Category Archives: Fukushima

Japan stressed out over future of its nuclear reactors

Posted on February 2, 2012 by dyurman| Comments Off

Safety checks by the IAEA haven’t boosted public confidence

By Dan Yurman

An International Atomic Energy Agency expert mission team to Japan arrived there the last week of January to check on so-called “stress tests” of the nation’s 54 reactors. While preliminary responses from the team are generally favorable, a final report, including proposed corrective actions, is still forthcoming.

In the meantime, the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), as well as Japan’s other nuclear utilities, find themselves tied up in knots about how to restart shut down reactors.

Japan’s nuclear energy industry continued a domestic downward spiral in January with only three reactors remaining on the grid. At the rate things are going, all of the country’s nuclear reactors will be closed by May. Japan gets 30 percent of its electricity from them. The lack of power, and fuel replacement costs, contributed in January to the nation’s first balance of payments trade deficit in more than three decades.

The IAEA team said in its preliminary report that the comprehensive safety assessments that are being carried out are generally consistent with the agency’s international standards. Japan’s nuclear utilities are conducting the reviews based on instructions from the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), which is soon to be reorganized as an independent agency.

An incomplete grade?

Two areas of vulnerability highlighted in the IAEA preliminary report as missing pieces in Japan’s stress tests are seismic safety margins and severe accident management. In the diplomatic language of a United Nations agency, the IAEA wrote that NISA should address these topics in greater depth and soon.

James Lyons, leader of the eight-member IAEA team, told the New York Times on February 1, “there is room for improvement.”

IAEA spokesman Greg Webb clarified to the newspaper that the agency was not certifying the safety of Japan’s nuclear reactors.

Critics of the stress tests quickly latched on to this language. They said that the reviews ignore the potential for multiple natural disasters occurring simultaneously, which is what happened on March 11, 2011. Also, critics said that the tests don’t take into account the age of the reactors.

What’s significant about the criticisms is that they come from nuclear experts inside the industry. Masashi Goto, who says his expertise is in design of nuclear reactors, and is an adviser to NISA, told wire services that the stress tests are computer simulated and do not take into account operator errors and multiple failures of equipment causes by a cascade of natural disasters.

Hiromitsu Ino, a professor at Tokyo University, said that neither NISA nor the nuclear utilities updated the test protocols to take the Fukushima accident into account.

TEPCO responded that the comments from the advisory committee are valid and agreed to revise the simulation. However, according to Japanese English language media reports, TEPCO’s calculation aren’t comprehensive enough to satisfy critics who say that they also don’t take into account damage from hydrogen explosions, the resulting debris, leaking radioactive water, and other issues that hampered the emergency response for multiple reactors at Fukushima.

Rebuilding public confidence

Japanese nuclear utilities have hoped that the visit by the IAEA team would bolster public confidence in the restart of the reactors. Local communities around the reactors, which benefit from work force payroll, taxes, and other economic benefits, are anxious for the reactors to restart soon. However, the further away you get from the plants, the more anxious the population becomes about them. While provincial government officials have no legal power to stop the reactors from restarting, Japan Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has said that he will take community feelings into account in his decision.

As part of his effort to boost public confidence in the government’s oversight role, Noda is reorganizing the nuclear safety function. Until the Fukushima disaster, NISA was located inside METI, the trade ministry. Many felt that this proximity created role ambiguity with both the promotion and regulation of the nuclear industry reporting to the same politically appointed minister. Under the new plan, NISA will be established as an independent agency with beefed up technical staff.

Another step in the direction of plant safety is to impose a cap on the duration of reactor operation. A cabinet draft legislative proposal issued this week could impose a 40-year life on reactors from their commissioning date. It would also allow for an extension of 20 years. Japan has no regulatory limit on how long a reactor can remain in service.

The cost of replacement fuel

As Japan pursues a race to the bottom in terms of having no reactors generating electricity, driven by public angst, fossil fuel costs are rapidly rising and contributing to economic stress. In December and January, Japan’s imports of crude oil and natural gas increased significantly according to the Federation of Electric Power Companies.

Fossil imports have pushed the Japanese economy into its first annual trade deficit in three decades. The primary reason is a 33-percent increase in oil imports from the Middle East. Japan’s need for oil also contributed to its tepid response to a U.S. call for an embargo of crude oil buying from Iran over its uranium enrichment activities.

Japan relies on high-value manufacturing exports to pay for its energy and food imports. When the lights go out at its factories, the trade deficit is the result. As this trend is accelerating, TEPCO is proposing a 17-percent increase in electricity rates, to take place in April, largely to cover the cost of replacement power as the reactors remain shut down.

Steelmakers have protested the steep rate increase saying it will force them to move production offshore. A spokesman for the Japanese Iron & Steel Federation said on January 28 that the electric furnaces used by its members can’t be kept running in Japan under the new rates. He said that the new rates would cost an additional 20 billion yen ($2.2 billion) a year.

Restructuring TEPCO

The Japanese government is trying to keep TEPCO afloat financially with a $13 billion bailout to cover cleanup, decommissioning, and compensation costs. In return, TEPCO will give the government a two-thirds equity stake, effectively nationalizing it.

Meanwhile, TEPCO is seeking to restructure its massive debt with the Japan’s leading banks. For their part, the banks have refused to accept a request from the government to forgive some or all of TEPCO’s loans. They want the firm to become profitable, pay off its debts to them, and issue new bonds to pay off the government loan.

TEPCO’s financial plan to return to profitability hinges on the restart of its nuclear reactors including the units at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the largest nuclear reactor complex in the world. In addition to a whopping 17-percent increase for industry, TEPCO is proposing a 10-percent rate increase for households.

In summary, proving the reactors can operate safely, so that they can be restarted, requires new and bigger stakes than just electricity supply. The country’s economy needs the electricity to avoid further negative impacts of fossil fuel replacement costs. Getting there isn’t going to be easy or quick.

The government’s action to effectively nationalize TEPCO offers a hint at its next action, which may be—taking national interest into account—to override provincial officials opposed to restarting the reactors. If it doesn’t, it will be a long, hot, and expensive summer in Japan.

# # #

Yurman

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

Comments Off

Posted in Fukushima

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

Ballot initiative to close California’s nuclear plants

Posted on January 30, 2012 by lscheele| 6 Comments

By Jim Hopf

There’s not much new happening in DC right at the moment, so this month I’ll discuss something that’s going on in the state of California. That is, a proposed ballot initiative to shut the two remaining nuclear power plants—the two-unit Diablo Canyon and the two-unit San Onofre—in the state.

