Category Archives: American Nuclear Society

American Nuclear Society awards, events, meetings, and organizational updates.

Space nuclear propulsion: Humanity’s route to the solar system

By Wesley Deason

Part III: Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

Today’s post is the final installment of a series concerning space nuclear propulsion (Part I) (Part II). Previous posts discussed nuclear reactor safety and nuclear electric propulsion. Today I will focus on the other extensively researched nuclear space propulsion method: nuclear thermal propulsion.

Nuclear thermal propulsion

Nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) involves the direct heating and expulsion of a propellant using nuclear power. To accomplish this, nuclear thermal rockets (NTRs) normally consist of three components: a propellant tank, a nuclear power generator, and a nozzle. As in nuclear electric rocket systems, the component that sets various NTRs apart is the type of nuclear generator used.


Most systems that have been designed and tested have used a nuclear reactor to provide heat, while some others have examined the concept of radioisotope power. In the end, the determining factor for which nuclear power generator type should be used is the purpose for which the system was designed. If a nuclear thermal rocket is intended to power a mission to Mars or beyond, a nuclear reactor is a necessity as a power source.

History

The concept of the nuclear thermal rocket was first developed in the 1950s as a solution for safe and reliable travel to Mars. The research program subsequently developed in the late 1950s and 1960s was unprecedented for space nuclear technology. Through the program, many NTRs were designed, built, and tested. The test site for these systems was Jackass Flats, a location adjacent to what is now the Nevada National Security Site, which lies about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Famous tests in the program included PHOEBUS 2A, the most powerful nuclear reactor ever to be operated, and NRX-A2, a reactor that was purposefully placed under a very fast power transient to prove its safety. Later NTRs were designed with a specific application in mind, as they were considered for the eventual final stage for the famous Saturn V rocket. Unfortunately, funding for the NTRs, and even the Saturn V rocket, eventually vanished due to a change in the nation’s priorities after the Apollo lunar landings. Despite this change, the program is today considered a technical success, as the tests showed that a system could be safely built and operated.

Some Reactors tested in Rover Program -- Space Nuclear Power by Angelo and Buden

Advantages

But why choose nuclear thermal rockets—and nuclear propulsion in general—over chemical propulsion technology, which has been used for carrying payload from earth to space for over 50 years? The answer lies in the tremendous energy density present in nuclear power, and its inherent flexibility in application. NTRs are able to heat any propellant that is pushed through its core, unlike chemical rockets that must rely on the combustion of propellant for energy transfer. Because of this feature, NTRs can heat and expel the most efficient propellant possible, which is hydrogen gas, allowing for a large reduction in the overall mass that must be carried from earth’s surface to orbit.

In addition, all nuclear propulsion methods are inherently capable of providing long-term electricity production. Bimodal NTRs (BNTRs) can accomplish this by coupling a dynamic power conversion system to the reactor system. These systems are designed to run an additional coolant through selected channels in the reactor core, spinning a turbine, and producing electricity. Unlike solar power, nuclear power can operate independent of its location and orientation in space, providing electricity for energy intensive life support systems and scientific equipment.

Humanity’s route to the solar system

Nuclear power offers an unmatched capability for producing the massive amounts of energy required to travel in and out of the gravity wells of our solar system. Whether nuclear power is applied as a means of heating a propellant, as in nuclear thermal propulsion—or as a generator of electricity, as in nuclear electric propulsion—nuclear power stands as humanity’s route to the solar system.

_____________________

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 the American Nuclear Society.

ANS participates in the USA Science & Engineering Festival

American Nuclear Society exhibit

Visitors learn about nuclear science & technology at the ANS display during the USA Science & Engineering Festival going on this weekend in Washington, DC.

ANS delegation to India

India is fast emerging as a leading world power in nuclear science and technology. In this video interview, American Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen discusses the recent delegation he led to help foster U.S.–India nuclear cooperation to benefit both countries.

For more background and information, see this ANS Nuclear Cafe article on the ANS delegation to India.

ANS at the USA Science & Engineering Festival

The American Nuclear Society will be participating this weekend in the largest celebration of science in the United States: the 2nd annual USA Science & Engineering Festival.  The finale Expo of the festival will be Saturday and Sunday, April 28-29, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington DC.

The Expo will feature over 3,000 fun, interactive, hands-on exhibits; more than 100 stage shows featuring science celebrities, musicians, magicians, and comedians; and 33 author presentations.

Visit the ANS exhibit (“booth” #2653) during the Expo at the Convention Center to take in some nuclear knowledge. Click here for a map of exhibit locations—we will be in Hall A between the National Robot Fest and the Einstein Stage. The start page for the Expo is here. As you can see, there will certainly be no shortage of things to do!

Expo hours will be 10am-6pm on Saturday and 10am-4pm on Sunday. New this year:  The USA Science & Engineering Festival Book Fair, and a Career Pavilion for high-school students that includes a College Fair, a Job Fair and a Meet the Scientist/Engineer Networking area.

The main idea is to encourage kids to consider careers in science and engineering. The ANS exhibit will be supported by ANS Outreach staff and by members of the Washington, D.C. and nearby ANS Local Sections. The USA Science & Engineering Festival is free of charge, so be sure to visit!

Join the exhibit to talk with young people about nuclear science and technology

If you live in the DC area, please consider volunteering to spend some time with ANS staff and ANS Local Section members talking with young people about nuclear science and technology — email Chuck Vincent, ANS Outreach, for more information.

Founding chair of ANS Young Members Group wins Landis Award

By Jennifer Varnedoe

David Pointer, principal nuclear engineer at Argonne National Laboratory and the founding chair of the American Nuclear Society’s Young Members Group (YMG), was honored with the 2012 ANS Landis Young Member Engineering Achievement Award. The award recognizes an individual who has made significant technical contributions in any one of the many engineering disciplines served by ANS. The contributions can be in the form of a new principle, concept, design, method of analysis, product emanating from research or development, or from effective application of engineering knowledge to yield a commercial service or product needed in the nuclear energy enterprise.

Pointer

Pointer received the award in recognition of his outstanding young career, exceptional technical achievements, and excellence in leadership to support the development of next-generation simulation tools on high-performance computing platforms. He is currently the technical lead in the development of the SHARP toolset, an integrated code able to address reactor multi-physics problems (thermal-hydraulics, neutronics, structural mechanics) in a fully coupled manner.  Among his numerous achievements are notably the development of innovative aerodynamic solutions for trailer-trucks, the development of multi-phase computational fluid dynamics models, and ground-breaking simulations of large-scale sodium fast reactor assemblies.

Pointer also received the YMG Excellence Award in 2007. A long-time member of YMG, and now a supporter of its mission, he exemplifies how YMG can be instrumental in promoting and fostering a young professional’s career through ANS. He had this to say about his vision of the role of YMG and how it helped him:

“The ANS Young Members Group was established to enable the next generation of nuclear professionals to reap the full benefits of active involvement in the Society much earlier in their careers.  My involvement in YMG has enabled me to take a much more active role in the development of my career, and I credit much of my success to the strong relationships I’ve forged through YMG.”

The Landis Award will be presented to Pointer at the ANS Annual Meeting in Chicago, in June.  Join us there to toast Dave Pointer for this prestigious achievement!

__________________

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.

 

ANS Student Conference 2012 in the News

The 2012 ANS Student Conference in Las Vegas wrapped up last weekend.  Thanks to all attendees and to the host University of Nevada Las Vegas Student Section of the American Nuclear Society for making the event such a success!  News coverage of the conference from ABC TV Channel 13 KTNV:

ANS Fusion Energy Division statement on FY2013 energy appropriations

The American Nuclear Society’s Fusion Energy Division submitted a statement on April 10 to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee and the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. The statement addresses certain proposed fiscal year (FY) 2013 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy.

The statement is below and can be downloaded in PDF format by clicking HERE.

Dear Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander:

The Fusion Energy Division of the American Nuclear Society has a Statement on the proposed Department of Energy budget and its adverse effect upon the future of fusion energy research and development:

Research in nuclear fusion represents one of very few options for a long-term effort to provide a major source of energy to replace climate-changing fossil fuels and ensure America’s energy security. Fusion is one of the fundamental energy sources of the universe. Providing energy from fusion is a major scientific and technological challenge—in fact, it is one of the National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges for Engineering—but the rewards of fusion power and the benefits of a sustainable domestic source of energy make it a challenge worth taking.

