LeClair is the Dean of the school of Business and Technology at Excelsior College in Albany, N.Y., and an advocate for recruiting and retaining more women in the technology fields. LeClair worked in the nuclear industry for Constellation Energy for 20 years in various management positions. She was involved in a variety of professional organizations, including the American Nuclear Society, where she served as chair of the Education and Training Division, and the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), where she was region chair of the St. Lawrence Section of ASEE. She has worked with the IAEA and has chaired several international conferences and collaborated on numerous projects. She blogs on higher education, online learning, women in technology, the nuclear industry, and her experiences traveling the globe at Café LeClair.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Careers, engineering, IAEA, National Engineers Week, Science & Engineering Education

Nuclear energy: The moral choice

Posted on February 21, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

By Art Wharton

During the 2011 American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, a gathering of ANS members interested in social media and nuclear communications was held, with standing-room-only attendance. As the conversation went around the room, and people discussed their involvement in nuclear communications, a common thread held throughout: The participants felt a moral calling to advance nuclear science and technology through their work, and through their communications via social media. Most participants recounted an obligation that they felt to their community or their family, including the futures of their grandchildren.

Some of these people have been called ”industry shills” by those who oppose the continued use of nuclear science and technology for the benefit of society, implying that a pro-nuclear stance is somehow imposed upon someone by the big bad industry tycoons in charge of a vast nuclear conspiracy. The reality is, I have personally met many people who chose to work in the nuclear industry because they advocated nuclear technology, not the other way around. These are the people who are leaders, or will be the future leaders, in the nuclear field.

Speaking of industry leaders, they recently collaborated on the development of the Principles of Conduct for Nuclear Power Plant Exporters. In the preamble, they call out six principles for focus: “Safety, Security, Environmental Protection, Compensation for Nuclear Damage, Nonproliferation, and Ethics.” I’m personally proud to be part of an industry that operates with these core values, and with a sincere feeling of responsibility for their product.

Nuclear professionals live on the same earth as everyone else, so they have a personal stake in utilizing this fascinating technology for the benefit of society, along with strong core values of safety and environmental responsibility. If you’re looking for the moral high-ground in an energy debate, start with advocating the use of nuclear energy.

I originally decided to work in nuclear energy because it was “cool” to me. When I first learned that the energy density of a single fuel pellet equaled almost a ton of coal, I had to learn more. When I was a young boy camping with a Boy Scout troop, they advocated leaving the campground in better condition than we found had it, so the energy density and cleanliness of nuclear energy compared with other energy sources was compelling to me as a young adult. I followed the “cool” path, in my eyes, not realizing at the time that I was making a moral or ethical choice.

That changed in an unexpected way when I graduated college, and I took an oath called The Obligation of the Engineer. At an overwhelming time, in which the excitement of a new career, the largest paycheck of my life, and a cross-country move to a new region were looming, I had an “aha moment” when I took the oath. Many readers of this blog are engineers, and many are not, but I think the oath carries with it a tremendous message worth ruminating on for all nuclear science and technology professionals:

I am an engineer, in my profession I take deep pride.
To it I owe solemn obligations.
Since the Stone Age, human progress has been spurred by the engineering genius.
Engineers have made usable nature’s vast resources of material and energy for humanity’s benefit.
Engineers have vitalized and turned to practical use the principles of science and the means of technology.
Were it not for this heritage of accumulated experience, my efforts would be feeble.
As an engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance, and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and the dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of Earth’s precious wealth.
As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises.
When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good.
In the performance of duty and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.

- The Obligation of the Engineer

How can you tell if you’re talking to someone who’s taken that oath? Look at the pinky finger of their working hand, and they’ll have a modest, non-descript, stainless steel ring on it. I see many who embody this obligation as they uphold their devotion to safely implementing nuclear science and technology. I think that someone who reads this obligation slowly and deliberately can understand why emotions can run high in a time when nuclear science and technology comes under pressure. I won’t write any ad-hominem attacks on those who oppose nuclear science and technology, because I want today’s topic to be on the ethical and moral obligations we uphold in the nuclear science and technology field. I encourage engineers and non-engineers alike to renew their sense of moral focus on how their day jobs provide benefit to humanity, and to their own community.

Electrical power production provides life-saving opportunities. Refrigeration keeps food safe. Air conditioning saves many from heat stroke during the summer, and heating systems preserve life in the winter. The medical industry is dependent on electricity for many life-saving technologies. As you’re reading this paragraph, you’re probably listing out other things that electricity does to preserve and enhance life in ways that many people take for granted. Nuclear energy provides this life-saving electricity with the smallest footprint per unit of energy, and in my strong opinion, makes “the best use of Earth’s precious wealth.”

I have an obligation to give my knowledge, without reservation, for the public good. Sometimes, I don’t have all the answers. Organizations like the American Nuclear Society can be pivotal in our ability to bring knowledge together. I’ve grown as a person and as a professional from my association and participation in ANS events and governance. If you’re a member of the American Nuclear Society, as I suspect many of you are, you will find that ANS is consistent with this message of moral and ethical behavior as a society and as nuclear professionals. The ANS Code of Ethics gets specific, and the number one practice of professional conduct found in the ANS Code of Ethics is consistent with the rest of the industry:

We hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and fellow workers, work to protect the environment, and strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of our professional duties.

If you browse around the websites of nuclear industry companies, you’ll find that safety and environmental responsibility are consistently called out in their corporate core values. Safety is also the very core of the charter of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Maybe some people can read this and think that we just provide a lot of lip service, and that this is just good PR. Is it? Who pays attention to these things? Do news reporters sift through our corporate values, or Society ethics, or the Obligation of an Engineer before they report the news, or decide which “expert” interviewee to pay more attention to? If they did, I suspect that we’d see different words surrounding “Nuclear” in headlines.

Leaders pay attention to these things. They spend hours arguing over how they want to shape the words to affect the behaviors of the people they lead. They worry about whether they’ve communicated these values often enough, or well enough. If my CEO stopped me in the hallway today and asked me what the company core values were, I could recite them verbatim.

A breach of ethics represents the largest risk we face as we operate, execute projects, or form business deals. I encourage all of you to not only re-familiarize yourself with these values that your employers and your professional societies hold, but to take that confidence with you as you communicate about the benefits of nuclear science and technology. The facts are on your side, the moral high-ground is yours, and the highest standards of ethics and professional conduct will lead you. When in doubt, ask a friend; you have over 11,000 engineers, scientists, administrators, and educators representing more than 1,600 corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies at your disposal here at the American Nuclear Society.

______________________

Wharton

Art Wharton is a principal project engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company LLC in the Nuclear Power Plants product line. He is a member of the ANS Planning committee, the Operations and Power Division Program committee, the Operations and Power Division Executive Committee, is a Pittsburgh Local Section past chair, and is a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe. 

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, engineering, Social Media

ANS’s Loewen visits local sections

Posted on February 20, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Eric Loewen, president of the American Nuclear Society, kept up his rapid pace last week as he visited the ANS local section in Aiken, S.C., on February 15, and the one in Charlotte, N.C., on February 16. Loewen, as the featured speaker at the meetings of the two sections, presented his personal talk titled “Plutonium: Promise or Peril”.

During the morning on the 15th, Loewen toured the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility on the Savannah River Site, in South Carolina. The facility,which is being built by the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, will convert surplus nuclear weapon-grade plutonium into reactor fuel for use in commercial nuclear power plants starting in 2016. Under a 2000 agreement, the United States and Russia will dispose of 68 metric tons of surplus plutonium, enough material for many thousands of nuclear weapons (see Shaw Areva MOX Services for more info).

Later on the 15th, Loewen was hosted by Stephen Sheetz of the Savannah River National Laboratory for a tour of the lab and other facilities on the Savannah River Site.

At the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility: Zachary Kosslow (ANS), Amanda Bryson (Shaw Areva MOX Services), Eric Loewen (ANS-president), and Kevin Hall (NNSA).

 

NNSA-MOX Federal Project Director Clay Ramsey illustrates with ANS's Loewen how a fuel pellet boat will be used in the MOX fuel fabrication process.

The dinner meeting that featured Loewen on the 15th was attended by about 160 people. The dinner was hosted by Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, in cooperation with ANS. “Dr. Loewen’s presentation was very well received by all in attendance,” said Amanda Bryson, chair of the Savannah River ANS local section. “The event brought together professionals at all stages of their careers from all over the Central Savannah River Area, representing many facets of the nuclear industry in the area. This was one of the best-attended events for ANS–Savannah River in the past year, and provided the opportunity for lively and thought-provoking interaction among our membership and the membership of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness. It was a pleasure and a privilege to have Dr. Loewen visit.”

The next day, in Charlotte,  Loewen was interviewed on WFAE NPR Radio Charlotte. Click the “Listen” button at the WFAE webpage to tune in to the interview via the Comments page, or tune in to the interview directly.

Dr. Clint Wolfe (Exec. Dir. CNTA), Dr. Loewen, Karen Bonavita (CNTA)

“Dr. Loewen had over 100 attentive local section members as an audience,” said Thomas Doering, chair of the Piedmont-Carolinas ANS local section, regarding Loewen’s talk in Charlotte on the 16th. “The Peidmont-Carolinas section historically has drawn nearly 100 local members for over two years; the greater Charlotte area is considered the energy capital of the nation. Dr. Loewen’s talk focused on the misconceptions of plutonium and how other energy sources suffered from a similar beginning.”

When asked about his trip, Loewen said, “I’m just so impressed with the vibrancy and vitality of these sections. They really are greater than the sum of their parts, and their parts are pretty great.”

Carolinas Section Officers James Bakke, Thomas Doering - chair, ANS President Loewen, Myron Koblansky, Andrew Sowder.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Local Sections, Meetings, MOX Fuel, NASA, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, plutonium, spent fuel

Nominate Young Members for National Awards!

Posted on February 20, 2012 by pbowersox| Leave a comment

By Jennifer Varnedoe and Tim Gnadt

Do you know someone who has worked tirelessly toward integrating young members into the American Nuclear Society? Do you know someone in the ANS Young Members Group who has demonstrated continued overall excellence in many areas? Now is your chance to nominate that person for national recognition of their efforts.

We are now accepting nominations for the Young Members Advancement Award and the Young Member Excellence Award. We invite you to submit a nomination for any eligible and deserving member. Anyone can make a nomination, however self-nomination is not permitted. More information about these awards can be found at Young Members Advancement Award and Young Member Excellence Award on the ANS website, along with the nomination forms. Feel free to contact the YMG Awards and Recognition Committee Lead, Tim Gnadt, for more information.

  • Young Members Advancement Award – Honors an individual or group that has made a significant contribution toward integrating young members into ANS.
  • Young Member Excellence Award – Recognizes a member of the YMG who has demonstrated overall excellence in a variety of areas.

