Germany faces a choice between extending the lives of reactors or paying hundreds of millions in cash to some of the nation’s biggest utilities. chicagotribune.com
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.
I have mentioned in numerous posts my concern about quality control in the manufacture of components for nuclear power reactors. Half of the reactor components manufactured in Japan for export are not inspected. Components bound for South Korea were found to have serial numbers stolen from existing components so they could avoid inspection. One of the selling points for the new small modular reactors is that their parts will be standardized and they will be manufactured in a factory and shipped to their operational location. However, if the factory does not have good quality control, then many small modular reactors from that factory could have reliability and safety problems.
Areva is a French company with majority ownership held by the French government. It manufactures nuclear power reactors and makes components for reactors at the Le Creusot foundry in France. That factory has been making nuclear components since 1960. For many years, it had the only forge big enough in France to make steel reactor vessels.
Areva is involved in building reactors for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power project in Britain. A pressure vessel from the Le Creusot foundry that was going to be used at Hinkley Point was found to have so much carbon in the steel that it was only half as strong as it was supposed to be and was a threat to the safety of the new Hinkley Point reactors. When inspectors began investigating Areva’s Le Creusot foundry, they found altered and forged inspection reports going back decades for components manufactured there and sold to nuclear project across the world.
The revelations of bad quality control procedures at Le Creusot caused such concern that seventeen French power reactors have been shut down so that components from Le Creusot could be inspected. In September of this year, French authorities ordered Areva to check six thousand manufacturing files by hand. These files document every nuclear component made at Le Creusot since 1960.
Areva claims that Le Creusot stopped falsifying records in 2012. That year, responsibility for quality control at the foundry was taken away from an internal office there and given to an office at another Areva factory. French authorities are investigating whether or not that is true.
Last week, French prosecutors started a preliminary investigation into the problems at Le Creusot to decide whether or not activities at the foundry could be considered fraudulent and dangerous. An officer of the Nuclear Safety Authority of France said that what has been found at Le Creusot is “unacceptable.”
Like dominos falling, now six other countries including the U.S. and China that received parts from Le Creusot have begun an investigation into the safety of their reactors. Representatives from these six countries are currently in France at the Le Creusot foundry to check quality control procedures and examine internal documents.
There are nine nuclear power plants in the U.S. that have big components from Le Creusot. Investigators from Finland found that a major component that was to be used in a Finnish nuclear project might be substandard. The foreign inspectors have remarked that they have no definitive proof that their countries’ reactors are at risk and more research is needed.
During the investigation, a special kind of file was found at the Le Creusot foundry. Each of these special folders was marked with two dashes and were referred to as a dossier barré. These special files were not supposed to be shown to customers or regulators. They apparently contain documentation of possible problems with components that Areva wanted to keep secret. So far two hundred of these files have been found.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 resulted in a serious blow to the public acceptance of nuclear power. Now, this latest revelation that a country that is a major exporter of nuclear components has problems with quality control and fraudulent documentation of nuclear components will cause further public suspicion of the global nuclear industry.
The Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is located on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (HNR) in south central Washington State. The CGS started producing electricity for the Washington grid in December of 1984. It generates one billion one hundred and ninety million watt of electricity which represents about ten percent of the electricity generated in the state. It is the only commercial nuclear power station in the state of Washington. The CGS is owned and operated by Energy Northwest (EN), a not-profit joint operating agency.
Also on the HNR, U.S. Ecology, Inc. operates the Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (LLRW). This facility accepts low level radioactive waste, some of it mixed with nonradioactive chemicals, from hospitals, universities, laboratories, nuclear power plants and other institutions for landfill disposal. The CGS occasionally sends low-level radioactive waste, such as rags, protective clothing and tools, and filters to the LLRW.
Last November, a cask containing contaminated filters from routine vacuuming of the used fuel pool at the CGS was driven on a flatbed truck ten miles to the LLRW. The cask is seven feet tall and six feet in diameter. It weighs about forty five thousand pounds.
When the cask arrived at the disposal site, it was routinely checked for radiation. The cask was found to be emitting seven times as much radiation as was claimed on the shipping manifest. The staff at the disposal site was forced by regulations to reject the cask. The cask was then driven back the ten miles to the reactor site at the CGS. The cask remains at the CGS site for now.
A day after the cask was rejected at the disposal site, the Washington State Department of Health notified that because of the incorrect information on the shipping manifest, the permit for the CGS to transfer radioactive waste from the reactor site to the disposal site was temporarily suspended. In order for the suspension of the permit to be cancelled, EN will have to draft a plan with a list of corrections to be made to operating procedures to insure that the mistake is not repeated. Washington state officials will have to approve the plan. In addition, there will have to be an onsite inspection of the CGS.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that a three member team was being sent this week to the CGS to conduct a detailed inspection of the plant and the procedures for handling radioactive waste.
An EN representative said that although the radiation level of the cask sent to the disposal site was much higher than stated on the manifest, the radiation level was still within acceptable safety limit. He also said that the written correction plan should be finished this week but, because of the holidays, it might take up to a month for the permit to be restored. He also said that there was sufficient space to store the cask and other radioactive waste until the suspension of the permit is cancelled.
It is still too difficult to make a reliable assessment of the new US President-elect’s nuclear policy. But we can make a judgement on the current administration. Despite promises by President Obama in 2009 to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and eventually rid the world of them, progress has ground to a halt, and started to reverse. independent.co.uk