The FY-2013 budget request by the Administration endangers the United States’ domestic fusion program as well as our country’s scientific contributions to the ITER international project. If implemented, the FY-2013 budget reductions will deal a major blow to the U.S. fusion research program and further erode its leadership position. After years of operating on minimal budgets and essentially level funding, the U.S. fusion program cannot withstand the proposed reductions without significant negative impacts.

Control room of MIT’s Alcator C-Mod fusion reactor

U.S. fusion researchers were told a few years ago that there would be some “belt tightening” to divert fusion research funds to ITER construction. Without any quantitative guidance from the DOE on belt tightening, there was speculation that it might be 1% or perhaps even as much as a 5% budget reduction for a few years. The FY-2013 budget, however, proposes a 16% reduction ($45 million) of fusion research funds, and DOE officials have given warnings that reductions of up to $100 million more will be needed in the coming years. If the Administration’s FY-2013 budget is implemented, the DOE will close a unique fusion experiment, the Alcator machine at MIT, and the students and staff there will be dispersed. Deeper cuts in the future will disperse even more staff and students at institutions around the country who would use the ITER results, and greatly reduce the number of American engineers and scientists who will be educated and trained in fusion.

We urge the U.S. to consistently and adequately support the fusion research program as outlined in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PL 109-58, sec 971-972) and reverse this position, restoring funds to the domestic fusion program budget and, separately, fully funding this nation’s promised annual ITER contribution.

The path to discover commercially viable fusion energy is one of the grand scientific challenges of our time. With ITER under construction to explore the science of burning plasmas, the world fusion program is poised to enter its final era of research. Other nations, including China, the European Union, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, are forging ahead rapidly, investing heavily in their domestic fusion programs and in educating the next generation of fusion researchers. They are fully supporting ITER as well. The U.S. has consistently led the fusion field and should continue to do so. American leadership in fusion energy would be in the best interests of the U.S. and science itself.

Sincerely,
Lee Cadwallader
Chair, Fusion Energy Division

Minami Yoda
Vice-Chair, Fusion Energy Division

cc: The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy
       The Honorable Dr. William Brinkman, Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy
      Dr. Edmund Synakowski, Associate Director, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, Department of Energy

ANS Idaho Section hosting Social Media Workshop

 Mark your calendar: April 19

The Idaho Section of the American Nuclear Society is sponsoring an all-day event ”Communicating in a Changing World: Social Media Workshop” on Thursday, April 19, at the Shilo Inn in Idaho Falls.

“This workshop is for those new to social media and those wanting to learn a few new tricks,” said Teri Ehresman, communications lead for Idaho National Laboratory (INL), when ANS Nuclear Cafe asked about the upcoming event. “Idaho National Laboratory has a new Nuclear App and, as part of the workshop, we want to share some of our lessons learned from that experience. We see social media as a way to help spread our message.”

The day-long workshop features a lineup of speakers, including Sarah Lane, co-host of iPad Today, the Social Hour, and Tech News Today at TWiT.tv.

The workshop schedule follows:

  • 8:30 a.m. — Registration
  • 9 a.m. — Speaker: Sarah Lane, San Francisco. She will speak on “Communications and Media at TWiT.tv, ” “Understanding Social Media,” and “Where are Social Media and Technology Going?”
  • 12 p.m. — Lunch Speaker: Mike Hart, president of CommDesigns of Idaho Falls, will discuss “Reaching Mobile Audiences and the Challenges of App Development.” He will share lessons learned from developing the nuclear application for INL.
  • 1 p.m. — Speaker: Cynthia Price, Richmond, Va., director of Communications for ChildFund International, will discuss “Developing and Using Social Media at ChildFund.org”
  • 2 p.m. —  Speaker: Misty Benjamin, INL Communications  and Government Affairs, will discuss “Leveraging Social Media at Idaho National Laboratory”
  • 3 p.m. — Speaker: Paul Menser, Idaho Falls blogger, will discuss “The Transition from Traditional to Social Media at the Local Level”
  • 4:00 – 4:30 — Social time

Live-tweeting: #ifsocialmedia

RSVP to Teri Ehresman, Teri.Ehresman@inl.gov , or call her at 208-526-7785.