These awards are an opportunity to highlight up-and-coming leaders of the society for their encouragement, hard-work, and enthusiasm. One of the most rewarding aspects of my ANS membership is working toward a common goal with people who are amazingly passionate and brilliant. We hope that over the coming years, we are able to recognize all of the exemplary young professionals and mentors whose contributions make ANS the extraordinary organization that it is!

______________

Varnedoe

Jennifer Varnedoe is chair of the ANS Young Members Group. She is a project engineer with Advanced Programs at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. She has been an ANS member since 2007 and is a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Gnadt

Tim Gnadt has been the chair of the YMG Awards and Recognition Committee since January 2011, and a member of the YMG since November 2009. He is active duty in the US Navy and works as an instructor at its prototype training facility in upstate New York.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Honors & Awards, Young Members Group

NOW CASTING: Discovery Channel’s Top Engineer!

Posted on February 15, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Discovery Channel seeks America’s top inventors, machinists, and engineers to compete for a huge grand pr1ze

Televised musical contests like American Idol are no doubt a perfectly suitable route to fame and fortune for many of the talented nuclear scientists and engineers who are avid readers of the ANS Nuclear Cafe.  BUT what if you happen to be a talented nuclear technician, engineer, or scientist who can’t carry a tune? What then?

You may be in luck, dear reader! You may be even more suited to star in the Discovery Channel’s upcoming reality competition: “TOP ENGINEER!”

From the Official Casting Call: “The Discovery Channel is looking for America’s most creative and daring techies, machinists, inventors, and engineers to design, build, and BLAST their way to a Grand Prize.”

From the sound of it, our readers with intimate knowledge of nuclear engineering and technology will clearly carry an advantage in some of the competitions—although using their entire skills set might require special negotiations with the Producer.

So, represent the nuclear community, get out there, and win big! Or at least get on TV, and be sure to put in a plug for nuclear technology while you’re there. Email TopEngineerCasting@gmail.com—click on the picture below for all the info.  Deadline is March 7, 2012.

 

→ 1 Comment

Posted in engineering, News

Lise Meitner’s fantastic explanation: nuclear fission

Posted on February 14, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

By Paul Bowersox

On February 11, 1939, a Letter to the Editor titled “Disintegration of Uranium by Neutrons: a New Type of Nuclear Reaction” appeared in the science journal Nature. The letter provided the first theoretical explanation for the splitting of the atom, and coined a new term in physics: fission. The woman who co-authored the letter, and co-discovered the power of nuclear energy, is perhaps not quite as well-known as some of her contemporaries. Elise Meitner—how could hers not be a household name?

Meitner was born November 7, 1878, the third of eight children in a Jewish family in Vienna, Austria. Although she excelled in math and science, at that time and place girls did not attend school past the age of 14. Lise’s parents, however, made sure that their daughters received the same education as their sons, through private tutors. After studying for years to gain entrance at the University of Vienna, Meitner eventually became only the second woman to earn a PhD in physics there.

A battle for the ultimate truth

Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner

Meitner’s nephew, Otto Robert Frisch, said that Meitner’s university teacher, Ludwig Boltzmann, “gave her the vision of physics as a battle for the ultimate truth, a vision she never lost.” Meitner was one of the true nuclear pioneers–her career spanned from virtually the discovery of radioactivity, through to her own co-discovery of nuclear fission, and well beyond. A few years after earning her PhD in 1905 ,she met the research partner that she would work with for 30 years, Otto Hahn, and soon they discovered several new isotopes. In 1917, the duo discovered the first long-lived isotope of the new element protactinium, and in 1922 she discovered the cause for electron emissions from surfaces known as the Auger Effect. From 1924 to 1934, the Hahn-Meitner team became well-known internationally as scientific researchers of the first rank, and were nominated for the Nobel Prize for 10 consecutive years.

A search for new elements

In the 1930s, researchers began to speculate that elements even heavier than uranium—at that time the heaviest known element in nature—might be possible. Such a discovery and achievement would be a sure-fire Nobel Prize winner, and many of the top scientists in the world endeavored to create the hypothetical new element. Hahn and Meitner collaborated in much research toward this end, but history intervened.

 

Flight from Hitler’s Reich

Meitner converted from Judaism to Christianity in 1908, but in Hitler’s Reich that counted for nothing. Bigotry, racism, and prejudice were translated into government policy by Hitler, and Germany’s takeover of Austria in 1938 brought Austrians like Meitner under German law. She barely escaped with her life, with the help of scientists both within and outside the Reich. But Meitner continued to exchange letters almost daily with her research partner Hahn, who was still inside Germany. But Hahn snuck out of Germany to meet with Meitner to discuss new experiments. Hahn was a brilliant, methodical, and precise chemist, while Meitner was a brilliant theorist attempting to puzzle out his laboratory results. It was a perfect scientific partnership.

A fantastic explanation

At their secret meeting in 1938, Meitner urged Hahn and his laboratory partner Strassman to perform additional tests on neutron-bombarded uranium. Hahn and Strassman finally determined that the end result included the much lighter element barium, not the expected heavy element radium. This was very puzzling. Hahn recognized that uranium atoms completely breaking apart into much smaller atoms would be an explanation, but how could that happen? Hahn wrote to Meitner: “Perhaps you can come up with some sort of fantastic explanation. We knew ourselves that [uranium] can’t actually burst apart into [barium].” 

Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch, while outdoors skiing, realized Bohr’s “liquid-drop” model of the atomic nucleus could explain the result mathematically. They scribbled formulas on a scrap of paper in the woods:  A uranium atom could elongate when bombarded by neutrons, and occasionally some of the uranium atoms could split apart into two “smaller drops.” In fact, the uranium atoms in Hahn’s experiments had split to form the much lighter atoms barium and krypton, and ejected neutrons and a very large amount of energy, with a loss of some mass. Meitner was the first to realize Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 was at play here, converting mass into energy.

The most deserving scientist never to win a Noble Prize

Hahn published his chemical evidence for fission without listing Meitner as a co-author—understandable, as he was in Hitler’s version of Germany and she was of Jewish heritage. Hahn, however, continued to maintain that he was the sole discoverer of fission, through accepting the Nobel Prize in 1944 and for the rest of his life. Meitner’s explanation for this was that Hahn was “simply suppressing the past (in Nazi Germany). I am part of his suppressed past.” 

The forgotten discoverer, remembered

Although not a Nobel-winner, Meitner was quite famous enough for U.S. President Truman in 1946 to quip, “So, you’re the little lady who got us into all of this!” Meitner and Hahn had little idea that their basic research would turn out to be useful in making weapons of awesome destructive force, however. When asked to join the Manhattan Project in 1943, she replied, “I will have nothing to do with a bomb!”

Instead of a Nobel Prize, Meitner has been honored with an even more enduring legacy: Element 109 is named meitnerium in her honor.

And since today is Valentine’s Day, allow me to close with a quote from Meitner: “Science makes people reach selflessly for truth and objectivity; it teaches people to accept reality, with wonder and admiration, not to mention the deep awe and joy that the natural order of things brings to the true scientist.”  To this author, this reads like a love letter to the universe! Lovely, indeed.

_____________

Bowersox

Paul Bowersox is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe, and quite privileged to have the opportunity to write about the work of the nuclear pioneers.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Education, Nuclear pioneers, physics

Reflections on the Cedar Creek Room

Posted on February 13, 2012 by pbowersox| 4 Comments

By Howard Shaffer

On January 19, the Federal District Court in Brattleboro, Vt., issued a court decision in favor of Entergy Corporation, regarding the continued operation of its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Entergy had sued the State of Vermont on several issues, but mainly on Act 160, a Vermont law that was crafted to block the continued operation of the plant. The plant needs a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) from the state in order to keep operating, but Act 160 says that the state’s Public Service Board needs legislative approval before it could release its findings on the application for the CPG. Without the new CPG, the plant would have had to shut down when the original one expires, on March 21, 2012. The federal court’s decision “permanently enjoined” the state from using Act 160 to deny a CPG to Entergy; the basis for that decision is the supremacy of federal law over state law.

States rights and Vermont

Supporters of the law that was struck down have raised the the issue of “states rights.” They assert that the state has the right to rule on the plant’s safety, even if the federal government has already ruled. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over nuclear radiological safety, by law, as affirmed by prior court cases. But the supporters further argue that only some members of Vermont’s legislature have spoken of safety, and that in fact Act 160 is based on energy policy and economics.  Yet a review of the federal court’s decision by law professors has pointed out that the state did not introduce any evidence that the law had any other basis than safety.

The Cedar Creek Room

The Cedar Creek Room is the reception room in Vermont’s state capitol building, across the hall from the governor’s ceremonial office. It should be a reminder that the Civil War settled the issue of states rights. Press conferences and many other events are held in the Cedar Creek Room. One wall displays a mural-sized painting of the battle that gives the room its name. The battle was a turning point in the Civil War, by ending Confederate effectiveness in the Shenandoah Valley. Vermont units were prominent in the Union forces at that battle, and five of the 21 Medals of Honor awarded for the engagement went to Vermonters.  Vermont’s participation in the battle was a continuation of the strong abolitionist sentiment inVermont, and of its proud participation in the Underground Railway to Canada. Vermonters are justly proud of their heritage.

Painting of the Civil War Battle of Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek Room, Vermont State House

Political history being repeated

Meanwhile, some parts of political history are being repeated. Taking extreme positions can win elections, even though the positions do not get enacted. For example, the late Governor Orville Faubus of Arkansas ran as a moderate on segregation. In 1957, in an apparently politically motivated move, he used the Arkansas National Guard to prevent integration of Little Rock High School. President Eisenhower federalized the Guard and sent them away. Eisenhower then sent in the 101st Airborne Division to protect the students.

In Alabama, George C. Wallace ran for governor as moderate  and lost. He vowed never to lose again, became a staunch segregationist–and won. In 1963, he  “stood in the school house door” at the University of Alabama to block integration, by this action asserting states rights. He backed down to federal marshals and the National Guard.

Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin lost the lieutenant governor’s race in 2002, when a Progressive candidate split the vote. For his 2010 run for governor, Shumlin wanted to be sure that no Progressive ran against him. According to political commentators, Shumlin agreed to run on a platform of shutting down Vermont Yankee if the Progressive candidate would not run. Political pundits say that 14 percent of Shumlin’s vote was  from the anti-nuclear block. He won by one percent. The plant’s opponents are talking about mass non-violent civil disobedience, and holding training for it. Will the court have to enjoin the protesters? Will the federal government have to remove them? Meanwhile, Shumlin is sitting in the governor’s chair.

In the 1980s, in another example of federal versus state authority over nuclear power, Massachusetts sued the NRC over its regulations concerning the bordering Seabrook plant in New Hampshire. Massachusetts appealed up to the Supreme Court and lost. The Massachusetts governor was against the plant, and the appeal appeared to his anti-nuclear constituents that he had done all he could. Vermont is expected to appeal all the way for the same reason.

Federal and state regulation

The federal court has made it clear that the NRC has sole regulation of nuclear power plant radiation safety, and that the states have authority on reliability, rates, the environment, esthetics, and the “public good.”

In addition, states share regulatory authority with the federal government in many areas, including nuclear matters, and have the right to do so.

In Vermont, the Department of Health takes measurements and samples around the Vermont Yankee plant, and reports results. It inspects and oversees radiation safety in facilities other than power plants. The state has set a lower limit than the NRC’s for the annual fence line dose.

The Agency for Natural Resources issues permits for water quality, under the federal Clean Water Act.

Those talking about “states rights” don’t seem to notice that regulatory power is being shared. Perhaps they have forgotten what the Civil War settled, even as they pass by the picture in the Cedar Creek Room.

The latest 

Entergy has petitioned the Public Service Board to act on its application for a new or renewed CPG. Now the Vermont Yankee battle moves to a quasi- judicial venue, with the same politics and the same opponents. This time, however, a ruling from a federal judge makes it clear what can and cannot be heard as evidence. The plant is a big step closer to continued operation, but is not there yet.

_______________________________

Shaffer

Howard Shaffer has been an ANS member for 35 years. He has contributed to ASME and ANS Standards committees, ANS committees, national meeting staffs, and his local section, and was the 2001 ANS Congressional Fellow. He is a current member of the ANS Public Information Committee and consults in nuclear public outreach. 

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project.  Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, View from Vermont

Let’s find another word for safety – Entergy v. Vermont in plain English

Posted on February 10, 2012 by pbowersox| 15 Comments

By Tamar Cerafici

Entergy’s Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant’s operating license would have expired on March 21, 2012, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission extended the license to 2032. Vermont’s legislature and a vocal part of the state’s population don’t like the idea of Vermont Yankee’s continued operation. So, when confronted with an unpopular federal agency’s decision, what’s a concerned state legislature to do?

Pass laws against the plant, that’s what. Take as much legislative control over the operation of a privately held, federally licensed merchant nuclear plant as you possibly can. Tell your Public Services Board to consider radiological health as an economic issue. Base these activities on a misreading of a badly written Memorandum of Understanding. Do this during an election year.

There’s a problem with this strategy. It doesn’t work, at least according to Federal District Court Judge Gavan Murtha. On January 19, 2012, Murtha allowed Entergy to operate past the March 2012 deadline imposed by the Vermont legislature. The 102-page, historically rich ruling is instructive and clearly describes Vermont’s intentions about Vermont Yankee. But despite valiant efforts to slip through a preemption discussion, the legislature clearly overstepped its boundaries.

Vermont’s legislative efforts to limit the operation of Vermont Yankee

Better minds than mine have tackled the history of Vermont’s relationship with Entergy and Vermont Yankee. The matter came to a head when the state legislature passed several statutes that essentially prohibited Entergy’s ability to operate the plant after March 21, 2021. To understand Judge Murtha’s ruling and to put to rest any confusion that Vermont’s governor Peter Shumlin may have about it, here is a quick rundown of the offending legislation:

Act 160 enacted three substantive provisions governing Vermont Yankee.

  • The first section (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 248(e)(2)) provides that “[n]o nuclear energy generating plant within this state may be operated beyond the date permitted in any certificate of public good . . . unless the general assembly approves and determines that the operation will promote the general welfare.” This section gives Vermont the right to “pocket veto” any application from a nuclear plant for a certificate of public good (CPG), or by inaction allow an existing CPG to lapse. The legislature must pass a law affirmatively allowing continued operation.
  • Another section (248(m)) requires the Public Safety Board to consider current assumptions and analysis—rather than the supporting information for the existing CPG—in any review of a petition for continued nuclear operations.
  • Section 254 requires the board to analyze public health factors in a petition for renewal, including public health issues relating to dry-cask storage of spent fuel.

Act 74 contains provisions that allow Vermont to:

  • Require a CPG before implementing any uprates or construction of a spent fuel storage facility.
  • Requires legislative approval of spent fuel storage derived from the operation of Vermont Yankee after March 21, 2012.

Entergy cried “foul,” claiming that Vermont was preempted from enforcing the legislation, and Judge Murtha agreed.

How can this decision be confusing when the answer’s in the Constitution?

Shumlin, the governor of Vermont and a former legislator, is shocked and has implied that Vermont’s assistant attorney general had been badly outgunned by well-respected Washington, D.C. litigator Kathleen Sullivan. He even complained, “The first consideration is how do you take a disappointing decision that doesn’t make a lot of sense and ensure that you proceed in a way that meets the objectives of the state of Vermont.”

The home-team reaction to the result is a little naive. NRC authority clearly preempts Vermont’s authority to regulate Vermont Yankee’s operation.

The NRC’s power springs from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Before 1787, the former colonies had sovereign power, and joined together in a loose confederation. As every fifth grader knows, this did not work. The states agreed to let Congress decide which powers they (the states) could keep. In other words, federal laws passed by Congress became the “supreme law of the land,” preempting any conflicting state law.

Judge Murtha’s ruling simply follows a long historic line. How is that confusing?

If it looks like a duck ….

