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 = .114 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .070 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .109 microsieverts per hour
Raw pistachios from Costco = .089 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .081 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .071 microsieverts per hour
Yesterday I posted a blog article about problems with Rosatom, the Russian state corporation that regulates and promotes nuclear industry in Russia. I also mentioned problems with the Japanese nuclear industry and the South Korean nuclear industry. All three of these countries are busy trying to sell questionable nuclear technology to other countries. There are not a lot of countries manufacturing nuclear reactors these days. France is a member of the nuclear club and like Russia, Japan and South Korea, it is trying to sell its nuclear technology abroad. France relies on nuclear power for eighty percent of its electricity and their need to keep their nuclear industry alive is as much aimed at domestic power generation as it is in stimulating export sales of nuclear technology.
AREVA is a French public corporation with strong ties to the French national government. It was created in 2001 by the merger of several companies active in various nuclear industries in Europe It is the only major international nuclear company that is involved in every facet of nuclear energy and research including “mining, chemistry, enrichment, combustibles, services, engineering, nuclear propulsion and reactors, treatment, recycling, stabilization, and dismantling.” They appear to have a better record of competence and integrity than the Russian, Japanese and South Korean nuclear companies but they have had some problems.
In 2003, Finland ordered a new reactor system from AREVA. When there were serious cost overruns, AREVA refused to pick up the extra costs and the case is in arbitration. Currently, the project is four years behind schedule and ninety percent over budget. It is unlikely that the reactor will start producing electricity before 2015.
In 2007, the French government signed an agreement with Libya for civilian nuclear power. It was announced that the project was aim at desalinization of sea water but some critics claimed that it was really just an excuse to export AREVA’s expensive nuclear technology. Other critics said that the nuclear power deal was related to the release of Belgian nurses being held by the Libyans. The German government denounced the deal.
In 2007, AREVA was fined fifty three million Euros for “rigging European Union electricity markets through a cartel involving eleven companies..”
In 2010, anti-nuclear activist fought the construction of a new AREVA nuclear power plant on the Normandy coast because of design changes to the fuel pellet cladding. AREVA made the changes when its original design was challenged on safety grounds. The critics said that the changes that were made were not sufficient to solve the problems.
Also in 2010, complaints were raised by Greenpeace about nuclear dust contamination of native villages near the uranium min which provided one half of AREAVA’s uranium. AREVA carried out some cleanup activities and declared that the problem was solved. Investigators who went to the villages after the cleanup still found high levels of radioactive contamination.
At the end of 2011, the new director of AREVA announced a three billion dollar writedown due to a downturn in the nuclear market. Half of that was related to the purchase of UraMin, a uranium mining stock. The woman who had managed the company for ten years was investigated covertly and then removed from her post. She was blamed for making the decision to purchase the UraMin stock. On the other hand, she accused the man who replaced her as director of incompetence in the management of project to develop a third generation nuclear reactor which was over budget and behind schedule. The new director also said that they might lose as much as two billion in 2012 and that they would have to lay off fifteen hundred workers.
In 2012, AREVA faced problems with a bid to build a United Kingdom reactor. Other bidders were threatening to trigger a market monopoly investigation if AREVA won the bid.
While AREVA has not been accused of using substandard part and other types of overt corruption and crime, they still have had safety and legal problems in the international marketplace. In addition, their close ties to the French government have led to questionable behavior. I am afraid that doing business with AREVA could be problematic for other countries seeking new reactors for power generation.
Ambient office = .141 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .090 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .087 microsieverts per hour
Locally grow zuccinni from local grocery = .143 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .073 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .058 microsieverts per hour
I have had a lot to say about problems in the Japanese nuclear industry in previous blog posts. Major players in the industry have been shown to be corrupt as have government agencies that should be regulating the industry. TEPCO knew about the problems that caused the Fukushima disaster and could have done something about them before the tsunami. Other problems have been reported with reactor designs and manufacture of reactor components.
Recently, I posted a blog about problems in the South Korea nuclear industry which a government study termed an “entrenched chain of corruption.” Substandard parts were being fraudulently certified as meeting standards and had been installed in fourteen out of twenty three reactors operating in South Korea. Both Japan and South Korea have been investing heavily in the export of nuclear technology to help stimulate their economies.
Another country that is aggressively pushing the export of nuclear technology to other countries is Russia. Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation is a state corporation that controls the nuclear weapons industry, nuclear research facilities, radiation safety agencies and the use of nuclear energy for commercial purposes such as the generation of electricity. As in many other countries, Rosatom faces the same conflict of interest in both regulating the nuclear industry and promoting the nuclear industry. There is no significant oversight of Rosatom activities.