________________________

ANS Friday Nuclear Matinee triple feature

A triple feature for your viewing pleasure! Here we go:

1. Those atomic clocks can really come in handy! “GPS, Relativity, and Nuclear Detection” from Minute Physics:

 

2. This video regards Einstein’s mathematically proving the existence of atoms (and their size) in 1905. For more detail, see this Nuclear Pioneers post from the ANS Nuclear Cafe. Here’s the video “Albert Einstein: The Size and Existence of Atoms” from Minute Physics:

 

3. The ANS Student Conference in Las Vegas is now well underway. Here is one of the many beautiful videos shown during ANS President Eric Loewen’s keynote address at the conference, courtesy of Suzanne Hobbs Baker of PopAtomic Studios. Full-screen mode recommended:

The ANS Student Section of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

American Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen visited the ANS student section at the University of Illinois on Tuesday, March 27, followed by dinner with the Central Illinois ANS local section. This event was part of Loewen’s “March Madness” speaking tour, building toward the 2012 ANS Student Conference (which begins today in Las Vegas).  The occasion gave ANS Nuclear Cafe a chance to catch up with Valentyn Bykov, president of the ANS student section at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to discuss the section and its activities.

Social events

Bykov

Valentyn Bykov:  “During their first two years, our students take general science and engineering classes along with students from all the other engineering disciplines. Since we are a small department (the Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering/NPRE), we don’t see many of our fellow nuclear engineers during these two years. Therefore, ANS organizes many social events, providing opportunities for students to become better acquainted and to get to know each other. This also allows underclassmen to meet the upperclassmen, who often pass down advice based on their experience.”

Excursions

Dr. Loewen addresses the Illinois ANS Student Section

“We take many engineering classes, most of which are highly technical. So, it’s very difficult to keep in mind the overall big picture. During the more difficult semesters, we all need to be reminded why we’re doing all this in the first place and recharge our motivation. So our ANS section organizes numerous trips to nuclear power plants and national labs, where students can see what kind of work nuclear engineers can do after they graduate, as well as understand how all these individual components come together, forming the big picture. It’s also a good opportunity to get industry insight on various topics,” said Bykov.

Outreach

“We also make sure to stay in touch with people outside of the NPRE Department and the nuclear industry, mainly through outreach events,” he said. “When we ask people what do they think when you say nuclear engineering, we often hear about nuclear weapons, cooling towers and (more often than you’d think) the dangerous health effects of the microwave oven radiation. Our goal is to inform and educate, but also share why we think that industry nuclear is an interesting and exciting career choice. We organize and assist with several
Boy Scout merit badge events, in which young scouts learn about the science behind nuclear power and related career choices. Every March we hold a series of presentations and demonstrations during our university’s Engineering Open House, a two-day event during which over 20,000 people visit campus to see various engineering demonstrations created by students. We also try to be present during various non-engineering events; for example, we have a table next to other student organizations in an event organized during ‘Mom’s weekend,’ in which students and their visiting moms can see what various student organizations do on campus. Being usually the only engineering organization present at this event, our interactive demonstration of radiation sources is very popular. Many of the visitors want to talk to us about the nature of our organization, potential careers, details about Fukushima, and nuclear power in general.”

The future

Valentyn Bikov, Arthur Talpaert, Jason Peck, Eric Loewen, Thomas Dolan, Rizwan Uddin, Barclay Jones

“As for long-term goals for our student section, at this point our membership is composed almost entirely of nuclear engineering majors, most of whom are undergraduates,” he said. “One of our long-term goals is to get more people involved, especially from other departments. We believe that the nature of our trips and many of our other events would be relevant to other departments. We are also trying to extend our involvement with other departments (i.e., by cooperating with other students organization on joined events) and non-engineering events (like the aforementioned Mom’s weekend interactive presentation).”

“I feel like our ANS section is an extension of the students,” he added. “At times various students have an idea for an interesting event or a trip, and instead of leaving the organization up to the (already very busy) NPRE Department, the ANS student section will step in and handle everything. This gives more power to the students, as we can spread the word about the idea and, if there’s sufficient interest, organize the whole event without the need for the department to get involved.”