There are several tests to determine whether a state’s activities are preempted by federal law. Judge Murtha used all of them. Primarily, the judge used what I call the Duck Test, which I borrow from that great legal philosopher Douglas Adams:

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

The Vermont legislature tried like crazy to avoid crossing into the NRC’s turf, and they didn’t even try to hide it. In fact, Shumlin and the rest of the legislature knew they were trespassing on federal turf when they crafted the law. Judge Murtha dedicated at least 40 percent of his opinion on legislative bon mots like:

“Okay, let’s find another word for safety.” – Senate Finance Committee Chair

“…we don’t say safety when we’re talking Vermont Yankee in this room.” – unidentified representative

The legislature could consider a “broader range” of issues than the [Public Service] Board, referring to “three-headed turtles and sterile sheep” – unknown senator

“[W]e also intend to change the title, an act relating to an independent audit rather than a safety assessment.” – Sen. Peter Shumlin

“editorial changes … deleting the word safety and putting the word emergency, things like that.” – Chief Legislative Counsel

Witnesses also urged the legislature to assert oversight authority over dry cask storage, because there was “very little faith in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

Judge Murtha’s decision makes complete sense. His conclusion is straight out of the Federalist Papers. The authority retained by the federal government invalidates any state legislation that conflicts with federal law or authority. So, the NRC’s federal power to regulate safety at nuclear power plants preempts Vermont’s right to legislate a nuclear power plant out of existence.

Whither now?

Entergy must still get its extended CPG to continue operations. The CPG was already leaning toward extension. Vermont’s attorney general can appeal the ruling, but that seems unlikely. Decisions like this are treated with great deference on the appellate level.

Barring any economic decisions from Entergy, it looks like Vermont Yankee will still operate long past March 21.

____________________

Cerafici

Tamar Cerafici is an environmental lawyer practicing in the areas of environmental, nuclear, and sustainable development law. Feel free to use any material in this guest post; just give credit where credit’s due: to Dan Yurman for asking me, and to me for writing it.

→ 15 Comments

Posted in lawsuit, News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, View from Vermont

The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report

Posted on February 6, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

By Jim Hopf

Soon after declaring that it would end the Yucca Mountain repository project, the Obama administration created the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to reevaluate the nation’s nuclear waste program and policies. The commission was asked to recommend improvements to the waste program and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and to make general recommendations on the path forward. The commission was specifically instructed to not address the Yucca Mountain project, or any specific project or site. The commission’s final report was released this month.

Primary recommendations

The main recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) are as follows:

• A repository (or long-term storage facility) should be sited using a “consent-based” approach, as opposed to having the federal government select a site and then impose it on the state and/or local community. The government would offer incentives to a large number of communities, whose locations are potentially suitable as a repository site, and let communities (and states) come forward voluntarily. (In essence, this implies that Yucca Mountain should be abandoned and the process should start over.)

• Responsibility for siting, licensing, building, and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities should be shifted from the Department of Energy to a new, independent single-purpose organization (most likely a federal corporation). Most experts agree that such an organization would offer more focus, stability, and credibility than the DOE, which has lost credibility with many stakeholders.

• The waste program must have full access to the nuclear waste fund that has been paid for by the 0.1 cent/kW-hr fee levied on nuclear-generated electricity. In the short term, the administration should amend the DOE’s standard contract so that only the money appropriated (i.e., spent) that year is transferred from the waste fund to the federal government. Remaining funds would be placed in a trust account that is managed by an independent organization. Over the longer term, legislation should be passed that transfers the entire balance of the nuclear waste fund to the new waste management organization.

• A prompt effort to develop a geologic disposal facility is necessary. There is scientific consensus that deep geologic disposal is the best option for final disposal of nuclear waste, and that a geologic repository will be necessary for any type of fuel cycle. The BRC did recommend further research and development of advanced fuel cycles and reactor designs, but stated that committing to a specific fuel cycle option or technology at this point in time would be premature.

• There should be a prompt effort to develop one or more consolidated used fuel storage facilities. This would allow the government to meet its contractual obligation to take the used fuel from utilities much sooner than if it waited for a final repository to be developed. It may also reduce the (small) risks associated with fuel storage somewhat, by reducing the number of sites where fuel is stored. Removing the fuel from decommissioned nuclear sites would free those sites up for other uses.

• Preparations for the eventual shipment of large amounts of used fuel should begin soon. A large number of stakeholders should be involved in the planning of the waste transportation program.

• The government should support research and development into advanced reactors and fuel cycles, as well as nuclear workforce development programs. The BRC stated that the general direction of the DOE’s current R&D is appropriate.

• The United States should maintain its leadership role in the international community in the area of nuclear technology. It should provide aid, advice, and technical and regulatory assistance to other countries, particularly those who are starting new nuclear programs.

NWPA changes

The BRC’s recommended path forward involves specific changes to the NWPA:

• The NWPA currently specifies Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be evaluated as a repository. The law would have to be changed to allow other sites to be evaluated.

• The NWPA currently allows only one centralized used fuel storage facility with limited capacity, and this storage facility may only be developed after a repository is licensed. The NWPA would have to be amended to allow multiple centralized storage facilities, and to remove any linkage with repository licensing.

• The NWPA would be amended to broaden the number of jurisdictions that could receive funding and technical assistance in support of the fuel transportation campaign.

• The NWPA would have to be amended to create the independent waste management organization discussed earlier, and to shift the DOE’s current responsibilities (for siting, licensing, building and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities) to that organization.

• The NWPA would also have to be amended to remove the nuclear waste fund from the congressional appropriations process, and to allow the independent nuclear waste management organization to have full access to the fund.

