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.
Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on June 22, 2013
Ambient office = .095 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .094 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .094 microsieverts per hour
Iceberg lettuce from local grocery store = .089 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .118 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .084 microsieverts per hour
I have posted a number of articles about the situation at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Eastern Washington. For decades, the U.S. government has been trying to clean up the mess left over from processing nuclear materials for our nuclear weapons arsenal. A variety of nuclear materials were placed in single wall tanks and buried for disposal. Unfortunately, the tanks started leaking into the ground, threatening the surrounding communities and agriculture as well as the Columbia River which supplies a lot of water to the Northwestern United States. Double walled tanks were developed and some of the waste in the worst single walled tanks was pumped into the new tanks. We were assured that the double walled tanks would not leak.
Last year, a double walled tank with the designation of AV-102 set off some alarms. The tank was investigated and water and sludge were observed between the inner wall and the outer wall of the tank. After denying that there was a leak and turning off the alarms, the company in charge of the tanks eventually admitted that there was a possible leak of radioactive materials from the inner tank to the space between the inner wall and the outer wall. Once again we were assured that there was no danger and that the leak would be contained by the outer wall of the tank. Recently, higher radiation levels were found in the soil surrounding tank AY-102. Apparently, despite all the assurances, the material in the tank, which is highly radioactive, is leaking into the soil. The double walled tank is not able to contain the waste and protect the environment.
The hope was that moving the worst waste from the most deteriorated single wall tanks into the double walled tanks would give the company time to complete the vitrification plant which would allow the waste to be mixed with liquid glass and solidified into glass logs for permanent disposal. The Department of Energy authorized work to begin on the vitrification plant before the details of the vitrification process were well understood. As might be expected, this turned out to be a disaster. The material in the different tanks consists of a mix of different toxic and radioactive chemicals. The exact types and amounts of chemicals vary between tanks and their chemical interaction is not well understood. It is possible that explosive gasses may be generated as work proceeds and there is a risk of explosions when the tanks are opened. In addition, the constituents of the tanks consist of a variety of physical forms including solids, thick sludges, thin liquids, gases and particulates of different sizes. These different particulates have proven to be especially hard to deal with in the vitrification process. They can lead to corrosion of the pipes in the plant and result in leaks and even explosions. When it was clear that the plant would not function as desired, work was suspended last year.
The clock is running out at Hanford. The single wall tanks are leaking, the double walled tanks are beginning to leak, work is halted on the vitrification plant and there is no permanent storage facility for any glass logs created by the plant even if it is completed and works correctly. At the very least, radioactive materials will continue to leak into the ground water and the Columbia River posing a threat to the health of the people in the Pacific Northwest. At worst, there will be explosions that will inject radioactive materials into the atmosphere to rain down over a wider area of the Northwest United States.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation Map:
Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on June 21, 2013
Ambient office = .110 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .078 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .119 microsieverts per hour
Hass avacado from local grocery store = .121 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .115 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .087 microsieverts per hour
I have discussed various nuclear projects in different parts of the world but usually focused on a particular country. In today’s blog, I am going to talk about the Middle East and their ambitious plans for nuclear power. There are plans for investing two hundred billion dollars to building thirty seven new reactors across the region in the next fifteen years. This would represent an almost ten percent increase in the number of operational reactors in the world today.
I have already mentioned the new nuclear project in Turkey at Sinop on the Black Sea in prior posts. The French company Areva and the Japanese company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are collaborating on the twenty two billion dollar project to build Turkey’s second nuclear power plant. I have reservations about the technical competence of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries following the rapid failure of two steam turbines they built for the San Onofre power plant in California.
Jordan will decide soon whether a Russian consortium or a French-Japanese consortium will build two gigawatt reactors in Amman at a cost of about sixteen billion dollars. Jordan is also in the process of building a reactor for research and training. Jordan is a very dry country and some critics of nuclear power have raised the question of how Jordan is going to find the water to cool nuclear reactors.
Egypt has decided that nuclear energy is critical to its future supply of electricity. It is working with the Russians on studies at the Dabaa nuclear station. Lacking oil, natural gas and coal, Egypt plans to exploit deposits of uranium to supply fuel for new reactors. Egypt has requested bids to build its first nuclear power plant which will utilize a Generation Three type reactor employing the latest proven nuclear technology for efficiency and safety.
ENEC, the company that owns and operates Abu Dhabi’s nuclear power plants plans to spend twenty billion for four new nuclear reactors to be operational by 2020. The United Arab Emirates government has worked hard to sell the idea of nuclear power to its people and a recent poll found that eighty two percent of the people supported nuclear power. Their need for new sources of energy is not as acute as Jordan and Egypt because of their huge oil and natural gas reserves.
Although Saudi Arabia has committed to expanding renewable energy sources, they are also committed to building nuclear reactors for electricity generation. They are going with the Generation Three design type and expect to have their first reactors online by 2020.
Just looking at the numbers in this article, it would seem to me that the countries of the Middle East may be a little optimistic about the cost of thirty seven nuclear reactors. The three projects for which I have quoted actual dollars amount to about sixty billion dollars. That estimate accounts for six or seven reactors. Figuring an average of about ten billion dollars per reactor, the cost for thirty seven reactors should be more like four hundred billion dollars. While the oil rich countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE can absorb significant cost overruns, countries like Egypt and Jordan will have a more difficult time. Availability of cooling water will also be a problem in countries other than Jordan.
There is also the issue of corruption in Middle Eastern countries. The countries mentioned above are not any more corrupt than global averages except for Egypt which is among the third most corrupt nations. Even an average level of corruption is very dangerous when it come to constructing, operating and regulating a nuclear power plant. The countries of the Middle East would be much better off working on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power than spending money on dangerous and expensive nuclear power.
Fukushima Diary reported that the multiple nuclide removing system at Fukushima possibly leaked contaminated water. Fukushima-diary.com
On June 13, 2013, TEPCO invited foreign correspondents to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant to show them the progress that’s been made at the plant. ex-skf.blogspot.jp
Thyroid data means much more radiation must have come out of Fukushima reactors than anyone reported. Enenews.com
Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on June 20, 2013
Ambient office = .095 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .085 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .091 microsieverts per hour
Banana from local grocery store = .099 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .076 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .070 microsieverts per hour
I have discussed many different problems that can occur with the design, construction and operation of nuclear reactors in previous posts. I have also mentioned issues involving the staff of a nuclear power plant such as training, competence, integrity and diligence. In this post, I am going to talk about another possible problem with nuclear operators that is monitored by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The owners and operators of nuclear power plants must certify the health of their staff.
All critical staff at a nuclear power plant must have regular physicals and must be free of potentially debilitating illnesses. If someone develops a condition like epilepsy or narcolepsy, they could have a seizure or fall asleep and either miss an alarm or neglect to take corrective action if some system is out of normal bounds or is failing. The stress of an emergency at a nuclear plant could actually trigger certain types of medical events such as an asthma or heart attack. Any such attack could render the operator unable to carry out his duties. The medications for many common health problems contain warnings that the person taking the medication should not operate heavy machinery or drive a vehicle because the medication may cause drowsiness or dizziness. If a nuclear operator develops a condition requiring such medication, they should not continue to work in a critical area where they might have to respond quickly and competently to an emergency.
As in other areas, unfortunately, some operators of nuclear reactors apparently don’t think that they need to bother with rules that may require effort and expense if followed properly. The NRC is currently criticizing the officials at the PPL Susquehanna Steam Electric Station nuclear power plant in Salem Township in Pennsylvania because they did not report that some of their employees in the reactor control room had developed medical conditions that could affect their ability to carry out their duties. These duties include starting up and shutting down the reactor, monitoring all plant parameters, measuring temperatures and pressures, checking for alarms and deciding on appropriate responses to events. One employee had developed asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a second has developed coronary artery disease, a third has been showing deteriorating pulmonary function and a fourth has been taking medication for stress-related anxiety. In addition, PPL is also being accused of submitting medical records that are inaccurate and/or incomplete.
The response of PPL was that it did not endanger public safety because the employees work as a group in the control room of the reactor. I would assume that responding to an emergency requires that the control room staff function as a team. The loss of one member of the team might reduce their effectiveness at responding to an emergency as well as distracting other members of the group who would be trying to help the impaired employee. There was no information about whether or not two or of the problem employees were scheduled to work in the control room at the same time. Obviously, PPL was trying to save money because it is expensive to hire and train a control room operators. This is just one more example of a nuclear corporation putting profits ahead of public safety.
Susquehanna steam electric station:
Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on June 18, 2013
Ambient office = .075 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .084 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .100 microsieverts per hour
Banana from local grocery store = .054 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .117 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .097 microsieverts per hour