“This also works the other way around, when the department asks or encourages us to set up an event to address an issue they hear about in student feedback forms,” Bykov said. “For example, our university no longer has an operating research reactor (our TRIGA was shut down in the 1990s for political reasons), and many students feel they are ‘missing out’ on the related experiments. Therefore, our department suggested—and our student section is currently in the process of organizing—a visit to a university that has a working reactor, during which we would perform experiments to gain experience with research reactor operation. The goal is to first organize the visit and offer it simply as a trip for interested individuals, then in the future hopefully make the visit more frequently than once in a semester, and offer some kind of course credit in return. The whole effort is currently organized primarily between our ANS student section and the ANS student section at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.”

The Illinois ANS student section board. top row: Michael Cunningham, Robert Geringer, Cody Morrow; bottom row: Talisa Chambers, Valentyn Bykov, Molly Bilderback; not pictured: Carlos Altamirano

In closing

“Our ANS student section provides many ways in which to get involved, whether it’s getting advice on what class to take next semester, meeting nuclear power plant workers and talking to them about their job, practicing one’s teaching abilities with children and the general public, or one of the many other ways for nuclear engineering students to get involved in the ‘big picture,’” he concluded.

 

 

___________________________________

Space nuclear propulsion: Humanity’s route to the solar system

Part II: Electric propulsion and fission power generation in space

(Part I, “Space nuclear reactor safety,” is here)

By Wesley Deason

Ever since man set foot on Earth’s moon, explorers have envisioned traveling out of Earth’s orbit and into space beyond. To do so, however, will require a propulsion device capable of traveling farther than any used before. These devices will be powered by nuclear energy. In this post, I will discuss nuclear electric propulsion, one of the two primary nuclear propulsion concepts considered by engineers for near-term space travel. Nuclear thermal propulsion, the other primary concept, will be explored in a later post.

Electric propulsion, also commonly referred to as “ion thrust propulsion,” uses electrical power to accelerate ions to very high speeds to provide thrust for a spacecraft. Nuclear electric propulsion is electric propulsion whose power source is fission reactor based, or radioisotope decay based. Electric propulsion is not a new technology, and is well understood. Currently, solar powered electric propulsion devices are used at a small scale to keep satellites in their correct orbit. For operation at a larger scale, however, where much higher thrust values will be needed, or operation at a distance from the sun where solar power is incapable of providing the necessary energy intensity, nuclear electric propulsion will be required.

Aside from the ion thruster used to provide thrust for a nuclear electric propelled spacecraft, its other defining characteristic is the type of nuclear electric generator needed to provide power. Nuclear electric generators used for power production in space can come in many shapes and sizes, depending on the power requirements and spacecraft dimensions. For small power production needs in missions requiring a low thrust, radioisotope power systems can be used. In these systems, the radioactive decay heat from a radioisotope is converted to electricity through the use of a heat-to-work conversion device, or a heat engine. The most common of these are Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) and Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators (ASRGs). You can find out more about these systems by reading my previous post on plutonium-based radioisotope power systems.

SNAP 10-A, fission-based space power system launched in 1965

For larger thrust requirements, however, fission-based power systems become a necessity. Missions requiring such high thrust will be manned and/or carry a large onboard capacity for conducting science. These mission requirements are also often outside the capability of chemical (or even nuclear thermal) propulsion. Individually, the previously stated requirements are not difficult to meet. For example, earth-based power reactors generate enough power to light a large city, but the thought of launching them into space to produce power is absurd. Alternatively, fission power systems have been proposed that are about the size of a small car, which is a relatively small payload to put into low earth orbit. Unfortunately, these systems can produce only a fraction of the electric power that could be produced by that same small car. The ideal space nuclear electric generator would meet both requirements of size and power. To evaluate competitive designs for nuclear electric propulsion systems, engineers seek the smallest system mass possible for a given power production level.

SNAP 10-A

To meet these system requirements, engineers must consider different technologies from those used in earth-based nuclear reactors. For example, the first and only fission-based space power system to be flown by the United States, the SNAP-10A spacecraft, used thermoelectrics, which is the same power conversion technology used by RTGs to produce electricity. Thermoelectrics, however, while dependable, are very inefficient, and excess heat produced by the reactor must be rejected away from the spacecraft. In space, this heat rejection can only be in the form of radiative energy. For those unfamiliar with methods of heat transfer, radiative heat transfer is how heat lamps heat food at a local fast food restaurant, how heat is lost from a vacuum sealed Thermos, and even how the earth is heated by the sun. This may seem unintuitive at first but if you think about it, there are no lakes or rivers of water in space to sweep away excess heat like earth-based power systems. In space nuclear power systems, large panels are heated to high temperatures in order to reject this excess heat. Thus the size, and accordingly the temperature, of these radiator panels drive the power system to be as efficient and high temperature as possible.

Many technologies have been discussed as being capable of achieving such power production goals, with some being invented primarily for this purpose. One of the simpler systems may use a combination of helium and xenon gas as coolant, which can spin a turbine to produce electricity. This was the system designed and proposed for use in the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO), a space exploration program under serious consideration only a few years ago. More complicated systems propose boiling potassium to spin a turbine, although the zero gravity environment of space makes the task more difficult to accomplish. Lastly, some propose suspending the fuel in a gaseous form, allowing it to flow through a magnetohydrodynamic generator (MHD), which uses the ionized fuel particles to produce electricity. The best way to explain an MHD generator is to think of it as a reverse ion thruster, where charged particles induce a current to produce electricity.

Prometheus nuclear electric Deep Space Vehicle, incorporating JIMO Mission Module

Nuclear electric propulsion has great potential. Its ability to provide propulsion to anywhere in the solar system makes it a viable competitor when the human race decides to explore beyond the gravity well of earth. Like most nuclear technologies, research will continue and technological advancements will continue to be made in the meantime.

_________________________

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 the American Nuclear Society.

 

NAS study of cancer risks near U.S. nuclear facilities

By Rod Adams

The National Academy of Science (NAS) has released phase one of a study titled Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities. The release officially opened a 60-day public comment period in which stakeholders can provide their inputs to help guide the next phases of the study. The project email address that should be used for submitting comments is crs@nas.edu.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission tasked the National Academy of Science to perform the study. The expenditure was considered to be a prudent investment because the existing study on the risk of developing cancer based on proximity to nuclear facilities in the United States is more than 20 years old. In the intervening years, there have been a number of attempts internationally to determine if there is a link between radiation released from nuclear energy facilities and cancer risks; the results of those studies have been inconclusive.

In cases like the announcement of a discovery of a cluster of childhood leukemia cases near the Sellafield facility in Great Britain, the news of results that seemed to indicate a problem received a great deal of publicity. News of the cluster’s discovery was broken during a television program that aired in November 1983. The careful science required to more fully understand the cause of the higher than expected rate of childhood leukemia took decades.

It is likely that few of the people who formed opinions about the radiation-related risk of cancer from the television story or the numerous repetitions of that story have heard anything about the study titled Childhood leukaemia, nuclear sites, and population mixing, which was accepted for publication in the British Journal of Cancer in October 2010. That study showed that there was a strong correlation between population influx in a formerly isolated rural area and the risk of childhood leukemia. That relationship has been found in populations near expansive facilities that had nothing to do with nuclear energy or radiation.

The effort to find out if there is a risk associated with living near a nuclear energy facility is full of scientific obstacles. Many of the challenges that are inherent in the task are detailed in the summary that the NAS released as part of the phase one scoping effort. The listed challenges include the difficulty in finding accurate data that relates cancer incidence to physical addresses, lack of any records related to population mobility in areas of interest, some uncertainty about radiation release data, and the expectation that any increases in cancer related to the measured levels of radiation will be so low as to be statistically hidden in the noise of normal variations.

Of course, scientists who have been tasked with finding ways to perform a study can almost always recommend several methods that might provide useful information—if provided with enough resources. This effort is no exception to that rule; the summary provides no fewer than four potential study designs, each with its own set of limitations and strengths. Not surprisingly, the summary also includes a recommended course of action that would involve a substantial effort in data gathering, modeling, and analysis—assuming that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides to proceed with the study.

The final recommendation in the summary is the development of processes for involving and communicating with stakeholders “to achieve effective collaboration with local people and officials and increase social trust and confidence.”

Dr. Arjun Makhijani, a man with a long history of opposition to the use of nuclear energy, strongly supports the effort and expects the NAS to find evidence of risk, especially to children. He intends to provide a substantial input during the comment period. I expect that other professional antinuclear activists will provide their comments and demand to be a part of the stakeholder engagement process.

A number of experts in the field of radiation biology are also preparing to provide comments. Here is an example comment from an e-mail list inhabited by people who have studied radiation health effects for decades:

If the U.S. NRC and these radiation protection folks would only look at the (20-year-old) cell biology evidence instead of their LNT [linear no-threshold] ideology and epidemiology, they would realize that they are trying to measure a cancer risk (radiation-induced DNA damage rate) that is six million (6,000,000) times lower than the spontaneous risk of cancer (i.e., natural DNA damage rate).

The numbers in that comment relate to the fact that the dose rate from licensed nuclear facilities in the United States is less than 1 mSv/year to the most exposed person. There is zero probability that a population exposed to such a dose will exhibit any increase in expected cancer risks. It is always possible, however, to expend a large sum of money and time performing studies and involving a number of stakeholders, many of whom tend not to reveal their actual stake in the matter.

The American Nuclear Society includes experts in the field of radiation biology who should take the time to read the phase one scoping summary, learn more about the proposed study methods, and provide informed comments. The most reasonable decision would be that there are any number of higher priority ways to spend the money and the scientific resources that would be needed to perform the proposed phase two study; it is unlikely to provide any new or useful information.

A more likely decision will be to perform the study, but perhaps a sufficient number of informed comments will prevent initial assumptions about risks from producing yet another study that seems to support the notion that radiation risk is always some number greater than zero—no matter how low the dose.

_________________

Adams

Rod Adams is a nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.

ANS Vice President Corradini discusses ANS Fukushima report

American Nuclear Society Vice President/President Elect Michael Corradini—co-chair of the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima—discusses the findings of the ANS Special Committee report and other Fukushima-related matters in this news clip, filmed in conjunction with a March speaking engagement at an Oak Ridge/Knoxville ANS Local Section dinner meeting.

ANS President Eric Loewen submits testimony on FY 2013 energy appropriations

On Friday, March 30, American Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen submitted outside written testimony on behalf of the American Nuclear Society to the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. The testimony addresses on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other relevant agencies under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction—in particular, funding for nuclear programs under DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy.

The testimony is below and can be downloaded in .pdf format by clicking HERE.

Testimony by Eric P. Loewen Ph.D.
President, American Nuclear Society
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
On the FY 2013 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill
March 30, 2012

Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky, members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 12,000 members of the American Nuclear Society, I am pleased to provide testimony on FY 2013 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy and other relevant agencies under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

As you know, ANS represents a diverse cadre of nuclear professionals. As such, our members’ opinions on nuclear issues are often wide-ranging, and perhaps sometimes different from the Subcommittee. The ANS, however, truly appreciates the thoughtful and deliberate manner in which the Subcommittee approaches issues related to nuclear energy, science, and technology.

ANS believes the United States must maintain its nuclear energy technology capabilities, both from an energy and national security perspective. While we recognize that US demand for new nuclear reactors has cooled recently because of our economic downturn and historically low natural gas prices, the ANS knows nuclear energy is still an indispensable part of our long-term energy policy in the US.

The administration has set forth a plan to address the current set of nuclear challenges: a targeted research and development program to promote sustainability of our current light water reactor fleet; a program to accelerate development and licensing of light water Small Modular Reactors (SMRs); research programs focused on the nuclear fuel cycle, advanced reactors, and developing simulation and modeling tools that have broad application across the nuclear sector.

We are puzzled however by the President’s FY 2013 budget request for the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE NE), which is clearly insufficient to maintain progress on the administration’s own announced priorities.

Administration’s budget documents show a net increase of 0.7% over FY 2012, which on the surface would seem to be a reasonable request given the current fiscal pressures. Upon closer inspection, however, the administration proposes moving $95 million in funding for “Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security” into the main DOE NE budget from Other Defense Activities account. Without this clever piece of accounting, the actual FY 13 DOE NE budget would be cut by 11.7%, while the overall funding level for DOE would increase by 3.2%.

It is apparent that the president’s budget request for DOE NE is more a product of internal budgetary “goal posting” than a deliberate attempt to reduce the scope of the administration’s initiatives in nuclear energy science and technology.

The ANS believes it is extremely important to maintain funding for the DOE NE at consistent levels, and urges the subcommittee to base its FY 2013 recommendations on FY 2012 enacted levels. As such, our specific program recommendations for DOE NE assume “flat funding” in FY 2013.

We urge the Subcommittee to support the continuation of the Integrated University Program. Specifically, we request that the Subcommittee to restore the full $15 million in funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s portion of the IUP program and the $5 million FY12 appropriated level for DOE-NE. While we are pleased that the current leadership of the DOE NE has reestablished its commitment as the primary steward of university-based nuclear education programs, we believe it is critically important for NRC to continue its activities in this area. As you may recall, it was the House Energy and Water Subcommittee that originally precipitated the transfer in funding for universities from DOE to NRC several budget cycles ago. If these activities are not funded, several very important activities will be terminated, including support for younger faculty awards, and collaboration on curriculum between two-year and four-year institutions of higher learning.

ANS recommends funding the SMR licensing technical program at $95 million, which represents an increase of $30 million over the President’s FY 2013 budget request level. Our recommended funding level would put the DOE SMR program on a sustainable trajectory to meet its budgetary milestones of $452 million over a 5 year period. The subcommittee should recognize that the US is in a full scale race with other nations, such as Russia, China, Korea and India, to develop and deploy SMR technology. SMRs offer an opportunity for improving the attractiveness of the US nuclear export portfolio and create manufacturing jobs in the US. The president’s budget request level is
simply insufficient to meet the program’s objectives.

The Advanced Reactor Concepts program should be funded at the FY 2012 enacted levels. ANS recognizes that the administration has de-prioritized the development of socalled Generation IV reactor designs. However, its proposed 43% cut in funding for the Advanced Reactor Concepts program will essentially relinquish US global leadership in an American technology and throw away previous US investments. Forgoing this leadership directly impacts our ability to promote US safety and nonproliferation standards around the world for these technologies.

The Next Generation Nuclear Plant project should be funded at its authorized amount in EPAC of 2005 in FY 2013. ANS believes that DOE should fund the NGNP project for success and near-term results rather than settle for a slower pace of licensing “framework” activities. Developing a licensing “framework” does not establish technology leadership, rather it concrete foundations of this first-of-kind project that will establish the US as technology leaders.

Sadly however, the 47% percent cut proposed by the administration would not allow DOE to even pursue its stated “framework” course, and would also continue to cause irreversible losses to a program established in EPAC 2005. For instance, several samples of advanced fuels currently being tested in the INL Advanced Test Reactor would have to be prematurely removed, thereby destroying valuable scientific data (that took years to create), and not keeping with Congresses vision of the project established by law in 2005.

Finally, we urge the Subcommittee to provide such sums as may be necessary for the preservation of all scientific and technical documents and predictive modeling licensing codes related to the Yucca Mountain license application. The ANS membership has been deeply disappointed that the administration has essentially chosen to value politics over sound science in withdrawing the license application. We recognize that the Administration efforts with the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), and their recommendations to Congress. ANS provided input to the BRC. Prudence dictates that the technical fruits of nearly $10 billion worth of utility rate payer investments should be preserved for future repository efforts regardless of the location in the US.

In closing, our goals is to provide the Subcommittee with the views of our society as it assembles the FY 2013 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, and we stand ready and willing to provide additional technical assistance based on this information. At this moment in the life of our industry, I call for more attention to the need for our nation to have the courage of commitment to live up to our historical leadership role in nuclear technology. Unless we step up, we will be left behind.

Thank you.

98th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Nuclear renaissance picks up steam with NRC approval of twin AP1000s at Scana’s V C Summer Station

The 98th Carnival is up at Idaho Samizdat.

Ted Rose painting of the New York Central 20th Century Limited in Chicago. Image: U.S. Postal Service commemorative stamp

This post is the collective voice of blogs with legendary names which 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.
Past editions 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.
The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by the leading pro-nuclear bloggers in North America that we will 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.
If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog, and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brian 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.
# # #