Blog
-
Geiger Readings for Jan 13, 2016
Ambient office = 101 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 131 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 138 nanosieverts per hourCrimini mushroom from Central Market = 52 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 87 nanosieverts per hourFilter water = 82 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 448 – Continued Reporting On Le Creusot Substandard Parts Scandal
I have been covering the widening scandal about substandard nuclear reactors parts that came from the Le Creusot foundry owned by Areva, the state-owned French nuclear reactor construction company. It was discovered in 2015 that some of the parts made by the Creusot foundry contained too much carbon which made them brittle and a lot less safe when used to construct a nuclear reactor.
In the fall of 2016, a new report on the problems at Le Creusot found that questionable parts from Le Creusot had been used in the construction of twenty eight nuclear reactors, eighteen of them in France. The eighteen French reactors were shut down so the parts could be checked. Areva was instructed to review over six thousand records of manufacture and quality control dating back to 1960 at Le Creusot. The French regulators now has evidence of irregularities in the manufacture of over four hundred parts from Le Creusot in the past fifty years.
Other countries including the U.S. became involved and sent representatives to France to investigate the review of Le Creusot parts because reactors in their countries contained parts from the foundry. It was initially reported that nine nuclear power reactors in the U.S. had parts from Le Creusot. When asked to identify which U.S. reactors were involved, Areva said that they believed that the identity of the reactors in question was proprietary information related to their nuclear reactor component business. Areva did provide a list of the reactors to the NRC. Areva claims that there is no evidence that any of the parts from Le Creusot pose a threat to public safety.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not agree that the Areva information was proprietary and they released the identities of the seventeen U.S. reactors that contained parts from Le Creusot.
A reactor head at the Xcel Energy Prairie Island reactor in Minnesota was identified in the Areva list. Xcel said that some of their reactor parts were forged at Le Creusot in the 1970s. An Xcel Energy spokeswoman said that, “Our testing and inspections are rigorous and have not identified any issues.”
Reactor vessel heads for two of Dominion Resources reactors at the North Anna plant in Virginia had components with parts forged at Le Creusot. A Dominion Resources spokesman said “We have four components with forgings from Le Creusot and have verified that all are fine. They all check out and meet our design criteria and there are no problems.”
Anti-nuclear groups are concerned about the safety of the parts from Le Creusot. An expert on nuclear energy at the Union of Concerned scientists, said the Le Creusot issue was “troubling from both trust and public safety perspectives” because to a large degree both the NRC and U.S. nuclear power plants depended on vendors to certify their work.
Developers of small modular reactors claim that manufacturing nuclear reactors in a factory and shipping modules to the operational site would be better than current practices because stricter quality control would be available. The scandal at Le Creusot would suggest otherwise.
Steam hammer illustration in Le Creusot foundry:
-
Nuclear News Roundup Jan 12, 2016
Japan’s future use of nuclear energy could be significantly impacted by decisions made this year on restarting reactors and extending the operating periods of its older units, according to the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ). However, it sees nuclear playing an important role in achieving energy security, economy and environmental protection. world-nuclear-news.org
Energy Fuels Inc. said Wednesday that it had received the last major government approvals to re-start mining at the Sheep Mountain Project in the Crooks Gap Mining District of central Wyoming, once a large-scale, conventional uranium mine. nuclearstreet.com
Toshiba Corp. anticipates that total losses at its nuclear business in the United States could be larger than earlier stated due to a write-down at its subsidiary Westinghouse Electric Co., a source familiar with the matter said Wednesday. japantimes.co.jp
-
Geiger Readings for Jan 12, 2016
Ambient office = 98 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 159 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 159 nanosieverts per hourMango from Central Market = 67 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 99 nanosieverts per hourFilter water = 80 nanosieverts per hour -
Radioactive Waste 209 – Calls To Proceed With A Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository Under Yucca Mountain in Nevada
I have blogged about the plan to build a permanent geological repository for spent nuclear fuel under Yucca Mountain in Nevada before. The U.S. began working on siting such a repository in 1982. A possible site under Yucca Mountain in Nevada was selected in 1987. For various reasons, the final decision to construct the repository at Yucca Mountain was only formally approved by the U.S. Congress in 2002 and money was appropriated.
Work proceeded on preparations for the repository such as environmental impact statements and licenses until 2011 when the project was officially canceled. Part of the reason for the cancellation was the furious opposition to the repository by the citizens and government officials of the state of Nevada as well as the opposition of Barack Obama, the U.S. President. At this point, it is estimated that there will not be a permanent repository for U.S. spent nuclear fuel until 2050 at the earliest.
