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.
Latitude 47.704656 Longitude -122.318745
Ambient office = .061 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .111 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .089 microsieverts per hour
Celery from local grocery store = .122 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .083 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .068 microsieverts per hour
I have written extensively about the problems in Japan that followed the Fukushima disaster. One major problem was the fact that the nuclear industry was being monitored by the same Japanese government agency that promotes industrial development and trade. After Fukushima, a new agency, the Nuclear Regulation Agency (NRA), was created to deal with nuclear regulation independently. A new set of much more strict nuclear safety regulation was drawn up. There is great pressure to restart the Japanese fleet of around fifty reactors which were all shut down following Fukushima. While the owners of the reactors are supposed to implement the new strict regulations before restarting their reactors, there has been criticism of the new regulations on the grounds that there are loop holes that give reactor owners years in which to implement the new regulation fully. Presumably, the reactors would operate as they did before Fukushima while the required changes were being made. Considering the safety record of some reactors owners such as TEPCO, the owners of Fukushima power plant where the reactors melted down, it might be better if none of the reactors were permitted to restart until all the mandated changes had been accomplished.
Since the Fukushima disaster started with a massive earthquake, there is obvious concern in Japan about danger from future earthquakes. Considering that about twenty percent of the seismic activity on Earth occurs in the area of Japan where three tectonic plates meet, it seems like a valid concern. There is a vast network of inactive and active faults under Japan. One important aspect of the Japanese nuclear regulations is that no reactor will be allowed to operate if it is above an active fault. For years, the NRA and its predecessor agencies have been analyzing the complex set of fault lines beneath the Tsuruga nuclear power plant on the east coast of Japan. There is evidence of a quake a few thousand years ago which qualifies that particular fault as being “active”. There are other faults nearby and the NRA is afraid that if they moved together they could generate a quake more powerful than previously thought.
Recently, the NRA told the Japanese Atomic Power Company (JAPCO), the owners of the Tsuruga nuclear power plant, that they would not be allowed to operate the plant because the fault beneath the plant was active. JAPCO has insisted that the fault under the plant should not be classified as active. It turns out that JAPCO did not make seismic readings about the fault available to the Japanese government from studies done in 2005.The NRA has said that if convincing scientific evidence is provided that proves that the fault is not active, then they would consider reversing their decision.
In addition to denying that the fault under their reactor is active, JAPCO has refused to submit a requested report on what would happen to the spent nuclear fuel stored at Tsuruga in the event of an earthquake caused by the fault under the plant. If the reactor at Tsuruga is a GE Mark I or Mark II design like the reactors at Fukushima, then the spent fuel is stored in a pool on the fourth floor of the reactor building. If the water covering the spent fuel rods drains away because of damage caused by a quake, the rods will burst into flames and inject huge amount of radioactive gases and particulates into the atmosphere. Given the results of the Fukushima disaster, any such radiation plume would circle the whole Northern Hemisphere and endanger a majority of the human race.
While the Japanese government has made changes to the way they regulate nuclear power plants, it appears that the operators of the nuclear power plant are refusing to respect the authority of the NRA. If this continues, it almost guarantees another major accident. The public backlash against another accident could end the use of nuclear power in Japan permanently.
Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant:
TEPCO lied when they said recently that it would take 100 years for contaminated groundwater to reach the ocean from the area of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. fukushima-diary.com
A report has been published about high levels of radiation in a shaft at the Fukushima Unit Three reactor. fukushima-diary.com
Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on July 17, 2013
Ambient office = .127 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .100 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .083 microsieverts per hour
Redleaf lettuce from Costco = .109 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .083 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .070 microsieverts per hour
I have posted several articles about the nuclear waste problems at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (HNR) in Central Washington. The waste at the reservation is the legacy of the research and construction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The one hundred and forty nine old buried single wall tanks are leaking. The new double walled tanks that were supposed to solve that problem have now started to leak. The construction of the vitrification plant that was going to embed the waste in the tanks in glass logs has been halted because of design problems. The waste in the tanks varies in consistence from solid to liquid to gas. Some of the tanks contain very dangerous highly radioactive waste. In addition to the waste in the tanks, it has been reported recently that the lower level waste like clothes and equipment that has been removed from Hanford is being mishandled during transport and processing.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is located near Carlsbad, New Mexico. It is operated by the Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC. and was constructed to handle disposal of transuranic low-level radioactive waste generated by the U.S. defense departments and defense contractors. Permitting at the WIPP is handled by a partnership consisting of the DOE Carlsbad Field Office and the Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC. Between 2000 and 2011 Hanford sent the equivalent of twenty five thousand drums of transuranic wastes to WIPP. This waste is less dangerous than the high-level waste in many of the buried tanks at Hanford. In 2004, a specific prohibition was inserted into the permitting rules for WIPP to prevent shipment of high-level waste from the HRC tanks to the WIPP.
Now the U.S. DOE has requested a permit to ship transuranic radioactive waste from a few of the underground tanks to WIPP. Since the 2004 prohibition was created to prevent such shipments, the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) has sent a request to the permitting partnership for WIPP to reverse the prohibition. They have said that they will consider the request. In the meantime, the DOE has asked NMED to expedite their request and give quick approval. NMED has refused to speed up the DOE request and has insisted that a full process including public meetings must take place. One of the concerns that New Mexico and WIPP have is that some of the wastes that Hanford wants to ship may be in a liquid form which is difficult to handle.
Supporters of the DOE request point out that the waste that Hanford would ship to WIPP would not be the most dangerous type and would be acceptable within the current rules aside from the special prohibition put into place in 2004. The critics are concerned about the ability of WIPP to handle liquid waste. The supporters of Hanford shipments from underground tanks may be right about the technical details in the law. However, considering that there has been consistent mishandling of low-level waste from Hanford during transportation, I believe that the critics have good reason to be concerned about the new shipments.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico:
Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on July 15, 2013
Ambient office = .096 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .128 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .155 microsieverts per hour
Hass avacado from Costco = .072 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .113 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .094 microsieverts per hour
Every year the International Atomic Energy Agency surveys nuclear facilities of member nations around the world and issues a report on the status of global nuclear safety. The IAEA report for 2012 has just been issued. While generally positive, the report does admit that a lot of the nuclear reactors in the world are aging and nearing the end of their operational lifespans.
Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011, many IAEA member states have undertaken their own reviews of their nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities. Some nations have instituted stress tests of their reactors to see if they are ready to withstand accidents and natural disasters. One result of this global concern has been the drafting of new more stringent national regulations for nuclear power plants. The IAEA report states that operational safety at most of the world’s operational power plants remains high as evidenced by the high level of performance indicators in the data collected from member nations.
There are currently four hundred and thirty two operational civilian nuclear power reactors in the world with another sixty eight under construction. Twenty two of the existing reactors have been in operation for over forty years. Most of them were originally licensed to operate for forty years. Many of them are showing serious signs of wear. One hundred and sixty two of the civilian reactors have been in operation for over thirty years and are nearing the end of their intended lifespans.
It is generally understood that the older plants should be brought up to the standards of reactors currently being constructed. This is an expensive proposition and, in some recent cases, it has been decided by the owners of reactors that the cost of retrofitting the aging reactors is simply too expensive to warrant the investment.
One of the big problems with retrofitting old plants is the difficulty of finding parts. Many of the parts needed are not being manufactured any more. Unless old parts are replaced with identical parts, a whole new review and certification process is triggered adding to the cost. Some companies have been caught lying about the new parts that they are installing. In one case in Korea, new parts were being given the certification numbers of existing installed parts so that certification could be avoided.
It is reassuring that the IAEA has found that nuclear safety has been improving around the world. However, shoddy construction, lax maintenance, false documentation, poor training, and insufficient oversight among other problems continue to be reported at reactors around the world. Despite the optimism of the IAEA, there are still many reactors that are at risk. In the United States alone, twenty five out of the one hundred civilian power reactors are downstream from dams and are at serious risk of flooding if the dams break for any reason. The U.S. NRC is working on the problem but it is far from solved. Global nuclear safety may have improved but it still needs further improvement to prevent another Fukushima.
Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on July 15, 2013
Ambient office = .096 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .128 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .155 microsieverts per hour
Hass avacado from Costco = .072 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .113 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .094 microsieverts per hour
