“Highly Dangerous” Radioactive Material Stolen From US Company – Official Warns Of ISIS “Dirty Bomb.” activistpost.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.
Part Two of Two Parts (Please read part One first.)
Critics of the criticality study have said that there appears to be a number of faulty assumption in the study that call some of the conclusions into question. The study may have underestimated the probability of criticality in an underground repository.
(1) It is assumed that transuranics will have been degraded to a lower level of radioactivity BEFORE corrosion of the waste containers. There are thin walled waste containers made by the Holtec company that could easily corrode before degradation. This would release radioactive materials that could be deposited along with uranium in a depression and lead to a criticality.
( 2) There was an assumption that the temperature of an underground storages facility would be roughly 68 Fahrenheit. The temperature may be much higher. There is a research lab in Minnesota that is more than two thousand feet underground and the temperatures of the rock outside the lab may be as high as 86 degrees Fahrenheit .
(3) There was an assumption that container designs are sub-critical. The Holtec company has asked for and received exemptions from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency for the design and construction of their nuclear waste containers. The walls of the sealed part of the containers are only one half inch thick and the aluminum from which they are constructed is prone to corrosion from ground water. The neutron absorber Metamic that is used in the Holtec containers received exemptions from quality control. There are concerns about the welds in the fuel baskets. They could fail and allow a container to collapse into a geometry that may increase the risk of criticality. The baskets are aluminum and do not contain boron neutron absorbers which would reduce criticality risk.
(4) The report states that if two uranium depositions are more than two feet apart, the neutrons emitted by the two depositions will not influence each other. There is the danger of collapse by accident with respect to the Holtec waste containers that might shorten the separation distance. There are also waste repositories which are designed for the roof to collapse after the waste containers are sealed in. The collapsing roof of the chamber might also separate the distance between two containers of waste. If the distance between two depositions of uranium falls under the two foot limit, it might trigger a criticality.
While it sounded like a good idea to bury nuclear waste deep underground, seal it in and forget about it, it turns out to be much more complex than originally thought. Geological repositories may be a workable solution to the need to dispose of many tons of nuclear waste. However, it appears that there is a lot more research than needs to be done before we can be confident that this disposal method is safe and permanent.
Holtec Hi-Storm Nuclear Waste Storage Container:
Part One of Two Parts:
I have blogged before about permanent geological repositories for spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear wastes. There have been some failed attempts to build such repositories in the past. Germany built one and then had to close it because of unexpected migration of ground water in a salt formation. The U.S. was going to build one at Yucca Mountain but that project was cancelled in 2009, partly because of concerns over ground water movement in the salt formations. There are around a dozen underground laboratories, mainly in Europe, doing research on geological repositories for nuclear waste. Currently there are four underground nuclear waste repositories in operation, two in Finland, one in Sweden and one in the United States. Three more are under constructions, in Finland, Germany and Korea. Ten more are either under discussion, looking for sites, or applying for licenses.
A recent research study on the behavior of ground water in salt deposits found that the earlier theories of ground water penetration were incorrect and the danger of ground water seeping into underground repositories and carrying out radioactive materials was much higher than previously thought. A paper published in 2014 suggested that there is also another danger concerning ground water and underground nuclear waste dumps.
In a paper titled “Conditions for criticality by uranium deposition in water-saturated geological formations,” three researchers explore the danger of a critical nuclear event in a nuclear waste repository. Some reviewers suggest that the researchers make assumptions that actually understate the danger. The paper was written under a contract with the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in 2011. The purpose of the research was to aid Japan in crafting a policy for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes in underground repositories.
The research paper was concerned about a “critical” reaction in the uranium buried in an underground repository. A critical reaction occurs when there is a sufficient amount of uranium concentrated in a small volume. Neutrons emitted by the uranium cause other uranium atoms to fission so that a nuclear chain reaction starts and is self-perpetuating. Such a critical reaction will release a large amount of radiation in the local area which would be lethal to anyone near the reaction. There will not be a nuclear explosion such as that resulting from the detonation of a nuclear bomb but there will be a local expansion of nuclear materials which could blast apart waste containers and even breach the repository to release radioactive materials and steam into the atmosphere. With respect to the uranium in underground repository, the following factors affect the possibility of a critical event.
(1) The higher the density of a mass of uranium deposited in an underground repository, the lower the mass needed for a criticality.
(2) Smaller concentrations of neutron-absorbing materials in the host rock will increase the probability of criticality as more of the neutrons emitted by the uranium mass will trigger additional reactions in the uranium.
(3) larger porosity of the host rock will increase the probability of criticality by allowing more uranium to accumulate in the pores of the rock.
(4) The higher the temperature of the ground water the higher the temperature of the uranium which increases the speed of the neutrons emitted. The faster the neutrons, the less likely they are to trigger additional uranium reactions and lead to criticality.
(5)The closer that the shape of a mass of uranium is to a perfect sphere, the greater the risk of criticality. The more heterogeneous the geometry of the mass, the less likely it is that there will be a criticality.
(6) If there is a problem with corrosion or damage to waste containers, the uranium inside the containers could be leached out by groundwater. If the surface around the container(s) contains a depression, sufficient uranium could be deposited in the depression to form a critical mass.
Please read Part Two
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Diagram:
On 2/10/2016, NRA (Nuclear Regulation Authority) announced they are going to abandon 2,500 of 3,600 radiation monitoring posts in Fukushima prefecture from April of 2017. fukushima-diary.com
France’s nuclear regulator, the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN), will get additional oversight powers under a number of decrees published by the French government last week. world-nuclear-news.org