• Some NWPA changes may be required in order to allow the United States to provide a broader range of support to other nations in the area of nuclear waste management.

ANS response

The American Nuclear Society has responded to the BRC’s final report. ANS concurs with the BRC’s recommendation to create a new, independent agency to manage the nation’s nuclear waste in the future. ANS also agrees with the recommendation to create one or more centralized used fuel storage facilities, to accommodate much of the nation’s used fuel until a final repository is finally sited, licensed, and constructed. ANS also supports the BRC’s call for continued R&D on advanced (closed) fuel cycles.

One area of disagreement between ANS and the BRC, however, concerns the Yucca Mountain repository. While ANS acknowledged that the BRC was explicitly instructed not to address Yucca Mountain, it reiterated its position that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should conclude the licensing process for the repository (at a minimum).

My perspective

I largely concur with ANS’s point of view on the BRC recommendations. Almost everyone believes that having an independent organization, as opposed to the DOE, manage the waste program would be helpful. Allowing full access to the nuclear waste fund (for its intended purpose) is absolutely essential, given the history of Congress in hijacking the waste funds for other uses or for political reasons. Right now, the fund is little more than a (punitive) 0.1 cent/kW-hr tax on nuclear electricity.

I also agree that R&D into advanced fuel cycles and reactors is important. The BRC stated that they do not believe that fuel cycle technology that would significantly alter the nuclear waste situation is anywhere on the horizon. ANS thought that this was overly pessimistic, and I’m inclined to agree. Fuel cycle technologies such as “UREX+” are a few decades away at most. Such fuel cycles have the potential to significantly reduce the bulk and heat generation level for the final waste stream, which should greatly reduce the number of final repositories required (to one, probably). This is enormously important.

I also agree with ANS on the subject of Yucca Mountain. It is imperative that the NRC complete the evaluation and licensing process, and formally rule on whether the Yucca Mountain repository would have been acceptable from a scientific and technical perspective. (Virtually all observers believe that NRC staff had concluded that the repository met the requirements.) This should be demanded as part of any “compromise”, in exchange for accepting the BRC’s recommendation that we start the repository siting, evaluation, and licensing process all over again (largely wasting the ~$15 billion that has been spent).

I believe that the single largest drawback of starting the repository program over, and delaying final resolution of the waste issue by decades, is that it will result in a large fraction of the public continuing to believe—falsely—that there is no technical solution to the nuclear waste problem. This in turn will measurably increase public resistance to nuclear power, which will result in greater fossil fuel use in the future. The public health risks and negative environmental impacts of this increased fossil fuel use will utterly dwarf any risks and/or impacts associated with any nuclear waste repository.

Although it wouldn’t be as good (or effective) as having an actual repository in place, having the NRC formally rule that the Yucca Mountain repository met all of the (impeccable) requirements would go a long way toward convincing the public that we do have acceptable scientific/technical solutions to the nuclear waste problem.

I would go on to insist that the government make sure that NRC’s ruling is highly publicized. The government should inform the public that an adequate technical solution to the waste problem has been found, but that we are electing to wait awhile to see if “even better” solutions can be found. Waiting is justifiable and prudent, given the very small risks and economic costs of storing nuclear waste. Those “better” solutions may include the use of advanced fuel cycles that result in a smaller, colder, or shorter-lived waste stream, or simply a final repository that has a greater level of political support from the surrounding state and local communities.

_____________________

Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, licensing, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, position statements, Radwaste Solutions, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

Plutonium in Space: Why and How?

Posted on February 1, 2012 by pbowersox| 7 Comments

By Wes Deason

The reasons for using plutonium in space missions are often unclear to those outside the mission planning community. Observers may see or hear only that the space mission is nuclear related, and that the power source uses plutonium.

Plutonium is a word that in some communities has very negative connotations. Plutonium was needed to create the atomic weapons of the Cold War, is highly regulated by proponents of nuclear nonproliferation, and is one of the causes of the environmental woes at the Hanford site in Washington State. On the other hand, it is also the element that has been used to safely power many space missions, including the Voyager, Galileo, Cassini, New Horizons, and the most recent Mars rover, Curiosity.

So, why is plutonium still used if it has issues associated with it?

The answer is that plutonium exists in multiple nuclear forms, or isotopes. Isotopes occur in elements naturally due to differing number of neutrons in the nucleus. While relatively unimportant on the chemical level, on the nuclear level isotopes of a single element can behave very differently. Plutonium-239, the isotope of plutonium with 94 protons and 145 neutrons, is a fissile isotope, meaning that after the absorption of a non-energetic neutron it has a possibility of splitting, or fissioning. Because of this capability, plutonium-239 can be used in nuclear reactors and weapons. Plutonium samples with a large fraction of the plutonium-239 isotope are referred to as weapons-grade plutonium.

However, devices that use plutonium to produce power use the plutonium-238 isotope, which has 94 protons and 144 neutrons. It is not fissile, and cannot be used in atomic bombs or nuclear reactors. Plutonium-238 is useful for radioisotope heat sources, and radioisotope power systems, because it decays radioactively, releasing a particularly useful form of radiation called alpha radiation.

Alpha radiation is simply energized and completely ionized helium atoms, which lose their energy in the form of heat when interacting with other matter. This energy loss mechanism is similar to how friction generates heat on a surface. Alpha radiation is generally not harmful to humans, provided its emitters are not inhaled or ingested; alpha particles can be stopped by the outermost layer of skin.

Pu-238 is safe and can produce heat, but why is it preferred over other power sources?

Radioisotope power systems are useful for space applications for two main reasons:

  • First, they are very versatile. Unlike solar power sources, radioisotope power systems do not rely on correct orientation toward the sun, nor do they depend on proximity to the sun.
  • Second, the power from plutonium-238 lasts a long time. The half-life of plutonium-238, or the amount of time it takes for the power produced by the isotope to decrease by half, is 87.7 years.

A power system fueled by plutonium-238 can last for a very long time. This is, of course, dependent upon the reliability of the heat-to-electricity conversion components. The most common power conversion method—a static system known as thermoelectric conversion—is very reliable and can last for decades.

Future radioisotope power systems will adopt a new method for power conversion called the Stirling cycle—a dynamic (moving) cycle—which will allow for higher efficiency and lower mass systems. The new generators will be termed Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators. For more information on radioisotope power systems, see this page maintained by the Department of Energy.

Where do we get plutonium-238? Can it be found naturally?

Unfortunately, plutonium-238 cannot be found naturally. This is because it is radioactive and will have almost completely decayed into a different element after a geologically short period of 1000 years. Thus, plutonium-238 must be produced using nuclear reactors.

During the Cold War, when weapons-grade plutonium production was at full scale, plutonium-238 was a byproduct that could be saved and used for space power production.  Since the 1990s, however, the United States has stopped production of weapons-grade plutonium, yet we continue to plan space missions that require the use of plutonium-238. NASA and the DOE have discussed plans to use national laboratory reactors to produce plutonium-238 for general purpose applications, but it is questionable if they will be able to supply a sufficient amount to meet national needs.

Another concept, proposed by the Center for Space Nuclear Research (CSNR), uses flexible TRIGA research reactors to produce a higher quantity of Pu-238 per year at lower cost. For more information on low cost plutonium-238 production, contact the CSNR.

Regardless of its source, Pu-238 remains an important tool for scientific research. Many space missions have been powered by plutonium-238, and future missions will continue to be enabled by it. Its long lasting heat generation—coupled with a dependable power conversion system—allows it to be used in many environments and configurations. The use of plutonium-238 can be expected to become even more important as space exploration pushes further outward to Mars, Jupiter, their moons, and beyond!

This article is the first of a monthly series of ANS Nuclear Cafe entries on nuclear space topics by the ANS Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Professional Division.

_______________________________

Deason

Wes Deason is a graduate student in nuclear engineering at Oregon State University working on the safety analysis of vented fuel systems for gas-cooled fast breeder reactors. He is a former summer fellow for the Center for Space Nuclear Research and the current student liaison for the Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Division of ANS.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, engineering, NASA, Nonproliferation, physics, Professional Divisions, Space Applications

ANS banner, donations support Fukushima workers

Posted on January 31, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

A banner signed by American Nuclear Society members during the society’s Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, signifies the support and encouragement of ANS membership for the people of Japan and the workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant who are rebuilding after the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

In a letter to Eric Loewen, ANS president (page 1) (page 2), Tokyo Electric Power Company president Toshio Nishizawa thanked ANS for the banner and noted that donations totaling $240,000 have been collected through the ANS Japan Relief Fund to support the workers at the plant and their families. Nishizawa also noted that in December the Fukushima Daiichi plant was brought to a condition equivalent to “cold shutdown” and that it “entered into a new phase of mid- and long-term Roadmap for decommissioning of the reactors.”

Fukushima plant workers with ANS banner

 

Loewen said during the Winter Meeting, “We continue to honor the brave men and women of the Japanese nuclear community who are committed to the clean-up and rebuilding efforts after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. We want them to know that we recognize their dedication and hard work. To do this, we created a banner to be signed by meeting attendees who can personally send encouragement and best wishes to demonstrate our continued support. Our Japanese colleagues know they are remembered through our financial support and the banner message.”

 

Banner message in English and Japanese

 

At the 2011 ANS Winter Meeting: President Eric P. Loewen and Vice-President Michael Corradini. Flanking the ANS officers are Loewen’s son and daughter, Hans and Zatha

 

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Earthquake, Fukushima, Meetings, Natural disasters

ANS statement on BRC’s final report

Posted on January 27, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future released its final report on Thursday, January 26. The report contains recommendations for a comprehensive U.S. strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Please click here for the American Nuclear Society‘s statement on the report.

__________________

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, News, position statements, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

Nuclear Science Day Photos

Posted on January 25, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

Nuclear Science Day, January 25 2012, at the Illinois Institute of Technology, truly was a resounding success!  A huge thank you to the students, teachers, organizers, sponsors and world-class nuclear engineers and scientists who made today’s scientific celebration such a great event.  And National Nuclear Science Week continues!  A few photos from today:

 

Mark Peters, Justin Thomas, Argonne National Laboratory

ANS President Eric Loewen

National Museum of Nuclear Science & History Director Jim Walther

Walther and Indy Racer Simona de Silvestro

 

Comments Off

Posted in News

Why I chose a nuclear career: video interviews

Posted on January 24, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

Today is designated Careers in the Nuclear Fields Day for National Nuclear Science Week! To kick off Nuclear Careers Day, several Chicago ANS Local Section members participated in video interviews to share what fascinates and excites them about their nuclear careers.

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Careers, Local Sections, National Laboratories, National Nuclear Science Week, Nuclear events, Science & Engineering Education

ANS Special Committee on Fukushima Update – Dr. Dale Klein

Posted on January 16, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Fukushima