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.
Ambient office = .106 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .116 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .117 microsieverts per hour
Redleaf lettuce from Costco = .078 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .107 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .096 microsieverts per hour
Governor says no nuclear waste disposal site is coming to Mississippi. wdam.com
Ambient office = .084 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .089 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .100 microsieverts per hour
Carrot from Costco = .113 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .134 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .105 microsieverts per hour
The relationship between fracking and nuclear power is complex. The most obvious connection is the fact that inexpensive natural gas being produced by the current fracking boom in the United States is making nuclear power unprofitable and has already contributed to the decision to close two nuclear reactors in the United States. However, it turns out that there is another important link that is not so widely publicized.
Fracking is a process where they drill a hole in the ground between one thousand and eight thousand feet deep. Then the drill turns and drives horizontally through a rock strata that contains trapped natural gas and oil. Shaped explosive charges are used to shatter or fracture the rock around the drill pipe which is perforated along its horizontal length.
Following the drilling and fracturing, a mixture of water, acids, and chemical additives is forced under great pressure into the fracture rock strata. The initial injection is followed by small balls or sand that holds open the cracks in the rock. Natural gas, oil and the water mixture is pumped back to the surface. The exact type and quantities of the chemicals added to the water are proprietary but what is known is that many of them are toxic.
Fracking companies claim that it is a safe process where the nasty chemicals are below and separated from the water table that people draw on for water but critics point to evidence that fracking chemicals are making their way into the drinking water of people in the area and causing serious health problems. In addition there is evidence that fracking can cause earthquakes in the vicinity. Recently, in the Southwest, some towns are dying as fracking companies draw down the aquifers so much for the water they need to inject into the earth that wells that supply the towns with water are drying up.
In addition to the oil and natural gas trapped underground the rock strata, there is also naturally occurring uranium. Most of it is the mildly radioactive isotope U-238. But there are also other more radioactive isotopes created from the decay of the U-238 such as radium 226. Radium 226 decays into radon-222, a radioactive colorless and odorless gas that emits alpha particles. Radon also decays and, among its products is highly toxic polonium 210. These naturally occurring radioactive isotopes are normally deep underground and no threat to human beings. However, in the vicinity of fracking operations, these isotopes are being brought to the surface and are a definite biological threat. They are in the waste water, the oil, the gas, the soil, the groundwater and they can make their way into municipal wells, water supplies, and people homes.
Originally, the shaped charges created a jet of super heated copper that blasted through the rock. But since the 1980, new types of charges have been developed that use depleted uranium that are claimed to be five times as effective as the old copper charges. The temperature of the jet of uranium is twice the temperature of the copper jets. This super heated uranium engages in chemical reaction and the creation of new compounds with the chemicals naturally present in the rock. It is likely that the particles of depleted uranium created by the explosion of the charges make their way back to the surface mixed with the gas, oil and water. They could be carried by spilled waste water into the soil, streams, rivers and groundwater around the fracking site. It would be difficult to identify such depleted uranium radioactivity from the natural radioactivity of radium and radon.
Both the natural radioactivity from fracking and the radioactivity from the charges pose a threat to the public health. Such radioactive contamination in the area of fracking sites could lead to tens of thousands of additional cases of lung cancer. This is a serious issue which should be addressed when the safety and economics of fracking are being discussed.
Ambient office = .093 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .078 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .088 microsieverts per hour
Fresh ground coffee from specialty store= .103 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .094 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .073 microsieverts per hour
I have written a number of posts about the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and the political struggle in Vermont to close the plant. Vermont Yankee is located in Vernon, Vermont and its General Electric boiling water reactor generates about thirty five percent of the electricity used in Vermont. It began operating in 1972 and its original license expired in 2012. The NRC extended the plant license for an additional twenty years in 2011. Entergy, the company that owns the plant, has just announced that they are going to permanently close the plant in 2014.
In 2006, Entergy applied to the NRC for a twenty year license extension for the plant to continue to operate. One hundred demonstrators protested outside the offices of Entergy Nuclear and some were arrested. In 2007, part of the west cooling tower collapsed because of corrosion of bolts and rotting timber. The NRC concluded that there was no public danger and Entergy promised to do a better job of inspecting the facility. Governor Jim Douglas felt that the accident raised serious questions about the safety of the plant. A review by a panel appointed by the Vermont Senate concluded that the plant was being run safely and the NRC agreed.
In 2009, there was a claim that groundwater had been contaminated by the reactor. A spokesman for Entergy said that there was no contamination. In early 2010, tritium was found in the groundwater under the plant and the levels rose above the safe limit. By mid-February, a leak that had been found in some steam pipes was repaired. Cesium-137 was also found in the soil. It was thought to have been left over from fuel rod problems in the 1970s and was not considered a serious threat to public health. One hundred and fifty activists marched from Montpelier’s city Hall to the Vermont State House to present a petition of twelve thousand signatures in favor of closing Vermont Yankee.
In 2010, Entergy requested that Vermont issue a new state certificate of public good. One hundred and seventy five anti-nuclear activists marched one hundred and twenty six miles from Brattleboro to Montpelier to block the relicensing of the plant. The state legislature voted against even allowing the Vermont Public Service Board to consider issuing the state certificate to allow the plant to continue to operate. Peter Shumlin, a staunch opponent of Vermont Yankee was elected Governor of Vermont in November of 2010. Analysts have suggested that his opposition was a key factor in him winning a very close election. Right after the election, Entergy tried to find a buyer for Vermont Yankee.
In early 2011, tritium was again discovered at higher than normal levels in the groundwater and Governor Peter Shumlin expressed concern. In March of 2011, six hundred people spent a weekend protesting outside the Vermont Yankee plant.The NRC concluded review of Vermont Yankee in March and issued the requested twenty year extension. A month later, Entergy filed a lawsuit against Vermont to keep the plant in operation. Entergy won in court in 2012. An appeal to a higher court by Vermont failed in 2013. The court said that only the Federal government had the authority to determine whether or not the plant would be allowed to continue to operate.
Entergy has just announced that it is closing the Vermont Yankee plant permanently in 2014 because low cost natural gas from fracking was making the plant unprofitable to operate, especially in view of the rising maintenance and operating costs. As I have said in the past, ultimately, the end of nuclear power will be tied to fact that it is just not an economical power source. Unfortunately, public safety is a secondary concern to people who operate these plants.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant:
A CEO Bill Johnson said layoffs at the Bellefonte nuclear plant have begun under a plan announced this spring to put the reactor completion project on hold. nuclearstreet.com
Ambient office = .094 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .094 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .103 microsieverts per hour
Celery from Costco = .093 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .123 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .106 microsieverts per hour
There is nothing particularly mysterious about coincidences. Probability theory demands them. But every now and then, a specific coincidence seems to be amazingly appropriate. I just finished a series of post about the new report of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention from the University of Texas on nuclear power plant security and reactions to the report. Now I see a news item that fits so perfectly with my postings that I just had to add it to the series.
In criticisms of the report, it is pointed out that there are exercises called “force on force” where mock attacks are staged on nuclear power plants to test the security. This is all very good and well, but the problem is that the exercises are classified so it may be difficult to assess just how well the plant security performs. Nonetheless, we do know that a recent federal force on force exercise at a nuclear power plant did not work out so well for the plant operators.
Beaver Valley Nuclear Generating Station is about thirty miles north of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. It is operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Corporation which is a holding company for six utilities in that area. There are two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors in operation at Beaver Valley. The NRC defines two danger zones around nuclear reactors, a zone ten miles in diameter for danger of inhalation of airborne particles and a zone fifty miles in diameter where the danger is from drinking liquids and/or eating food that has been contaminated with radioactive particles. There are over three million people within the fifty mile danger zone of Beaver Valley.
FirstEnergy representatives have just requested and been granted a closed door meeting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The topic of discussion will be the failure of the Beaver Valley security forces to perform adequately in a force on force mock attack held last April. During the force on force attack, a paramilitary squad tried to breach plant security and sabotage the reactor. “Armed with laser-type weapons, they attack at night, try to defeat plant security teams, breach walls and other barriers to invade the most protected areas of the plant, which contain the reactor, spent fuel storage and other critical equipment.” The task of the plant security is, of course, to prevent this attack from succeeding. Because the security and force on force exercises are classified, we don’t know exactly how the security team at Beaver Valley failed. We do know that the NRC considered the failure “serious” and is considering issuing a citation for the failure.
The NRC is currently carrying out its assessment of security and safety at all the nuclear power plants in the United States and will issue a report in September. It will be very interesting to review a plant by plant assessment of adequate security. The critics of the NPPP study on nuclear plant security bragged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of Homeland Security said that U.S. nuclear plant security was excellent and the public had nothing to fear from terrorists. I pointed out that nuclear plant operators have often been found to violate regulations with respect to safety and security. Right on cue, here is a news item about a nuclear plant security team that failed to protect the plant. I wonder how many more of the nuclear power plants in the U.S. have failed the force on force exercises.
Beaver Valley Nuclear Generating Station:
