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 = 118 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 105 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 105 nanosieverts per hour
Avocado from Central Market = 80 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 100 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 86 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient office = 88 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 102 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 102 nanosieverts per hour
Watermelon from Central Market = 66 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 87 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 75 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient office = 120 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Tomato from Central Market = 82 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 92 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 82 nanosieverts per hour
Dover Sole from Central 112 nanosieverts per hour
Part 3 of 3 Parts (Please read Parts 1 and 2 first)
In a preliminary version of the environmental impact statement, the NRC has suggested that a new forty-year license be issued. Their reasons for the recommendation include the importance of the CFFF to the U.S. commercial nuclear plant industry and their conclusion that the environmental threats are not great enough to warrant denying the license.
Virginia Sanders is a Lower Richland environmental activist and Sierra Club official. She said that the continued operation of the CFFF threatens the environment. This is especially true as more intense rains related to climate change pound the Columbia area. The concern is that pollution from the CFFF could wash into the surrounding community. She added that “That plant is over 50 years old. That plant should never have been put there in the first place. Anything in Lower Richland is on low land. And with the number of flooding events on the East Coast and other climate change events, that plant should not be operating there. I’m just waiting for the day when a catastrophe happens.’’
Tom Clements is a nuclear safety watchdog from Columbia. He said that he was disappointed by the NRC decision but not surprised. He called on the NRC to reconsider its action. In an email, he said that “It has been clear from the start of the license renewal process that the NRC was going to do what Westinghouse requested in spite of a long list of incidents at the facility and even an admission by the NRC that release of contaminants in the future was reasonably foreseeable. The 40-year license extension guarantees the risk of accidents and releases that will impact the environment and possibly human health over 40 years. Unfortunately, I now anticipate that careful behavior shown by Westinghouse during the period of the EIS preparation will be relaxed as Westinghouse is essentially now being given a license to pollute.’’
The CFFF’s environmental and safety challenges emerged within a few years of the 1969 opening. Many of the problems have centered on the failure of Westinghouse to handle radioactive materials so that they would not create small nuclear accidents that could endanger workers. Many of those concerns can be traced back to the early Eighties.
Since 1980, federal and state regulators have discovered more than forty different environmental and safety problems at the CFFF. In some cases, the NRC repeatedly told the company to make improvements. However, Westinghouse did not move quickly enough to address the concerns of the NRC.
Two of the biggest incidents in the past twenty years have involved the buildup of uranium in plant equipment. These deficiencies could have endangered workers. The NRC fined Westinghouse twenty-four thousand dollars in 2004 after finding out that uranium had accumulated in an incinerator to unsafe levels over eight years. Westinghouse had assumed that the uranium levels were safe. However, the problem was discovered in 2004 by an employee. The excess uranium could have triggered a nuclear accident that could have injured or killed workers.
In 2016, Westinghouse discovered that uranium had accumulated in a scrubber which is an air pollution control device to levels that were three times higher than permitted by a federal safety standard. When pressured to explain why the buildup occurred, Westinghouse’s internal inspectors told the NRC that the company had not done enough to ensure employees had strong enough procedures to keep uranium from building up and had a “less than question” attitude about procedures to prevent a nuclear accident.
Two years later, a leak of uranium through a hole in the floor of the plant brought a barrage of complaints about Westinghouse. The discovery of the leak led to finding that some groundwater pollution on the site had been known by the company for years but never reported to federal or state regulators.
Ambient office = 66 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 106 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water =109 nanosieverts per hour
Red bell pepper from Central Market = 77 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 93 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 81 nanosieverts per hour
Part 2 of 3 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
The next step for the NRC is to issue a safety review before the final licensing decision is made. In a press release, the NRC said that the final environmental study found that the plant would only have small to moderate impacts on the environment if the new license is issued. The NRC said that the impacts in issuing a twenty-year license would be similar to the impacts for issuing a forty-year license. The last NRC license for Westinghouse was issued in 2007.
The biggest environmental impacts from continuing to operate the CFFF would on ground and surface water according to the last environmental impact statement. Past operation of the plant has had a “noticeable effect” on groundwater quality. The quality of surface water has also been affected. The report said that uranium exceeded federal standards in the mud of Mill Creek. However, the reports said that groundwater contamination will not spread offsite.
The NRC study said, “Although the proposed continued operation of the (fuel plant) for an additional 40 years could noticeably alter onsite groundwater quality, the continued operation would not destabilize or significantly affect the groundwater resource because there is low potential for contaminants to move offsite.’’
The CFFF was established in 1969. It is one of the Columbia area’s major employers with almost a thousand workers. It is located on a quiet stretch of Bluff Road near Hopkins. Hopkins is a small community mostly composed of African American residents. The five hundred and fifty thousand square foot plant makes fuel rods for use in commercial nuclear fission power plants. Nuclear materials at the site consist of low-enriched uranium which is not as dangerous as some other types of radioactive materials, but it is still hazardous.
Westinghouse’s process involves handling small pellets of uranium and inserting them into long rods for use in nuclear power plants. Uranium hexafluoride is converted into uranium dioxide at the CFFF. The company is recognized as an economic engine in Richland County and has been praised by the South Carolina Governor and local business leaders.
The CFFF is also vital to the ability of the U.S. to make nuclear power. The CFFF is one of only three plants of its kind in the U.S. The other two are in Washington state and North Carolina. About ten percent of the nuclear power generated in the U.S. comes from fuel made at the CFFF.
In addition to its main business, the CFFF has a defense related mission which is to produce metal bars that are shipped to Tennessee and irradiated. The radioactive bars are then shipped from Tennessee to South Carolina’s Savannah River Site where tritium is extracted for use in the construction of nuclear warheads.
McMaster University’s nuclear advisory committee supports the forty year license renewal. McMaster recently praised a plan by Westinghouse to invest one hundred and thirty-one billion dollars in the aging nuclear fuel factory. Rick Lee is the advisory panel chairman. He said recently that “We think the 40 years is most appropriate. Twenty years in that market space is not a very long time by refueling standards. Unless somebody has a really prevailing argument, it would be hard to imagine why it would be 20.’’
Please read Part 3 next