The Initiative

The initiative proposal has been filed by Ben Davis, a delivery driver, self-taught legal professional, and long-time anti-nuclear activist who lives in Santa Cruz, Calif. He tried (unsuccessfully) to pass a similar initiative in 1988. More than 500,000 signatures are required by April 16 in order for the initiative to qualify for the November 2012 ballot.

The language of the initiative is similar to that of previous initiatives. It would require the state’s nuclear power plants to close until “there exists a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.” The plants in question generate 16 percent of California’s electricity.

Response from Legislative Analyst

Like all of California’s legislation and ballot initiatives, this proposal was evaluated by the state’s legislative analyst, an objective, non-partisan office that is tasked with evaluating the impacts (economic impacts in particular) of all proposed policy initiatives. The analyst’s conclusions regarding this initiative were very strong, and almost entirely negative.

Diablo Canyon

The legislative analyst requested an evaluation of the impact of the plants’ closure on grid stability and reliability from the states independent system (grid) operator (ISO). The ISO stated that the plants’ closure “would reduce the capacity to deliver electricity in the Los Angeles Basin area to below state and local standards for reliability”, and that it would significantly increase the risk of rolling blackouts in the area.

The analyst went on to say that the plants’ closure could result in economic damages/costs of tens of billions of dollars to the state. These economic impacts would be due to:

  • Increased cost of power in the short term due to scarcity.
  • Economic costs due to blackouts and reduced reliability in the short term.
  • Loss of jobs and industries due to the above power cost and lack of reliability.
  • Higher power costs (and associated job losses) over the long term due to higher costs of replacement power sources.
  • Cost to the taxpayer from compensation that will have to be paid to the utilities.

Other Reactions

Probably due, in part, to the very negative conclusions of the non-partisan legislative analyst, the initiative has garnered little political support (from state newspapers, etc.). No major paper has taken a position in favor of the initiative, and many papers have come down strongly against it. Even the article about the initiative in the (formally anti-nuclear) LA Times took a negative tone, focusing primarily on the negative conclusions of the legislative analyst.

Most independent observers believe that the initiative has little chance of passing.

My Perspective

It’s clear that Mr. Davis is filing this initiative (again) in response to the event at the Fukushima plant in Japan last March. He believes that this will increase his chances of passing an initiative that he has failed to pass before.

Initiative’s Purpose?

I find it ironic, and telling, that the initiative itself does not talk about nuclear plant safety features at all, but instead only refers to the waste issue, even though it is trying to take advantage of Fukushima fears. It does not require the plants to install any safety upgrades (e.g., earthquake and/or tsunami defenses) as a condition for being allowed to operate. It only requires that the waste problem be resolved.

Perhaps this is because Mr. Davis knows that the waste requirement will not be met for decades, whereas the plants would be able to install any required safety improvements and restart. Thus, the waste requirements are better if your real goal is to permanently shut the plants. Perhaps the waste issue is the real reason Mr. Davis is opposed to nuclear power, and the initiative language reflects that. In any event, it seems clear that the initiative is trying to use the Fukushima event in pursuit of another agenda.

California Plants’ Safety

As for the actual safety of the California plants, it should be noted that the earthquake and tsunami risks at the California plant sites are nothing like those that existed for the Fukushima plant. The Diablo Canyon plant sits on a high bluff, 85 feet above the water. The San Onofre plant sits 50 feet above the water, with a 30-foot tsunami wall for additional protection. Thus, neither plant would have been inundated by a tsunami as high as the one that struck Fukushima. As for earthquakes, the California plants are actually designed to withstand ground acceleration levels roughly twice those that were experienced by the Fukushima plant.

In addition to the greater levels of protection (discussed above), the maximum earthquake and tsunami that could occur at the California plant sites is far smaller than that which occurred in northern Japan. The (thrust) type of fault that can produce earthquakes and tsunamis of that size does not exist near Southern California. Furthermore, California has relatively few off-shore fault lines that could produce tsunamis.

San Onofre

Finally, some of the issues and weaknesses that apply for the old boiling water reactor plants at Fukushima are less severe or not applicable to the more modern pressurized water reactor plants in California. On top of that, the U.S. plants had already made several safety and security upgrades in response to September 11, and will make further upgrades as a result of the lessons learned from Fukushima. All this adds up to a severe release risk that is much smaller than that which was present at Fukushima.

Economic Impacts of Plants’ Closure

I concur with the legislative analyst’s conclusions regarding the impact of closing California’s two nuclear plants, but I believe that they do not go far enough. I believe that there would be additional negative impacts that the analyst failed to mention, or clarify.

The analyst was right about the short term (scarcity) costs and blackout risks, but it failed to clarify the magnitude of the impact on long-term power costs. Continuing to operate an existing nuclear plant is extremely inexpensive, with going-forward operational costs of ~2 cents/kW-hr or less. Building and operating new natural gas and/or renewable generation (to replace the nuclear plants’ output) would be much more expensive. These costs will be passed down to consumers in the form of higher power costs, and tax bills related to compensation the state will have to pay the utilities (for forcing them to close perfectly good nuclear plants with decades of life left).

Whereas continued operation of the nuclear plants costs ~2 cents//kW-hr, construction and operation of renewable sources will cost ~10 cents/kW-hr or more, even before costs related to grid upgrades and fossil backup capacity are considered. New natural gas generation may cost somewhat less (6-7 cents/kW-hr) in theory, it may not be that simple in practice.

A RAND Corporation study was performed to evaluate the impact of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard policies. The study concluded that the renewables could reduce overall energy costs even though their per kW-hr generation costs were higher than that of natural gas plants. The reasoning was that the cost of gas is very sensitive to the balance between supply and demand. Thus, any reduction in gas demand (for power generation) would result in a reduced cost for gas, which in turn would reduce the cost of the (remaining) gas-fired power generation, as well as the cost of all other applications that use gas (e.g., space heating, industrial use, etc.). Another argument they gave was that the gas pipelines into California were near their limit, and therefore any measure that would reduce or avoid any further increase in gas use could prevent a large cost associated with upgrading the pipeline infrastructure.

Well, what’s good for the goose (renewables) is good—or perhaps even better—for the gander (nuclear). If the two nuclear plants are shut down, most of the generation will be replaced by gas-fired generation. This will result in a significant increase in demand for natural gas in California, which will in turn measurably increase the price of gas. If the new level of gas demand is beyond the capacity of the existing gas pipeline infrastructure, the economic impacts will be even greater. This will have a significant effect on the overall economy.

Employment Impacts

The legislative analyst talked about job losses as a result of higher power costs and reduced reliability, and their impacts on electricity-using industries. They did not, however, sufficiently discuss employment impacts in the power generation sector itself.

The plants’ closure will have a significant, negative jobs impact, particularly in the local area around the plants. Any new gas or renewable generation used to replace the plants’ capacity will not create as many jobs as those lost at the plant; not in California, anyway.

Gas-fired power plants employ far fewer people, for a given level of capacity. Most of the cost of gas generation is in the fuel, and therefore many if not most of the jobs associated with gas generation are those associated with fuel extraction and transport. These jobs, however, occur elsewhere in the country, or in other nations.

A similar (jobs) situation exists for renewables. Most of the cost, and jobs, associated with renewable generation is in the fabrication of the wind turbines and solar panels, etc. Relatively few are employed at the generation site. Suffice it to say that such jobs are offshore-able (unlike the jobs at the nuclear plant). These components can be manufactured anywhere; in other states or even other countries. In fact, it is well known that most renewable component construction has been moving to China.

With nuclear power, on the other hand, most of the jobs are associated with on-site plant construction and plant operation, both of which occur in the local area. Nuclear plant jobs are not offshore-able. Local (or state) employment, per unit of generation, are much higher for nuclear than they would be for either gas or renewables.

Environmental Impacts

In addition to higher power costs, the retirement of California’s nuclear plants will have a significant negative impact on the environment and public health. In the short-term, the nuclear plants’ capacity will be replaced by firing up old, relatively dirty fossil (gas, and perhaps oil) fired power plants. These plants will emit significant amounts of CO2 and other harmful pollutants. Over the longer term, new and more efficient combined cycle gas plants may be constructed, but even those plants will emit significant amounts of CO2 and measurable amounts of air pollution. This will significantly impact California’s ability to meet its CO2 emissions reduction goals.

It is unlikely that the nuclear plants’ closure will result in a significant amount of additional renewable generation. This is because the amount of renewable generation that will be built in California is almost entirely governed by the state’s aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements. Many, including myself, believe that the (33 percent) renewable generation goal is already unrealistic and impractical. Given this, it seems pretty clear that utilities will struggle to meet those requirements, and will not be building any renewable capacity beyond what is required by the policy. The closure of the nuclear plants will do nothing to change this. Getting one third of overall generation using intermittent sources is probably already beyond what can be done (practically, let alone economically). Even with the increased gas costs that occur as a result of the nuclear plants’ closure, it will not be economic to build renewable generation beyond the state’s requirements. Thus, it seems clear that most if not all of the generation used to replace the nuclear plants will be gas-fired.

Summary

The proposed initiative to close California’s nuclear power plants (until the nuclear waste problem is “solved”) is an attempt by a long-time anti-nuclear activist to take advantage of the Fukushima event to further a pre-existing agenda. It does not acknowledge the fact that overall risks, particularly risks associated with earthquake and tsunami, are much smaller for the California plants. The initiative does not even require, or refer to, plant safety upgrades to further reduce these vulnerabilities.

Closure of California’s nuclear plants would have very large negative economic impacts on the state, as well as significant negative impacts on public health and the environment (due to the firing up or construction of fossil fuel power plants for replacement power). Power costs will rise significantly, and taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars of utility compensation. Over the short term, grid reliability will suffer, and the risk of rolling blackouts will increase significantly. The plants’ closure will also result in the loss of thousands of non-offshore-able jobs in the local area. These job losses will not be offset by jobs associated with (gas or renewable) replacement generation. The plants’ closure will also make it much harder for California to meet its CO2 emissions reduction goals.

This initiative does not deserve serious consideration, let alone passage.  Fortunately, most experts believe its chances of passage are slim.

________________________________________

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.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in BWRs, Education, Electricity generating capacity, Fukushima, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Natural disasters, News, nuclear opponents, PWRs, spent fuel

Nuclear News and the new year

Posted on January 17, 2012 by rmichal| Comments Off

The January issue of Nuclear News magazine is available in hard copy and electronically for American Nuclear Society members (must enter ANS user name and password in Member Center). The issue contains the following stories:

  • The year ahead: This time for sure? by E. Michael Blake
  • 2012 Preview: Impact of Fukushima Daiichi on global prospects for nuclear, by Dick Kovan
  • 10-year D&D program under way at Zion plant, by Rick Michal
  • The index to 2011 Nuclear News content

There is also an in-depth report on the 2011 ANS Winter Meeting, along with side coverage of two topicals at the meeting: the first ANS Small Modular Reactor conference, and the Young Professionals Congress 2011 meeting.

Other news in the January issue:  NRC commissioner Jaczko votes to publish AP1000 certification final rule; revised emergency plan rule published in final form; study sees potential for small modular reactors to compete with gas-fired generation; is yellow inspection finding at Oconee an old design issue? Davis-Besse restart allowed while concrete studies continue; special inspection at Brunswick; NRC takes no significant action on four petitions; a status report on license renewal and power uprates; Fukushima-related motions in licensing proceedings continue to be denied; Levy site tour, limited statements scheduled; power reactor stress tests in the European Union said to be on track; European Union proposes additional €500 million to close Soviet-era reactors; fuel loading begins at Canada’s long-idled Bruce-1; Vietnam’s pact with Japan upheld, and new pact made with South Korea; three sites on short list for Poland’s first nuclear plant; United Kingdom chooses reuse as MOX to manage plutonium stock; nuclear research center opens in West Cumbria; and much more.

Past issues of Nuclear News are available here.

______________________

Comments Off

Posted in accident, American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Earthquake, Education, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, Fukushima, IAEA, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Meetings, Natural disasters, News, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Literacy Project, Nuclear News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PWRs, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, spent fuel, Vietnam

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

“Waste Management” in Nuclear News

Posted on November 15, 2011 by rmichal| Comments Off

The November issue of Nuclear News magazine, which contains a special section on waste management, is available in hard copy and electronically for American Nuclear Society members (must enter ANS user name and password in Member Center). The special section contains the following stories:

  • What will we do with it all? by Ed Batts
  • Coupling repositories with fuel cycles, by Charles Forsberg
  • What does 1 million years mean to a regulator? by Edward D. Blandford, Robert J. Budnitz, and Rodney C. Ewing
  • Robert Sindelar: Extended spent fuel storage, interview by Rick Michal

The issue also contains a feature article on the inaugural ANS “live” webinar, with Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman Gregory Jaczko as guest; and a report on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 55th General Conference.

Other news in the November issue: A Government Accountability Office report states that United States has limited ability to secure nuclear material overseas; the world’s largest open-air nuclear storage pool moves toward decommissioning; a site is chosen for Finland’s seventh power reactor; startup testing for Argentina’s Atucha-2 power reactor. is launched; Vietnam awards contract for power reactor feasibility study to Japan Atomic Power Company; Fluor, GE Hitachi sign memorandum of understanding for proposed power reactors in Poland; Cameco signs mining, milling deal; Areva’s Eagle Rock enrichment plant receives NRC license; the Department of Energy gives grants for nuclear-related university research and development, infrastructure.; Areva launches “learning tour” for partner and customer company employees; NRC commissioners conduct mandatory hearing for Vogtle-3 and -4; spent fuel pool instrumentation, Mark II containment venting added to NRC staff’s near-term post-Fukushima actions; NRC finds no vital quake damage at North Anna, but shutdown continues; public support for nuclear power lower than before Fukushima, but a majority still in favor; foreign control contention added to South Texas-3 and -4 hearing process; and more.

Past issues of Nuclear News are available here.

______________

Comments Off

Posted in accident, American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Earthquake, Education, Fukushima, India, knowledge transfer, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear News, Radwaste Solutions, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

Nuclear Power: How a Nuclear Power Plant Really Works!

Posted on November 10, 2011 by rmichal| 4 Comments

By Suzy Hobbs Baker

I originally wrote this post as a book review, but after three or four edits, I realized that I couldn’t mask my biased opinion about the new children’s book, Nuclear Power: How a Nuclear Power Plant Really Works! Simply put, I adore this book, as well as author Amelia Frahm, and have something of an emotional stake in its success. So, I decided it would be better to just share the reasons I love this book without trying to hide my enthusiasm.

Amelia Frahm has a gift for shedding light and humor on some of the most difficult issues we face as individuals and as a society. Her pathway for sharing her gift is as an educator and writer of children’s books. She also happens to have considerable professional experience in the realm of nuclear public relations.

A little over a year ago, Amelia contacted me about her latest book, which was to cover the daunting subject of nuclear power.  I was very excited at the prospect of a nuclear energy children’s book, but knew too well the challenges of taking on such a complex subject.

We spoke about our past outreach efforts and it turns out that we had a great deal of overlap—myself as an art teacher to children suffering from chronic and terminal illnesses, and Amelia as a cancer survivor turned cancer educator. In her book,  Tickles Tabitha’s Cancer-tankerous Mommy! Frahm makes understanding cancer possible, even fun for kids. She tells the story from a young girl’s perspective, and delves into the upheaval of the entire family after her mother is diagnosed with cancer. Somehow she covers this difficult subject with honesty, humor, and humility, perhaps due to the autobiographical nature of the book.

Frahm

I quickly realized that if anyone could take information about nuclear physics, grid transmission, and probable risk assessment and make it fun for kids, it was Amelia. And that is exactly what she did.

I was lucky to watch the book grow over time, to see the text and images slowly come together on the pages. It was an exciting and inspiring process to witness. When she would send me drafts requesting feedback, I struggled to give her any helpful thoughts, because she was doing such a phenomenal job.

Immediately after the events at the Fukushima Diiachi power plant, Amelia and I both distraught at the misinformation flying around, agreed that she had to finish the book, to publish it as soon as possible. It was needed more than ever, and thankfully now this wonderful resource is available to the public.

Nuclear Power: How a Nuclear Power Plant Really Works! has already been recognized with an Independent Publisher’s Book Award and a Mom’s Choice Award. Parents, teachers, and most importantly, kids love this book. To be perfectly honest, after reading several (actual) reviews of the book, I think the parents and teachers are getting a lot of new information from this book as well!

I want to share this new resource with the nuclear community in hopes that you will add it to your tool belt of outreach materials. The next time that someone asks for a good resource about nuclear energy for kids, you don’t have to scratch your head and think, “someone really should write a children’s book about this,” because that book is finally here.

_______________

Hobbs Baker

Suzy Hobbs Baker is the executive director ofPopAtomic Studios, a non-profit organization dedicated to using the power of visual and liberal arts to enrich the discussion on nuclear energy. Hobbs Baker is an ANS member and a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in accident, book review, Earthquake, Fukushima, knowledge transfer, Natural disasters, News, Nuclear events, Nuclear Literacy Project, PopAtomic, Publications

You are being served at Vermont Yankee plant

Posted on November 8, 2011 by pbowersox| 8 Comments

By Howard Shaffer

On Sunday, October 30, Meredith Angwin and I arrived in Washington, DC, to attend the American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting. At the meeting, we presented the biannual Green Bag Lunch talk, titled “Political Activism in Vermont.”

Meanwhile, the SAGE Alliance was holding a demonstration at the entrance road to the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Meredith and I looked forward to reports from the demonstration, particularly because of changes that the organizers had made in preparing for this event.

(photo courtesy Brattleboro Reformer)

Background

The SAGE Alliance is a new organization. A study of its website, however, shows it to be a grouping of “the usual suspects.” We have found, over the years, that there is a certain hard core of people in the New England area who are passionately opposed to nuclear power. They support every anti-nuclear activity in the region, and have formed several different groups. Forming yet another new group gives the impression that the number of nuclear opponents is expanding, while in reality the number of opponents seems to remain about the same.

We first heard of plans for this demonstration while attending a talk by Indian anti-nuclear activist Vaishali Patil at the Vermont Law School. Participants for training in non-violent demonstration techniques were recruited at the Patil meeting, and announcements were made that the SAGE Alliance event would feature “Puppet Theater” and a presentation of a “Trojan Cow” to the Vermont Yankee plant. The event was announced on the Clamshell Alliance website on October 10 (see Meredith’s post at Yes Vermont Yankee).

Two small demonstrations were soon held at the plant, which we learned of only afterward because there were no press releases and no press reports. Arrests were made, and court appearances were reported in the media. Vermont’s new state’s attorney has decided to prosecute these cases, unlike the previous office holder who did not want to waste the court’s time while providing a forum for the protesters (arrests at the plant years ago were prosecuted, but continuously trying cases of trespass without damage was found to be unproductive).

