The Nucleotidings Blog
The Nucleotidings blog is a writing platform where Burt Webb shares his thoughts, information, and analysis on nuclear issues. The blog is dedicated to covering news and ideas related to nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection. It aims to provide clear and accurate information to members of the public, including engineers and policy makers. Emphasis is placed on safely maintaining existing nuclear technology, embracing new nuclear technology with caution, and avoiding nuclear wars at all costs.
Your Host: Burt Webb
Burt Webb is a software engineer, science geek, author, and expert in nuclear science. Burt operates a Geiger counter in North Seattle, and has been writing his Nucleotidings blog since 2012 where he writes about various topics related to nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection.
Burt Webb has published several technical books and novels. He works as a software consultant.
Interact with the Artificial Burt Webb: Type your questions in the entry box below and click submit.
Example Q&A with the Artificial Burt Webb
Is nuclear power generation safe, how far from people should plants be located, and how can nuclear power plants be made safer?
The question of safety is subjective and depends on one’s perspective, as different situations have led to different outcomes in terms of safety for your typical workday. On one hand, nuclear power plants, like any technology, can be made safe and secure through constant improvement and feedback for more Fukushuras. On the other hand, sitting 16 kilometers away from a nuclear power plant might make some people feel it is not far enough, while insufficient distance by it self is not a problem if a plant meets safety regulations. Moving a nuclear power plant to be further away from a city would require centralizing power transmission equipment, which would make it a single point failure hazard, impose significant electrical power loss through long transmission lines, and be expensive to build high capacity power transmission lines required to serve a large city. Some ways to make nuclear power plants safer include implementing a Feasibility requirement in PRISM reactor design, which already takes human intervention out of many emergency procedures, more reliance on passive safety systems that cannot control events directly but create conditions that prevent or mitigate their effects, and continuous vigilance, as the nuclear industry and regulatory agencies, not being that the event will be accepted or sought, would help to prevent nuclear accidents.
What do you mean by “Fukushuras”?
“Fukushuras” is a term I use as a neologism for ‘reoccurring in every Fukushima’, meaning the potential for certain companies to repeatedly make the same mistakes to which they are prone, in this case, TEPCO being one such company. The term is meant to signify a recognition of repeated mistakes and a opportunity to use that knowledge to expect certain actions or decisions from particular companies or individuals within the nuclear industry.
I have blogged about nuclear issues in Ukraine related to the recent political turbulence. With the situation deteriorating, I decided that I would revisit the topic.
When the Soviet Union dissolved twenty years ago, Ukraine possessed a lot of Soviet nuclear warheads. Ukraine agreed to rid itself of nuclear weapons on the basis of Budapest Memorandum signed by the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia. The memorandum guaranteed the security, territorial and sovereignty of Ukraine. Within five years all the nuclear warheads and their nuclear infrastructure had been removed or destroyed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been monitoring the peaceful use of nuclear power in the Ukraine since the Budapest Memorandum was signed.
Now, with the seizure of the Crimea and the threat to use force in Eastern Ukraine, the Russians have violated the Budapest Memorandum. There have been calls in Kiev for Ukraine to resume the production of nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from foreign aggression. The new government in Kiev has strongly rejected this option and reaffirmed its commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They would rather seek security in cooperation with members of the international community. The European Union will be asked for assistance.
The Ukraine government fears that the world may seek appeasement with the Russians by allowing them to retain possession of the Crimea and possibly even accept the annexation of Eastern Ukraine. They cite the failure of appeasement to contain the Third Reich in the lead up to World War II. They hope that the world community will bring diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia to surrender the Crimea and withdraw their troops from the border with Eastern Ukraine. They also insist that military options should not be ruled out if the Russians do not yield to the other measures.
There is mounting concern that Ukraine’s nuclear power plants may be under threat, either from a Russian invasion or sabotage by Ukrainians that support the Russian actions. The Ukrainian government fears that attacks on Ukraine nuclear reactors could result in radioactive contamination of Ukraine and surrounding countries. They have called for international monitors to help protect Ukrainian reactors. After having suffered the Chernobyl disaster, the Ukrainians are familiar with widespread nuclear contamination.
Ukraine supplies forty percent of its electricity from fifteen aging nuclear reactors concentrated in four locations. Even if not intentionally attacked, human error in the fog of war could result in bombardment of a nuclear power plant, causing a meltdown. Fighting near nuclear plants could disrupt off-site power sources which are critical to safe operation. Operators could abandon their posts at the nuclear power plant leaving no one to deal with emergencies that might arise. Ground forces could invade nuclear power plants and damage operating systems. On the other hand, troops from one side of the conflict could take refuge in a nuclear power plant, inviting attacks from the other side.
We can hope that Russia will be reluctant to attack nuclear power plants in Ukraine in view of the fact that they also suffered in the Chernobyl disaster. For the moment, we can only hope that diplomacy and economic sanctions will discourage Russia from instigating further conflict in Ukraine.
(Continued from Part One)
Treatment of whistleblowers was a major topic at the recent Hanford public meeting. There have been reports of a “culture of fear” among Hanford workers which made people reluctant to raise safety issues. In the past, whistleblowers have been demoted and even fired. Of course, a Hanford rep said that that was a thing of the past and he had personally talked to anyone who had a complaint or concern when he started work there a few years ago.
The Vitrification Plant was also a focus of the presentations and discussion period. The plant is intended to convert nuclear waste from the underground tanks into glass logs for permanent storage. The plant is behind schedule and over budget. Construction had to stop because of major technical issues like corrosion of pipes and possible build up of hydrogen gas in the pipes. Extra processing stages are being designed and built to deal with the problem. The Hanford reps were optimistic that this time they would be able to solve all the problems and get the plant working to convert nuclear waste into glass logs for permanent storage. They hope to be starting operations in a few years. I was not as confident as they were given that there are still major design problems and technical challenges to overcome.
There was a pie chart that showed how the five billion Federal dollars are being divided up among Federal nuclear installations around the country. Because Hanford is one of the most radioactively polluted sites in the U.S., it receives about a billion dollars from the U.S. government. That sounds like a lot but the Hanford rep said that about half of that money was used just to “keep the lights on” and pay salaries. I asked whether he was confident that that Federal money would continue to be available. I mentioned that a U.S. program to secure dangerous nuclear materials was being scaled back in the new Federal budget and expressed concern that if there were future financial crises in the U.S., the cleanup money might be reduced or even cut off.
Hanford constructed something called the Central Waste Complex in the middle of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation where drums of waste were stored, some of them outside, exposed to the elements. This was done without a Washington State Permit and so it is an illegal storage area. Even in a legal storage area for such waste, the drums are only supposed to be stored that way for a year. Some of the drums in the Complex have been there eighteen years. The State and DoE are arguing about what must be done.
There has been a great deal of work done at Hanford to clean up the legacy of decades of nuclear weapons development. There are a lot of very capable and dedicated people working there. I believe them when they say that they work hard every day at Hanford to clean up the horrible pollution there and turn the land back into a place that can be used for recreation. They were obviously well prepared for the meeting to reassure the public that everything that can and should be done is being done to clean up the Hanford mess. Unfortunately, given the Hanford track record of illegal activity, delaying action, fighting Washington State orders, lying, endangering workers and incompetence, I am not quite as optimistic as the Hanford reps were at the meeting. We can only hope that Hanford has turned the corner and that the cleanup will proceed safely and efficiently from now on.
Hanford Central Waste Complex:
