Category Archives: News

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.

________________________

100th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Commitments kept across time and space result in recognition of a growing number of voices

The 100th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Atomic Power Review

This is a remarkable achievement based on the voluntary collaboration of the pro-nuclear bloggers of North America.  Also, it is the occasion of the launch of the Nuclear Literacy Project.

Two industry leaders wrote congratulatory messages to mark the 100th Carnival. See the complete messages at Atomic Power Review which is run by Will Davis. Here are some highlights.

Eric P. Loewen, President
American Nuclear Society

“Congratulations to the nuclear bloggers and advocates on the occasion of the 100th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers. This milestone is a testament to the energy and passion of the nuclear community to share information on the benefits that nuclear energy holds for humanity. You are the people with the knowledge and passion to talk with friends, neighbors, policy makers, teachers and students about these issues.”

* * *

Eric McErlain
Nuclear Energy Institute

“As we celebrate the 100th Carnival of Nuclear Energy, I’d like to take a moment to salute all of the nuclear bloggers, a group that’s just about too large to count these days, for the great work they do every day.”

* * *

The Carnival 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.

# # #

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.

 

 

___________________________________

99th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

This week’s carnival is up at NEI Nuclear Notes

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.

# # #

Kudankulam hot start within reach

Tamil Nadu provincial government support pulls rug out from under protest groups

By Dan Yurman

Tamil Nadu map

The long running controversy over the start of NPCIL’s Russian-built twin 1,000-MW VVER reactors at Kudankulam, in India, may be coming to an end.

The provincial government of Tamil Nadu, India’s southern-most state, said on March 20 that it was dropping its opposition to hot start and also withdrawing support from local anti-nuclear protests.  The decision follows more than six months of fence sitting despite pleas for support from the protest groups and counter pressure from the central government.

In return for supporting the nuclear plant, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha wants political air cover, and she named as her price the control of distribution of 100 percent of the electrical power from the plant. She’s not likely to get all of it and she knows it.

Jayalalitha’s demand carries political weight with the locals, however. It helps  preserve her position that is newly energized as a purveyor of political patronage in the form of access to electricity.  The region is ravaged by electricity shortages, so having some to allocate puts the Tamil Nadu government in a much more influential position than hanging with the protest groups.

Work resumes at reactor

What has happened as a result of the new-found support in Tamil Nadu is that work has resumed at the plant that is 95-percent complete. More than 1,000 local Indian workers and about 100 Russian technical staff re-entered the plant. The combined action of restart of work at the plant and the provincial government’s acceptance of a hot start date to take place in about two months generated spontaneous protest demonstrations of about 500 people on March 23, of which several hundred were arrested by police.  The protests then fizzled out, however.

The central Indian government had said in February that the protests were coming from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by supporters in the United States. The BBC reported on March 23, however, that among those arrested was the leader of a Tamil nationalist political party.

While it may be that separatist political groups had seized upon the reactor issue as a way to mobilize support for their causes, there is no way to assess how much of an influence they really have. In the world of politics, however, even the appearance of influence can have consequences.

The central government’s crackdown on the protest started within a few weeks of an official notice by the Russians that they were not happy with the delay of the start of the Kudankulam plants. Success there is the key to new deals and the credibility generally of Rosatom’s export program.

Handing out the juice

The transition of the Tamil Nadu central government from a position of neutrality regarding the protests to becoming a supporter of the reactors may have as much to do with political self-preservation as it does with political reality.

As it turns out, Tamil Nadu, like many other places, suffers from severe power shortages with frequent blackouts, with some areas having no electrical power. Nationwide, about 40 percent of the Indian population has no access to it, which is why the Indian government is committed to building about 20 Gwe of new nuclear power generating capacity over the next 15–20 years.

Having control over who gets the new electricity from the plant is a huge source of leverage relative to keeping political allies in line and is an effective method for demonstrating the lack of political power of the protesters and any separatist movement. This light bulb appears to be the one that lit up in the minds of the provincial government leadership, which is why they climbed down off their “neutral” position and endorsed the reactors over the protests of many of their constituents.

The Indian government’s Union Minister of State for Power K.C. Venugopal said on April 2 that a policy with regard to sharing of power from nuclear energy was in place and that the agency would not change it.

The minister’s response came as a result of media questions over Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha’s staking claim to the entire projected generation of 2,000 MW power from Kudankulam nuclear plant.

Venugopal said that there is a policy in which 50 percent of power from these plants would go to the home state where it is located. These norms have not been changed so far, he said.

As it turns out, NPCIL has already allocated 925 MW of power from the two reactors to Tamil Nadu. In the meantime, the central government has continued its crackdown on leaders of the anti-nuclear groups. The intensification of the government’s action came as the protests themselves were winding down and life was returning to normal.

Protests over but crackdown continues

The Indian government is furious with the delays of the hot start of the two reactors. NPCIL told the Hindustan Times on March 12 that the fact that the two units were postponed from hot start last August has cost the government US$50,000/day in lost revenue from new rate payers. While this may not seem like a lot of money to American eyes, in a developing nation like India, $50,000 a day in losses is more than enough to give government officials high blood pressure. It also sends them looking for someone to blame.

On April 2, the home ministry in the national government demanded that one of the leading organizers of the Tamil Nadu protests surrender his passport. S.P. Udayakumar, of the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), told the Times of India that he will not do so despite the government’s assertion that there are charges pending against him and his organization for misappropriation of NGO funds to pay for the anti-nuclear protests.

The home ministry also raided two more NGOs alleged to have diverted funds from education and rural development programs to fuel the protests over the past six months. Subsequently, the government dropped charges against 178 people, while opposing bail for another 30 of those arrested. The government still has not revealed the names of the U.S. NGOs alleged to have provided funds to the protest groups.

Confidence building for India’s nuclear markets

As these developments were unfolding the government announced, perhaps buoyed with new confidence at having “defeated” the protests, that it planned to ink a deal with the Russians for two more 1000-MW reactors at Kudankulam. Overall, India plans to add 64 Gwe of power to its grid by 2032 to reduce the gap in rural electrification.

The United States remains locked out of the market by a supplier liability law that is orbiting in a kind of political limbo. The law is in the books, but the central government has so far not issued implementing regulations to give it operational status.

The Indian nuclear reactor market is said to be worth $150 billion. So far, the only firms making inroads are the Russians with projects at Kudankulam and the French with two planned reactors at Jaitapur, south of Mumbai on the country’s west coast.

________________

Yurman

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

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 & ASME webinar on nuclear quality assurance March 29: Register Now!

Free industry webcast: Setting a new standard for quality in nuclear power

Date: March 29, 2012quality
Time: 8 AM PT/11 AM ET/4 PM GMT

Register now for this complimentary webcast.

Click Here >> Register Now

Learn how standards developing organizations are using lessons learned over the past 30 years to account for existing and next generation nuclear power plants and how standards management within nuclear facilities is imperative to nuclear operations.

With the recent vote by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to give license approval for the nation’s first two new nuclear power plants in 30 years, the U.S. nuclear industry took a major step toward returning to expansion after a long period of stability and safe operations. In the wake of the March 2011 incident at Japan’s Fukushima plant, however, safety and quality assurance continues to be a paramount issue in the nuclear supply chain and facility operations.

temp ans asme logo comboIndustry standards such as ASME NQA-1 and ANS-3.2 are continually being modified to improve support for next generation nuclear power plant operations. The existing generation of U.S. nuclear power plants has one standard for the design and construction of a nuclear facility and a separate standard for the operations of that facility. It became evident that this model would not apply to newer nuclear facilities.

Join the American Nuclear Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and IHS as they give you an exclusive opportunity to view the current state of managerial, administrative and quality, assurance in the industry, and the critical role of standards in ensuring quality throughout nuclear operations. Don’t miss this opportunity to understand the history of nuclear standards for managerial, administrative, and quality assurance and the changes needed to support the next generation of nuclear power plant operations.

Register now for this complimentary webcast.

Click Here >> Register Now

Speakers

Marion Smith
Chair, ANS-3.2 Working Group – American Nuclear Society

Kevin Ennis
Director, Nuclear Codes and Standards – American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Chad Hawkinson
Vice President, Product Design Solutions – IHS, Inc.

Moderator
Dan Yurman – Idaho Samizdat

For more information, please contact:

IHS logo tempDanielle Ulrich at
+1 303 858 6475 or Danielle.Ulrich@IHS.com 

15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, USA
Toll free: +1800 525 7052

 

# # #

For your reference: Nuclear News magazine

The March “reference” 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). This issue—the 14th annual nuclear reference guide—includes:

  • Notes on the 2012 World List of Nuclear Power Plants
  • World List of Nuclear Power Plants
  • Nuclear Power Plants No Longer in Service
  • Abbreviations Used in this List
  • Power Reactors by Nation; Power Reactors by Type, Worldwide
  • Maps of Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide
  • U.S. Power Reactor License Renewal
  • New Power Reactor Projects in the United States; U.S. Power  Reactor Ownership/Operator Changes

There is also a special section titled Fukushima one year later that contains the following articles:

  • Decommissioning: The new goal of the Fukushima Daiichi road map, by Dick Kovan
  • In the United States, near-term changes and a wait for more data, by E. Michael Blake
  • IAEA mission endorses Japan’s safety assessment process, by Gamini Seneviratne

Other news in the March issue:  the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves licenses for Vogtle-3 and -4; the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future releases final report; government of Spain chooses site for spent fuel and high-level waste storage; Canadian government commits over $1 billion for Port Hope area cleanup; proposed revisions to low-level waste regulations put on hold while the NRC studies issues; Virginia governor postpones decision on uranium mining in the state; USEC’s contract with Tenex for supply of low-enriched uranium takes effect; Kazakhstan is world leader in uranium production; NRC study of power reactor accidents finds “essentially zero” fatalities; new seismic model developed for reactors in central, eastern United States; steam releases reported at Byron, San Onofre; Watts Bar-2 startup could be delayed until 2014; first fully coupled accelerator-driven system begins operation in Belgium; two bids submitted for Fennovoima project in Finland; Russia’s joint venture with Alstom receives first turbine order; Czech construction company joins Westinghouse for Temelin reactor bid; banks agree on financing for power reactor project in Belarus; the U.K.’s Oldbury plant ceases operation; report says dose limit of 20 mSv/yr is achievable in Japan; IAEA updating safeguards analytical services; and much more.

And, in case you missed it, the February and past issues of Nuclear News are available here. For example, the February issue contains the following feature stories:

__________________________

97th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The 97th carnival of nuclear energy bloggers is up at Next Big Future

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.

# # #

Federal judge: State can’t shut down Vermont Yankee over spent fuel

The plant dodges another bullet at least for now

Federal District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha ordered on Monday, March 19, that the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) cannot use the issue of spent nuclear fuel as a mechanism to deny a certificate of public good to the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

Murtha wrote that the PSB cannot prevent the plant, owned and operated by Entergy (NYSE:ETR), from continuing to operate because of the necessity of continuing to store its current inventory and new spent fuel.

Last January, Murtha ruled that the State of Vermont’s legal efforts to shut down the plant were improperly driven by issues involving nuclear safety. He said that state law in this area is preempted by federal law and that regulation of nuclear reactor safety is the province of the federal government.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed the license in 2011 for the Vermont Yankee plant to operate for another 20 years. (See also Tamar Cerafici’s February 10 legal review of Judge Murtha’s decision here on ANS Nuclear Cafe.)

On February 27, Entergy filed an appeal of the ruling claiming that the PSB should not be able to stop Vermont Yankee from operating over the spent fuel issue. The judge concurred with the appeal saying that any effort to do so by the PSB would fall under the umbrella of nuclear safety regulation and was outside the jurisdiction of the state agency.

The Vermont Yankee plant on the banks of the Connecticut River in southern Vermont (file photo)

Murtha wrote that any act by the PSB to deny Entergy the authority to store new spent fuel on-site would force the reactor to shut down, thus slamming the door shut on revenue for Entergy and with it the loss of the workforce without the possibility of recovery.

The key part of the judge’s ruling this week is that Entergy can continue to operate past March 21 while its petition for a certificate of public good is pending before the PSB. He pushed back on Entergy’s request to set aside the requirement to have one at all.

The PSB told the Vermont news media that it would allow continued operation of Vermont Yankee for the time being, not because it agreed with the reactor operator’s issues, but because the federal court gave it no choice. It is not clear when the PSB will complete its work. One possible outcome is that it will wait until the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals rules on the State of Vermont’s legal action in response to Judge Murtha’s ruling last January.

Legal experts say that the twin legal processes, an appeal by the State of Vermont to Judge Murtha’s January ruling, and the PSB’s deliberations are likely to take some time to work themselves out. In the meantime, the reactor will continue to operate, which shows that Entergy’s big bet to complete a fuel outage in 2011 is likely to pay off.

Separately, anti-nuclear activists say that they are planning protest demonstrations in Vermont, which may involve civil disobedience at the reactor plant’s front gate. A pro-nuclear demonstration last week brought out about 70 people.

__________________

96th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

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.

This week’s Carnival

Yes Vemont Yankee – Meredith Angwin

  • Why Nuclear Is Regulated at the National Level

Many people in Vermont claim that Vermont should have the right to regulate nuclear safety.  Yes Vermont Yankee points out that pharmaceutical drug approval, nuclear power, and airline safety are all regulated at the national level. Angwin shows that national regulation of complex technologies is a very good thing.

ANS Nuclear Cafe – Howard Shaffer

  • Back to the Vermont Public Service Board: Square One – or Before!

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant received a 20-year extension of its operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission – but also is required to be issued a renewed Certificate of Public Good (CPG) from Vermont’s Public Service Board to continue operating.  This blog post untangles the legal thicket for readers, reporting from a Vermont Public Service Board Pre-conference Hearing packed to the brim with lawyers, representatives, the media, and public pro- and anti-nukes.

NEI Nuclear Notes - Dave Bradish

  • MIT study on managing renewables

The blog highlights MIT’s latest report on whether a large-scale penetration of renewables can be managed in the US. The report is a sobering read for renewable advocates. There are five main areas of concern with wind and solar that emerged from the symposium and it looks like many regulations and systems will have to change in order to accommodate renewables. There are many more interesting stats on this issue at NEI’s post so stop by.

Atomic Power Review – Will Davis

  • The AEC on Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy

This blog presents a document that everyone involved in communicating with the public about nuclear energy will want to read; Appendix III of the obscure WASH-1250 report.  This document gives a history of public sentiment toward nuclear energy from the early days through 1973, and helps explain the early activities of anti-nuclear organizations as well.

Neutron Economy - Steve Skutnik

  • Looking Back One Year Later

The blog reflects on the aftermath of the Great Tohoku Earthquake and its aftermath, an event which sparked Skutnik and his colleagues to start their blog in an attempt to convey accurate information about nuclear technology to the general public free of the sensationalism which prevailed around the time of the Fukushima crisis.

Idaho Samizdat – Dan Yurman

  • Talking Fukushima One Year On

A panel convened by the American Nuclear Society reports no one has died from radiation exposure at Fukushima and that the health effects from radiation exposure are too small to measure.  Also, the panel questioned the technical basis for the NRC’s call for a 50 mile evacuation zone around the Fukushima reactor complex.

Deregulate the Atom - Rick Maltease

A one year retrospective on why the Fukushima Nuclear event unfairly dominated the news media.

Next Big Future – Brian Wang

The World Nuclear Association has an update of the nuclear reactors that are starting (or restarting after complete overhauls) from 2012 through 2017. There are 46 reactors that are scheduled to start from 2012 to 2014.

Kevin Jianjun Tu is a senior associate in the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program, where he leads Carnegie’s work on China’s energy and climate policies. He also worked in China 1995-2001 in large China natural gas and petroleum companies. His analysis is that China should go slow on approving new nuclear reactors.

China’s 2020 nuclear target is widely expected to fall to 60 to 70 gigawatts (GW), while China’s nuclear advocacy groups are still actively lobbying the government to set the 2020 nuclear target as high as 80 GW.

ANS Nuclear Cafe

  • Nuclear Inspiration – Suzy Hobbs Baker

“Modern physics is a field that is as complex as it is beautiful.”  The blog interviews nuclear engineering Ph.D. candidate Kallie Metzger, whose passion for science also inspires beautiful works of art – and a marvelous nuclear-inspired art exhibit. Examples are displayed online.

# # #

What a difference a prime minister makes

Japan’s new political leadership represents a sea change in the post-Fukushima era

By Dan Yurman

Japan PM Yoshihiko Noda

Want to know what the difference is between the current Japanese prime minister relative to his predecessor? The answer is how he deals with the issue of nuclear energy and blame for the ways TEPCO and the government contributed to the Fukushima crisis.

Former PM Naoto Kan threw a temper tantrum in the TEPCO emergency center and in a statement that loosely translates as “off with their heads,” called for the permanent closure of all the nation’s nuclear reactors.

Current PM Yoshihiko Noda accepts that the government and TEPCO made serious mistakes, but says that the country can do better and he is committed to restarting the nation’s 54 reactors, which provide 30 percent of Japan’s electricity. He also must reverse the nose dive the country’s economy has taken and rebuild the communities shattered by the earthquake and tsunami.

Want third-party confirmation of that? Check out a major paper by James Acton and Mark Hibbs titled, “Preventing Another Fukushima.” The paper puts its lead emphasis on the need for an independent nuclear safety agency, something Japan didn’t have on March 11, 2011.

Nothing outside our imagination

Perhaps most important is the change in Japan’s world view when it comes to nuclear energy. It is that nothing is outside the possibility of imagination.

Prior to March 11, TEPCO repeatedly and negligently rejected sound technical advice about protecting its coastal reactors from tsunami and earthquakes, saying such disasters were “outside its imagination.” That’s no longer the case under PM Noda.

In a press conference held last week PM Noda said, “We can no longer make the excuse that what was unpredictable and outside our imagination has happened. Crisis management requires us to imagine what may be outside our imagination.”

In making this statement, Noda is acknowledging that the government shares the blame in part because its safety regulators and business leaders were “blinded” by the “false belief” in the country’s technological mastery.

“The government, operator, and academic world were all too steeped in a safety myth. Everybody must share the pain of responsibility,” Noda said.

Restarting Japan’s reactors

In laying out the view that there is no haven from accountability, Noda also is setting the stage for restart of the nation’s reactors. As of March 13, 52 of the 54 reactors are closed and the other two will close in April.

The economic effects are already cascading across the nation, with its first trade deficit in 30 years and a highly annoyed steel industry threatening to go offshore with production if the electricity from the reactors isn’t restored and soon.

Japan is less than 50-percent self sufficient on food production. This means that its high value heavy industrial exports, which require lots of electricity, are what keep its balance of payments from going in the red. Pull the plug on manufacturing exports and you’ve also yanked the rug out from under the economy. The key to all this is electricity, and with 30 percent of it coming from nuclear reactors, they can’t stay turned off for long.

Noda has committed to convincing provincial government officials to agree to the restart of the reactors. That will be a tough sell. In fact, the provincial government in Fukushima province is so hard over about the impact of the reactor crisis there that it wants the government to scrap the four undamaged reactors at the Fukushima Daini site. There is, of course, the delusional policy of his predecessor, PM Kan, who wanted all the reactors off right away. Japan is paying for that folly with huge bills for fossil fuel imports. It can ill afford to sustain that kind of buying spree.

Kan comes in for a roasting

PM Noda may have painted the word “accountability” with a broad brush, but various groups looking into the Fukushima crisis have a narrower focus. In particular, the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation (RJIF) has issued a 400-page report. In searing language, especially for face-saving Japan, the group wrote:

“Top government officials without expert knowledge and experience ordered haphazard countermeasures,” and . . . “orders from the prime minister’s office may have raised the risk of creating unnecessary confusion and worsened the accident further.”

The RJIF report leaves no doubt how hard the criticism is on the government and TEPCO.

“The emerging crisis at the plant was complex, and, to make matters worse, it was exacerbated by communication gaps between the government and the nuclear industry.

These players were thoroughly unprepared on almost every level for the cascading nuclear disaster. This lack of preparation was caused, in part, by a public myth of absolute safety that nuclear power proponents had nurtured over decades and was aggravated by dysfunction within and between government agencies and Tepco, particularly in regard to political leadership and crisis management.

The investigation also found that the tsunami that began the nuclear disaster could and should have been anticipated and that ambiguity about the roles of public and private institutions in such a crisis was a factor in the poor response at Fukushima.”

The report’s findings are based on interviews with over 300 government and nuclear industry leaders. One of the key findings is that trust between the prime minister’s office and the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency evaporated when hydrogen explosions took place at three of the Fukushima reactors. At that point the prime minister’s office took matters into its own hands, bypassing the safety agency. The report says that PM Kan “aggravated the situation” through micromanagement.

There are three other commissions investigating the Fukushima crisis. One of them, from the Japanese parliament, has subpoena power. What hasn’t been raised so far is whether or not charges of criminal negligence will be filed against TEPCO officials and some in the government. That may come in time from a panel being run by the Japanese parliament.

Kan’s legacy a drag on progress

PM Kan’s chief spokesman during the crisis, Yukio Edano, is now the head of the METI agency, which still houses the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency. He’s been a proponent of going slow in terms of restarting the reactors. Progress to reform the nuclear safety agency by making it independent have also dragged on. Rebuilding public confidence in restarting the reactors will require a thoroughly independent nuclear regulatory agency. The cabinet has approved a legislative package, but whether it will go anyway remains a question.

On the other hand, the current government manager of the Fukushima crisis, Goshi Hoshano, is a realist and has pushed back on Edano’s defense of his former boss’s policy of permanent shut down of the nation’s reactors. He’s pushed for safe decommissioning of the damaged Fukushima reactors and control of the huge volumes of radioactive water on the site.

The fact that Kan is out of power and Noda is in charge may be the real difference in getting the commercial reactors back in operation. That doesn’t mean it will happen quickly or without a lot of political arm wrestling.  Reuters reported on March 14 that 80 percent of those responding to a newspaper poll did not trust the government’s promises of improved safety for the nation’s nuclear reactors.

Kan is under fierce attack for his failings during the crisis, but that doesn’t translate into support for restart. The real challenge the government faces is to close the gap between deep public skepticism about nuclear power in general, which was created because of the “myths” of nuclear safety that pervaded the halls of power prior to March 11.

_____________

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

NRC/Fukushima Hearing in US Senate Today 10AM ET

NRC Commissioners Magwood, Svinicki, Chairman Jaczko, Apostolakis, Ostendorff

A hearing titled “Lessons from Fukushima One Year Later: NRC’s Implementation of Recommendations for Enhancing Nuclear Reactor Safety in the 21st Century” will be held in the U.S. Senate this morning at 10:00 AM EDT.  Witnesses will include NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko and fellow NRC commissioners Kristine Svinicki, George Apostolakis, William Magwood, and William Ostendorff.

The hearing will be webcast live starting at 10:00 AM ET.  Watch hearing from beginning archived here.  The hearing will also be broadcast live on C SPAN cable television.  XM satellite radio subscribers can listen to the audio broadcast of the hearing on C-Span Radio on Channel 119. Please see this earlier Nuclear Cafe post for more details.