The current Secretary of Energy who will resign on January 20th recently said in a speech that the effort by the federal government to dictate where the repository would be located had been a failure. He said that the only realistic approach to siting a repository would be to get support and signoff from federal, state and local governments as well as local citizens for a particular site to build a repository.
The DoE Secretary said that the DoE had been working with states and communities that had expressed an interest in hosting a repository but that there was no comprehensive plan at present. Some states including Texas and New Mexico have expressed an interest in hosting an interim repository where spent nuclear fuel could be temporarily stored in dry casks.
Now that a new U.S. President has been elected and will be inaugurated on January 20th, there are calls for reconsideration of the Yucca Mountain site to reduce the time necessary to site and build a permanent repository. Donald Trump, the new President, has pledged to ramp up domestic energy production and that include nuclear energy. However, he has not taken a formal position on Yucca Mountain. His pick for Secretary of Energy has also not voiced support for Yucca Mountain.
Although there has been no official position stated, the Trump transition team does have supporters for the restart of the Yucca Mountain repository. They have asked the U.S. Department of Energy if there are any legal barriers to moving ahead on a repository at Yucca Mountain. The DoE was also asked if it had any plans for restarting the proceedings necessary to obtain the needed licenses for the project.
Five members of the six member Nevada Congressional delegation have introduced legislation in the U.S. House and Senate to require that the DoE obtain written consent from a state’s governor, local government and any relevant Indian tribes before a particular site for a spent nuclear fuel repository could be chosen. This move is a response to the Trump transition team support for proceeding to build a repository under Yucca Mountain.
Artist’s concept of proposed Yucca Mountain repository:
-
Geiger Readings for Jan 11, 2016
Ambient office = 68 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 121 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 127 nanosieverts per hourBartlett pear from Central Market = 57 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 129 nanosieverts per hourFilter water = 107 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Weapons 246 – Trump Transition Team Drops Ball On National Nuclear Security Administration Secretary.
“The National Nuclear Security administration (NNSA) is the U.S. agency responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear science. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear explosive testing; works to reduce the global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad. Established by the United States Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the United States Department of Energy.” (Wikipedia)
We are currently in the midst of a transfer of power from one Presidential administration to another of a different party. It is common practice for an incoming administration to replace the Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of agencies with their own people. Incoming Secretaries must be confirmed by the Senate and this process can take some time to find, vet and confirm an acceptable individual. Usually this is accomplished with minimum publicity unless there is a controversial nominee for a high level post such as Secretary of State. It is rare for there to be a controversy with the transfer of an agency such as the NNSA. Unfortunately, there is just such a controversy now.
In the current deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and Russia, the other nation with a huge nuclear arsenal, it is obvious that the NNSA is an extremely important agency. In addition, there are threats from nuclear-armed China and North Korea. It would not be wise for the post of Secretary of the NNSA to go unoccupied for an extended period of time. Usually, the current Secretary and his Assistant Secretary would be asked to remain at their posts until suitable replacements were installed. This could easily take months.
It was recently reported that the current Secretary of the NNSA and his Assistant Secretary had been told by the Trump transition team to “clear out their desks” and be gone by January 20, the date of the incoming President’s inauguration. This generated a lot of commentary in the press as being “unprecedented” and a threat to national security if the post should remain unoccupied for an extended period of time.
When reporters checked with the Trump transition team, they said that they had made no such request and that the stories in the media were “inaccurate.” The reporters checked with the staff of the NNSA and were told that there had been no discussion with respect to the timing of the departure of the Secretary and his Assistant with the Trump transition team.
So it would appear that nothing ordinary had happened at the NNSA as far as the transfer of power is concerned. However, that would not be exactly accurate. Further probing by reporters revealed that the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary of the NNSA had provided letters of resignation to the Trump transition team dated January 20th as is traditional. However, they also said that they would be willing to stay on until their replacements were available.
Normally, this offer to remain at their posts would be accepted. But, the Trump transition team did not contact the NNSA to accept the offer to stay. And, to date, the Trump transition team has not answered any of the requests for communication about the issue from the NNSA staff.
So the bottom line appears to be that through intent to depart from tradition or incompetence, the Trump transition team is going to let the office of Secretary and Assistant Secretary of NNSA go unfilled for an undetermined period. This is an unacceptable situation in the world of nuclear threats that we find ourselves in.