There are watchdog groups in Russia that are demanding official investigations into widespread reports of violations and abuses in the nuclear industry. One big concern is the purchase and installation of counterfeit and uncertified reactor components both inside Russia and in reactors that Russia is constructing in other countries. Another major concern is that reactor construction is compromised by theft in the form of substitution of cheaper and sub-quality materials with the construction company pocketing the difference in cost. Rosatom has its own standards for negotiating contracts which are not as strict as the usual Russian federal contracting standards. It is now legal for reactor designers to purchase components from any company that they choose without going through the tender process of requesting bids from competing companies.
The National Ecological Centre of Ukraine posted the following statement on their website: “The numerous violations of construction norms and standards, and working conditions, which lead to serious incidents at nuclear power plant construction sites in Russia, cast doubt on the capability of the State Corporation Rosatom and its subcontractor companies of carrying out quality and reliable construction projects as per Rosatom’s export contracts.”
The Belarusian Anti-Nuclear Campaign fighting the construction of a Russian reactor in the town of Ostrovets said this: “The known incidents and deficiencies in the operation and construction of Russian-built NPPs in Russia, Iran, and China, as well as the recent collapse of reinforcing steelwork at the construction site of the containment building at [Leningrad] NPP-2, are evidence that Rosatom and its structures have serious problems of a systemic nature and cannot guarantee the quality of their sites. This propagation of dangerous nuclear technologies places a special responsibility on the Russian government.” China has filed thousands of complaints about the quality of equipment being installed in a Russian reactor being built there.
Countries without their own nuclear industries are being courted by Russia, Japan and South Korea as possible customers for nuclear reactor technology. If I were a decision maker in any of country considering the purchase of a nuclear power plant, I would think twice before buying a reactor from Russia, Japan or South Korea.
Ambient office = .102 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .121 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .100 microsieverts per hour
Banana from local grocery = .098 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .066 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .056 microsieverts per hour
We have all seen movies where they thought that they had killed the monster when suddenly it pops up again. It was generally believed that the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository in Nevada had been permanently cancelled and, to abuse the metaphor, it was dead. Now it seems that reports of its death may have been premature. Recently a federal appeals court has decided to resurrect the beast.
The Yucca Mountain site was chosen by Congress in the early 80s as the location for a permanent deep geological repository to house the spent fuel from the nation’s nuclear reactors. The State of Nevada and its elected representatives were strongly opposed to the decision. Harry Reid, the Nevada Senator who became the Senate Majority Leader fought against the project and managed to prevent the appropriation of some of the required funding. When Obama was running for the presidency, he promised to cancel the project which he did soon after he was elected. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission halted work on a review of the site after Obama cancelled the project. Eleven million dollars allocated for the study was never spent. Work began to find another site for a deep geological repository but it was estimated that no such site would be operating before 2048.
On August 13, 2013 the Federal Appeals court for the District of Columbia ruled 2 to 1 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exceeded its authority when it stopped work on the review of the Yucca Mountain site in response to the orders of the Obama administration. The case was brought by the States of Washington and South Carolina which have military nuclear waste that they intended to send to Yucca Mountain. The majority opinion was based on the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. Judge Kavenaugh said that allowing the executive branch and agencies such as the NRC to disregard federal law would be a violation of that separation. He ordered the NRC to proceed to spend the remaining eleven million dollars on continuing the halted site review. The dissenting judge said that the site review would be a waste of money because eleven million dollars would not be sufficient to reach a conclusion of whether or not the site would be a safe place to store spent nuclear fuel. Harry Reid said that the court’s decision was meaningless.
The NRC had gone to a great deal of effort to carry out the review including the construction of a special courtroom in Nevada and a special computer link back to NRC Headquarters in Washington, D.C. to facilitate access to thousands of documents regarding the project. The courtroom has been dismantled and the computer link has been taken down. The NRC completed most of the work on the first stage of the project focusing on a Safety Evaluation Report. One volume of the projected five volumes of the Safety Report has been completed and published. The other four volumes were issued as technical reports with no official conclusions. It might be possible for the NRC to use the remaining eleven million dollars to complete and publish the full Safety Evaluation Report but the Safety Evaluation is only one part of the review process.
The current head of the NRC is a geologist who had strong reservations about the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site before the project was cancelled. Congress is currently debating legislation to facilitate the search for another repository site. The Department of Energy withdrew its application for a license to construct the repository soon after Obama cancelled the project. Although Yucca Mountain has temporarily been given a new lease on life, I am afraid that it will soon be dead once and for all.
Ambient office = .067 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .138 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .101 microsieverts per hour
Locally baked ciabatta bread from local grocery = .123 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .129 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .124 microsieverts per hour