On September 20, however, there was an arson attack on Vermont Yankee’s offsite offices, and it is possible that this arson attack influenced the state’s attorney’s decision to press charges.

The October 30 event

On October 25, in an article in the Rutland Herald newspaper (unfortunately behind a paywall), Bob Bady of the Safe and Green Campaign was quoted as saying that information from pro-nuclear groups that the SAGE Alliance’s demonstration was being organized by the Clamshell Alliance was not true. Shortly thereafter, the SAGE Alliance’s website announced the demonstration, and non-violence was stressed. There were no words about civil disobedience, so it appears that the planning underwent some changes as events unfolded.

The event, when it took place, was reported by the local Brattleboro Reformer newspaper, which has consistently covered plant news. It was reported that the event drew 150 protesters from Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. Similarly, an outing called the “Vigil for All Victims” was held earlier this year outside the Vermont Yankee plant for the victims of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and it had an attendance of 250 or more people from the same region. The “Vigil” was anti-nuclear (to no one’s surprise). The Reformer article also noted that a pro-nuclear rally held a week earlier at the plant had an attendance of only 30. This was true at the beginning of the rally, but the number grew to 60 people when local residents joined in.

The purpose

The announced purpose of the SAGE Alliance’s October 30 anti-nuclear event was to “Put the Plant on Notice” that it will be forced to shut down at the end of its original 40-year license. At the event, protestors held signs showing the number of days remaining until March 21 next year, when the current license expires. Since the event, one or two people have shown up every day at the plant with a sign showing the number of days until the license ends.

What are the demonstrators trying to accomplish? To make a moral statement? To intimidate the plant’s owners and staff? To persuade the state government? To persuade the federal court?

As always, they are trying to get media attention. Also, as always, they need to keep their faithful energized. But for what?

The Clamshell Alliance, which has recently reemerged, was formed in the 1970s to oppose the Seabrook nuclear power plants. The group occupied the site during early construction and many protestors were arrested. By the end of construction, and while waiting for an operating license (which took four years—another story), the group staged “fence climbs” that resulted in arrests. The media would show up, the fence would be climbed by a few designated individuals, they would be arrested as agreed upon with the police, the media would have their footage, and all would go home unharmed. Eventually, the Clamshell Alliance wound up with a contempt of court citation, and went underground. The group offered training at Vermont Law School in non-violent civil disobedience and direct action tactics . So, when would these tactics be used? Is this the reason that the SAGE Alliance has been formed, and the reason that Bady said it was “not true” that the Clamshell Alliance was organizing the October 30 demonstration?

One stated SAGE Alliance objective is to force the Vermont Yankee plant to stop operating when the original 40-year license is up. Could the group be planning to block the road to the plant with hundreds of sitting protesters? Hundreds were arrested at the Seabrook plant 30 years ago, and this jammed up the legal system. On the other hand, the SAGE Alliance seems to be distancing itself from the Clamshell Alliance, and perhaps from the Clamshell tactics.

Stay tuned.

____________

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.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in Entergy, Fukushima, India, lawsuit, Natural disasters, News, Nuclear events, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, View from Vermont

Earthquake and tsunami signature banner

Posted on November 2, 2011 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

American Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen and ANS Vice-President/President-Elect Michael Corradini were on the Times Square Jumbotron in New York City with a banner signed by ANS members at the 2011 winter meeting. The banner expresses the support and encouragement of the ANS membership for the people of Japan as they continue to rebuild after Japan’s earthquake and tsunami. Flanking the ANS officers are Loewen’s son and daughter, Hans and Zatha.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in accident, American Nuclear Society, Earthquake, Fukushima, Meetings, Natural disasters, News, Nuclear events, Radiation

Radiation and Reason: A Visit to Tokyo and Fukushima

Posted on October 28, 2011 by pbowersox| 7 Comments

By Akira Tokuhiro and Skye Anderson

I, Akira Tokuhiro, recently traveled to Japan to meet Wade Allison (professor emeritus of physics, Oxford University, UK) and David Wagner (Tokyo-based risk communication expert and consultant). A number of concerned scientists had expressed interest regarding the Fukushima accident. Specifically, there was concern regarding the significance and impact in the nuclear world and also the plight of the victims, especially the evacuees and the workers at the plant.

We wanted to get a message out regarding radiation exposure and health effects and saw a need for a public forum. The unequal standards for radiation exposure and fear, as discussed in Wade Allison’s book, Radiation and Reason, were something we felt needed to be put out into the public domain. At a minimum, we wanted to stir up some discussion, maybe a heated debate.

We hoped to initiate a discussion within the media and public and to elicit feedback regarding our message that prescriptive radiation levels (e.g., the International System of Radiological Protection’s, the Japanese government’s) are overly cautious and not scientifically based at lower levels.

(from left) Two Minami-Soma Hospital hosts, along with Wade Allison and Akira Tokuhiro. View toward plant from coastal road bridge near Namie village. The bridge is located 3-4km from Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Upon arriving in Japan, Allison and I went straight to Fukushima. Through contacts that Allison had made through an exchange program, we were able to connect with high school teachers and a student from Fukushima City and Soma High Schools.

A hospital in Minami-Soma arranged for us to take a tour of some of the damaged sites and we were able to get within 3 km of the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant itself, much closer than we had anticipated.

Tokuhiro and Allison, at Minami-Soma Hospital, during discussions with two senior doctors who monitored radiation exposure of evacuees.The hospital is located 25km north of the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Through David Wagner, who sometimes writes for the Huffington Post, we were able to speak at the Foreign Correspondent’s Club of Japan (Japan Times report), as well as at the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan (slides).

The ACCJ invited several foreign Chambers of Commerce, including the British and the Canadian Chambers. The ACCJ forum can be found on YouTube (ACCJ-Food Safety: October 3, 2011). In addition, we were interviewed by reporters from the Wall Street Journal/Dow Jones, Financial Times, Nikkei Business Page, and a video-based blog in Japan.

View taken from a coastal road bridge near Namie village. The bridge is located 3-4km from nuclear power plant.

The public had a spectrum of views based on various news releases; some saying that our viewpoints were completely wrong. But certainly radiation, whether it’s from a medical isotope or a damaged reactor in this case, does not choose “customers.”

At the very least, we put the discussion out there. Those who read between the lines may be alarmed by our assertion that the ICRP standards for exposure should be reviewed. Nonetheless, some skeptics have now reconsidered. This is good for us. Others were downright against the idea of reconsidering exposure levels. These varying reactions are to be expected. It’s always good to have the debate and to express points of view and exchange information.

Three dosimeter readings at a coastal road bridge near Namie village. Readings show 0.58, 0.40 and 0.529 µ Sv/hr. The bridge located 3-4km from Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Allison and I had a different sense and understanding of the situation. For me (Tokyo-born, U.S. educated), it was sad to see convenience stores abandoned and parking lots that were empty. Convenience stores are really the livelihood of the community in Japan. This is something that will stay with me for a long time.

One of the days as it rained, I wondered about exposure from fallout. My thoughts were not of concern for personal safety, but as I walked through the streets of Tokyo, I noticed all of the surfaces where fallout could be settled.

I really got a sense of the enormity of what happened in Fukushima, and to the nearby regional mountains, rivers, and forests. We visited Fukushima City, Iitate Village, Minami-Soma, all places with partial to full evacuation. We also visited Fukushima High School, where fallout has been measured by the students. Overall, I am still digesting this experience.

Our only expectation for this trip was to have these public forums and to get the message out that the prescriptive exposure rates are overly conservative. We tried to put things in perspective. There is a large psychological element, a great fear of radiation. Allison’s book is appropriately titled Radiation and Reason. We don’t often discuss radiation exposure and reason in the same sentence. We got the message out. In this regard, we accomplished our objective.

Tokuhiro, Allison, a hospital host, and a Soma High School science teacher host. Picture was taken in front of Minami-Soma Hospital, located 25km N of the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Many people supported us. David Wagner, the risk-communication expert, was instrumental. James Hollow, a former student of Allison who works in Tokyo, collaborated with us. Mami Mita, an independent consultant, was instrumental in getting Allison’s book published in Japanese.

This is a good start. These people on their own time believed in the three of us and helped us to have a successful first trip to Japan. You have to understand that Allison, Wagner, and I had never met prior to this trip; we got acquainted through a social network and blogs.

The Fukushima accident was a global event of Internet proportions. There is something to be said about social networks bringing people together with a shared concern for what has happened to the people of Japan.

We are digesting our experiences and looking at the responses we have received. We will certainly look at the response in the media. We hope to return and reemphasize our message in March 2012, during the first anniversary of the tragic events.

On the Web:

A March 26 guest essay at the BBC by Allison, just two weeks after the Fukushima earthquake:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Videos of presentations to ACCJ on October 3, 2011.

_____________

Tokuhiro

Akira Tokuhiro is a professor of mechanical and nuclear engineering at the University of Idaho. Skye Anderson oversees special projects for the nuclear engineering and industrial technology programs at the University of Idaho.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Earthquake, Fukushima, News, Radiation

Roadblock in Congress for SMR Development

Posted on October 25, 2011 by lscheele| 6 Comments

By Jim Hopf

As discussed in my June 20 post, small modular reactors (SMRs) have many potential advantages, and could very well represent nuclear’s best prospect for the future. The industry has run into trouble, however, in getting government support for getting SMRs off the ground.

The Obama administration has made a multi-year, $450 million request for SMR development, including $67 million this year to support SMR licensing. The U.S. House of Representatives has included the $67 million in its 2012 budget bill. That funding got removed from the U.S. Senate budget bill, however, by the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, due primarily to opposition from Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D., Cal.).

Feinstein cited the fact that SMRs would create additional nuclear waste, for which there is still no permanent disposal site, as a reason for her opposition. She also said that federal nuclear R&D money should be spent on safety, as opposed to new reactor development, in light of the Fukushima disaster.

Improving Safety

I don’t agree with the Senator’s logic on the safety issue that she raised. I, for one, think that one of the best ways to improve nuclear safety is to develop and deploy much safer reactor designs, which are not vulnerable to the issues that caused the meltdowns at Fukushima. In turn, one of the best ways for the federal government to help improve nuclear safety is to support the development and deployment of such designs.

SMRs (such as designs from NuScale and Hyperion) are passively cooled, and are more able to reject heat to the environment (due to their small size). Large reactors, like Fukushima, require active cooling at all times, and fuel damage would occur almost immediately after the loss of all power. In stark contrast, the Hyperion module can go two weeks without any power (i.e., active cooling), and the NuScale module can go indefinitely without power (or active cooling). This is a critical difference, given that the Fukushima release occurred as a result of the loss of power, which was needed to provide continuous active cooling.

It’s true that SMR development does nothing to improve safety at existing reactors, and perhaps that’s where Feinstein is coming from. But the issue of implementing needed safety upgrades at existing reactors is being addressed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and will be implemented by the industry itself, on its own dime. It’s not clear how much government research would help, in terms of improving existing reactor safety, and it’s not clear that the government should be paying (directly or indirectly) for necessary safety upgrades at existing plants.

Waste

As for the nuclear waste argument, well, that’s an old, familiar issue. The fact is that most experts, and scientific studies, have concluded that the public health risks and environmental impacts associated with nuclear power are much lower than those associated with fossil fuels, despite the nuclear waste issue.

Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear’s wastes are safely stored and are not released into the environment. And we are confident that a final solution to the nuclear waste problem will be developed and/or agreed upon at some point, with the final result being no release of wastes into the environment, ever. Given this, opposing increased use of nuclear power because it generates nuclear waste is hard to justify, since the result of not using more nuclear is (still) primarily the use of more fossil fuels, which have an infinitely worse “waste problem”.

Finally, it’s difficult to argue that we have not found a solution to the nuclear waste problem, at least from a technical perspective. It seems clear, at this point, that Yucca Mountain was a valid permanent solution to the nuclear waste problem, from a scientific and technical perspective. NRC staff had completed its review of the Yucca Mountain repository, and most observers believe that the repository would have passed the review, and been licensed, had the review not been halted for political reasons.

It is also true that some of the SMR designs are fast reactors, which have the potential to be part of a closed fuel cycle that would reduce the volume and longevity of our nuclear waste stockpile.

One Bright Spot

If there’s a bright spot in all this, it could be that some or all of the SMR developers may proceed without such R&D aid from the federal government. Both NuScale and B&W (with its mPower module) say that they are proceeding with license applications to the NRC. And the Tennessee Valley Authority is making plans to deploy mPower modules at its Clinch River site.

NRC Issues More Important?

As many have observed, the main barrier to the deployment of SMRs may not be a lack of government financial or R&D support, but instead the enormous amount of time and money required to get new reactor designs licensed by the NRC. Reactor licensing processes have been taking many years and costing more than a $100 million dollars. Even approving an exact copy of an already-licensed reactor design (for a new site) is projected to take more than two years.

Even SMRs that deploy conventional light-water technology (such as NuScale or mPower) can expect a long (~ 5 year) licensing process (starting in late 2012 or 2013). For non-conventional technologies like Hyperion, who knows how long it will take? The NRC has stated that non-conventional SMRs like Hyperion are not on its priority list right now, and that it will only consider such an application when a serious customer has been found (thus setting up a chicken-egg problem).

Other issues that may hold back SMRs include security and emergency planning/evacuation requirements, and per-reactor NRC fees. If the NRC is not willing to consider the SMRs’ lower potential radioactivity release, as well as the lower probability of such release, in setting these requirements, as well as scaling fees with reactor capacity, it may destroy SMRs’ economic viability.

Perhaps a more effective way for the government to support SMRs is for it to do something to reduce the licensing-related barriers discussed above, as opposed to outright financial support of SMR development. Possible options include making sure the NRC has sufficient resources to handle the entire volume of incoming license applications, somehow limiting the scope of review, or requiring the NRC to complete reviews within some fixed, reasonable time period.

_____________

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.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in accident, DC Perspective, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, Fukushima, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, spent fuel, U.S. Congress, Yucca Mountain

ANS Special Committee on Fukushima focuses on communication

Posted on October 18, 2011 by lscheele| 1 Comment

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Earthquake, Fukushima, lessons learned

Samples from NRC Webcasts (First of a Series)

Posted on October 17, 2011 by rmichal| 2 Comments

by E. Michael Blake

For a while in the early 1990s, my work at Nuclear News magazine included coverage of Washington, D.C.  Eight or ten times a year, I’d spend two or three days in our nation’s capital, attending congressional hearings, interviewing bigwigs, pestering agencies to give me copies of arcane documents, and frantically taking notes in public meetings at the headquarters of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Two decades later, much of that scurrying around is no longer necessary, in large part because many NRC meetings can be accessed by phone or internet.  This is fortunate, because in recent months the commissioners and staffers have held several public sessions of substantial importance, and this reporter has been able to watch them from his office as a normal workday activity (reducing both the cost to the American Nuclear Society and the travel-related aggravation of the reporter).

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in 2002

Many of the high-profile meetings this year have had to do with the NRC’s effort to learn from the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, or with the first few new reactor projects to reach the brink of receiving combined construction and operating licenses (COL). Nuclear News does not have room, nor do its readers likely have time, for all of what goes on at all of these events.

Here at the ANS Nuclear Cafe, however, it may be possible from time to time to mention isolated moments that don’t make it through to detailed coverage in the magazine. Because Fukushima Daiichi and new reactors will remain important issues for quite a while, it seems safe to conclude that this sort of webcast sampling will become a series here on the blog. And so it begins:

Jaczko

• In an August 30 commission meeting on the development of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) for new power reactors, Chairman Gregory Jaczko stated early on that he had previously not looked closely at any ITAACs, and that he found the first one that he’d read carefully to be “surprisingly vague,” and that he didn’t think this “bodes well for our ability to work through these issues.”

Jaczko returned to the point often during the meeting. The ITAAC concerned the waterproof membranes and mudmats for the nuclear island foundations at Southern Nuclear Operating Company’s Vogtle-3 and -4; Jaczko asked whether the ITAAC’s statement—that the mudmat’s coefficient of friction will be tested—describes adequately what will be done by the applicant, how it would be examined by the NRC, and what would have to happen next if the goal is not met.

The chairman’s statements contrasted with the presentation of Laura Dudes, director of the division of construction inspection and operational programs in the agency’s Office of New Reactors, who said in her prepared remarks that ITAACs are a “good news story,” but later conceded (as did other speakers from the staff) that not all ITAACs thus far have been written as clearly and as objectively as perhaps they should have been; the staffers said that they’d work on this some more. Dudes did affirm, however, that every aspect of the work covered by an ITAAC would be inspected against the plant’s licensing basis, so there would not be an issue of the NRC not fulfilling its mission or allowing any unsafe practices to exist.

• Both the NRC and the Nuclear Energy Institute have recently referred to being guided, in their efforts to learn lessons from Fukushima Daiichi and to respond accordingly, by “living documents.” On the charter proposed for the NRC’s Long-Term Task Force on the accident in Japan, the staff told the commissioners in an August 26 paper that the charter would “live” in the sense that the staff would change it as needed, if information gleaned from the recovery of Fukushima Daiichi indicated that different lines of inquiry should be pursued. During a September 21 meeting with NRC staffers, industry representatives said that their own guidance document, titled The Way Forward, is intended to “live” as well, and for essentially the same reason: to keep open all options until after the damaged reactors have reached cold shutdown and more detailed examinations can be carried out by Japanese experts.

Apostolakis

• On September 14, the staff briefed the commissioners on the latter’s request for input on which of the recommendations from the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) report on the Fukushima Daiichi accident should be acted upon without delay. One of the proposed actions is for information requests to be sent to current power reactor licensees to develop and carry out seismic and flooding walkdowns at their reactors. Commissioner George Apostolakis looked at the request for licensees to develop acceptance criteria for the process, and asked, “Don’t we know how to do walkdowns?” Martin Virgilio, NRC deputy executive director for reactor and preparedness programs, replied, “I would have thought so until I had a discussion with Jack Grobe,” a member of the NTTF. Because the walkdowns will be related to response to events beyond a reactor’s design basis, acceptance criteria must be developed and agreed upon by the licensee and the NRC, before these walkdowns can be carried out.

________

Blake

E. Michael Blake is a senior editor of the American Nuclear Society’s Nuclear News magazine.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in accident, American Nuclear Society, Earthquake, Fukushima, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Meetings, Natural disasters, News, Nuclear News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reactor designs, U.S. Congress

ANS webinar with NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko a success

Posted on October 6, 2011 by dyurman| 3 Comments

A collaborative effort between the American Nuclear Society and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission resulted in a successful 90-minute webinar on nuclear safety issues on October 4.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko (right) talks to ANS moderator Dan Yurman (left) at the Oct 4 webinar. Photo: Clark Communications

More than 60 people signed on to the webinar session when it started at 11 a.m. (Eastern time), and more than 40 were still with it when the event ended 90 minutes later. According to the NRC, another 15 people listened in through a toll-free 800 telephone number.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko took questions during the live, unscripted session on a wide range of topics including Yucca mountain, new reactor design reviews, and the NRC’s response to the Fukushima crisis.

Laura Scheele, ANS manager of Policy & Communication, noted that this was a first-of-a-kind effort by the two organizations. The project began last summer when NRC Public Affairs Chief Eliot Brenner approached ANS about the webinar idea.

“The ANS elected officers green-lighted the webinar as an opportunity for ANS to provide a virtual forum for ANS members and other nuclear professionals to ask NRC Chairman Jackzo about important nuclear energy issues,” said Scheele.

Webinar challenges

As the project took shape, the NRC agreed with Scheele that two separate sessions were needed—one for pro-nuclear bloggers and one for anti-nuclear organizations.  Scheele also insisted, and the NRC agreed, that the moderator could ask follow-up questions. About a third of the questions asked were of the follow-up type.

While webinars are well-understood mechanisms in the high-tech industry, this was the NRC’s first experience with the process. There were a fair number of questions facing the organizations sponsoring the event. For instance, would nuclear bloggers agree to send in questions ahead of time? Would enough people sign up for the webinar to make it worthwhile?

The NRC chairman has been a lightning rod for controversy over his actions regarding Yucca Mountain. It was thought that some people who disagreed with the chairman’s actions might ask questions that went beyond the boundaries of civil discourse.

In the end, the print-out of questions submitted in advance was more than five pages long. Several overlapping questions were combined to make effective use of limited time.

While many of the questions were asked, and answered, many others—some highly technical—will be answered on the NRC blog. In addition, the NRC has posted a podcast of the webinar, a video, and a complete transcript (see links below).

Jaczko was pleasant, conversational, and well prepared for the session. He invested a lot of time in the event both before it and during the a 90-minute live, unscripted session. The result “exceeded all expectations,” the NRC’s Eliot Brenner told the New York Times.

Question highlights

In particular, Jaczko was asked about his congressional testimony on March 16 that Fukushima’s spent fuel pool at reactor #4 had lost much of  its water and was a major source of high levels of radiation being released into the environment.

In response, he said, “The lesson we take from this is that we need adequate instrumentation to monitor the pools.”

In response to another series of questions about management of spent fuel, he said that dry cask storage is good for at least 60 years. He dismissed the idea of creating a single interim storage site for spent fuel, saying that it was safe to continue to store at reactor sites until a permanent solution could be found. Asked if the NRC could license a spent fuel processing facility today, Jaczko said technically that the NRC isn’t ready to review that kind of application.

On the subject of small modular reactors, Jaczko said that the NRC is comfortable reviewing designs based on conventional light water reactor technology.

Asked what keeps him awake at night, Jaczko said the fear is that there is some unknown factor that is being missed in the agency’s safety analysis of a situation at a reactor or in a license application.

The webinar questions were moderated by Dan Yurman, a nuclear energy blogger. He is a member of ANS and serves on the ANS Public Information Committee.

Links to NRC Video, Audio, and Transcript

# # #

→ 3 Comments

Posted in accident, American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Earthquake, Fukushima, general media, lessons learned, News, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Small modular reactors, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

We Were Once Terrified of Fire, Too

Posted on October 5, 2011 by pbowersox| 22 Comments

By Steven B. Krivit

The discovery of fire a million years ago must have been terrifying to cave men and women. Since that time, many people have died and much damage to the earth has occurred as a result of chemical energy released through fire. Nevertheless, that chemical energy found its place in the world, providing great benefits, and most people take it for granted. 

In stark contrast, humankind began to develop and use nuclear energy less than a hundred years ago. In 2010, nuclear energy provided 13.5 percent of worldwide electricity. 

On March 11, 2011, several of the Fukushima-Daiichi, Japan, nuclear power plants were damaged from a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and a 14 meter tsunami. The event dominated headlines and, with help from the mass media, re-sparked the public’s fears of nuclear radiation. Fifteen thousand people died as a direct result of the earthquake and tsunami. Nobody died from radiation exposure. Yet no governments have called for a moratorium on coastal development. However, some have on nuclear energy.

Some people wrongly believe that radiation has no place in a safe and healthy world. Yet radiation has always been around us. It comes from a variety of natural sources, and it is widely used in medicine.

The difference between radiation levels that pose a significant health risk and radiation levels that pose negligible or no risks has everything to do with emission rate, concentration, dispersion, distance from, and duration of exposure. Other key factors include the unique properties of each isotope, such as how it affects the body and how long it remains radioactive.

In light of the public’s fear, examining how nuclear energy has fared in terms of safety and environment is useful. Chemical energy and hydroelectric energy have caused their share of environmental damage and deaths.  

The undercurrent of fear affects all matters related to this industry. It must be addressed. Doing so requires examining the risks and consequences of nuclear energy and comparing it to other energy technologies, for none is perfect.  

The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident – by far the worst – is most instructive. In 2006, the Chernobyl Forum published an authoritative analysis of the health, environmental and socio-economic impacts of Chernobyl.

The report concluded that 31 emergency workers died as a direct consequence of their response to the Chernobyl accident. The Forum was unable to reliably assess the precise number of fatalities by radiation exposure. The best it was able to do was speculate based on the experience of other populations exposed to radiation. By 2002, 15 deaths were reported from among 4,000 people exposed to radiation and diagnosed with thyroid cancer. These data are in stark contrast to a number of other poorly referenced sources which have speculated on large numbers of radiation-related deaths from Chernobyl.

Clearly, the fears about nuclear energy are based on perceptions, imagined or engineered, and not on the consequences of actual events.

For example, in August 1975, the Banqiao hydroelectric dam in western Henan province, China, failed as a result of Typhoon Nina, 180,000 people died. Another example is that 1 billion gallons of oil from 21 disasters have been spilled in the oceans since 1967. A third example is that, in Nigeria, on Oct. 18, 1998, a natural gas pipeline explosion took the lives of 1,082 people.

Members of the public would benefit from scrutinizing the comparative safety and track record of clean, emission-free nuclear energy. The nuclear industry would benefit by helping the public learn the basic concepts and principles of nuclear technology. Nuclear energy can help achieve quality of life for those who don’t have it and help sustain it for those who do.

Steven B. Krivit is the senior editor of New Energy Times, an online magazine specializing in low-energy nuclear reaction research.  He also is the editor-in-chief of the 2011 Wiley and Sons Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.

→ 22 Comments

Posted in Chernobyl, Earthquake, Economic benefits of nuclear, Education, Fukushima, Natural disasters, Radiation