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 before about the problems at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. This is the only national geological repository for waste generated in the U.S. nuclear weapons program including tools, clothing and other objects that have been contaminated by plutonium and other radioactive isotopes. Around eighteen shipments of waste had been coming to the repository every week. Since 1999, over two million cubic feet of nuclear waste has been stored at the repository. The waste is stored two thousand feet underground in an ancient salt bed. Eventually, the salt around the waste facility is expected to collapse and embed the waste.
Back in February there was a truck fire underground. Then less than two weeks later, something else happened that released radioactive materials including plutonium into the environment. Seventeen workers were exposed. Some of the contamination was detected in the town of Carlsbad. It is still unclear exactly what happened in the repository. The two main possibilities seem to be that a drum of waste generated gases which exploded or the part of the ceiling collapsed onto the drums of waste. It is still too radioactive in the repository for investigators to ascertain exactly what happened. While the repository is shut down during the investigation, new shipments of waste are being diverted to a temporary dump in Texas.
It turns out that there are more than one hundred operating oil and natural gas wells within a mile of the sixteen mile square WIPP site. There are also fracking wells near WIPP. This could be a major problem if fracking fluids penetrate the salt deposit that contains the waste repository. One of the first things considered in selecting a site for a geological waste repository is the degree to which ground water moves through the underground volume being considered. While the original survey of the site found little evidence of ground water penetration, the fracking operations are pumping a mixture of water, sand and toxic chemicals under high pressure which is intended to penetrate the rock strata and force cracks open to release natural gas trapped in the rock. Obviously, fracking near a nuclear waste depository is not a good idea.
Another of the things checked when considering a geological nuclear waste repository is the question of whether the area being considered is seismically active. It has been discovered that fracking can cause earthquakes in places that never experienced them. Perhaps a fracking earthquake recently brought down part of the ceiling at the WIPP.
One critic of the administration of WIPP claims that there has been more efforts to expand the site to take even more waste than to foster a culture of safety to insure that the waste that is stored there is safely contained. Another critic points out that the WIPP was placed in an area that was known to contain accessible hydrocarbon resources. Such areas are not supposed to be considered when siting a nuclear waste repository. It would appear that it was a poor decision to locate WIPP near Carlsbad where future oil and gas wells were likely to be drilled. The residents of southern New Mexico were against locating the WIPP near Carlsbad by a three to one ratio. Local politicians and businessmen strongly supported the WIPP location and overrode the objections of the citizens of the area.
As usual, the authorities are saying that the released radioactive materials pose no threat to public safety. WIPP is shut down for an indeterminate period while waste piles up at laboratories and other facilities or in temporary storage. It may turn out that the WIPP will be deemed unsafe and will be shut down permanently. In that case, we can only hope that the next such repository is placed in a much more suitable location.
More and more strontium in addition to cesium is being detected in ocean samples near Fukushima. enenews.com
A nuclear dump in western Pennsylvania could contain far more waste than originally thought, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s inspector general said in a new report. greenfieldreporter.com
I have covered the world in this blog but sometimes you wind up in your own backyard. Problems at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation are like the rain in Seattle, they just keep coming. The Federal Government and the State of Washington are arguing over the cleanup of Hanford which is the most contaminated radioactive waste site in the country.
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz is meeting with Washington Governor Jay Inslee and other state officials in Olympia this week. The Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDoE) and the top nuclear program manager of the state will also attend the meetings. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDoE) owns the Hanford Nuclear Reservation where toxic radioactive waste accumulated for decades as the U.S. nuclear arsenal was developed. The site is regulated by the WSDoE and the Federal EPA. The cleanup has been going on since 1989 when weapons production ended. There have been technical problems, schedule delays, radioactive material leaks from buried tanks, charges of incompetent management and a definite lack of transparency.
One of the topics for the meeting will be problems with execution of a consent decree that was signed by Washington State and the Federal Government. The USDoE has already started missing deadlines associated with startup of the Waste Treatment Plant and other goals. There is a possibility that the State of Washington will take the Federal Government to court over the delays.
There are hundreds of tanks full of radioactive waste buried at Hanford. Most are single-walled tanks some of which are leaking. Double-walled tanks were developed so the waste could be moved into storage that was not supposed to leak. Unfortunately, it turned out that the double walled tanks leak too. A particular double-walled tank known as AY-102 has been leaking for over two years. Washington State law says that leaking tanks need to be emptied within twenty four hours. AY-102 has not been emptied and submitted plans don’t have any provision to pump it out for at least two year.
Washington State said that the Department of Energy’s plan “demonstrates the Federal Government’s lack of commitment to set a firm, near-term schedule for the removal of waste from leaking double-shell Tank AY-102…On initial review, the plan lacks accountability to meet state law.”
Secretary Moniz visited Hanford in June of 2013. During his visit, Moniz met with local officials, whistleblowers, the media and other people with an interest in the Hanford cleanup. There are no such plan for his current visit which reinforces the perception that the Federal process is not transparent or accountable.
I personally attended a briefing thrown by Hanford staff to explain to the public why uranium is still leaking into the Columbia River from Hanford where millions of gallons of radioactive waste was poured into unlined trenches. The Hanford representatives were congenial and knowledgeable. They reassured the audience that they knew the problem, knew the solution and had a schedule for the work. Unfortunately, it turned out that there were also knowledgeable people in the audience who repeatedly called out the Hanford people on thing they were not saying and problems with their analysis and plans. I saw firsthand the lack of transparency and accountability at Hanford. After all the money that the U.S. Government spent on nuclear weapons, apparently they are either too stingy or too incompetent to clean up the mess they left at Hanford.
