Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

BRC releases final report on spent fuel

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:00:00 +0000

It calls for leadership by Congress and the White House to resolve the current impasse

Spent fuel in wet storage

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future released its final report on Jan 26 to the U.S. Energy Secretary, detailing comprehensive recommendations for creating a safe, long- term solution for managing and disposing of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

The report is the culmination of nearly two years of work by the commission and its subcommittees, which met more than two dozen times since March 2010, gathering testimony from experts and stakeholders, as well as visiting nuclear waste management facilities both domestic and overseas.

The commission, co-chaired by former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, was tasked by Energy Secretary Steven Chu with devising a new strategy for managing the nation’s sizable and growing inventory of nuclear waste. Scowcroft and Hamilton said they believe the report’s recommendations offer a practical and promising path forward, and cautioned that failing to act to address the issue will be damaging and costly.

“The majority of these recommendations require action to be taken by the Administration and Congress, and offer what we believe is the best chance of success going forward, based on previous nuclear waste management experience in the U.S. and abroad,” the Commissioners wrote in a letter to Chu that accompanied the report.
“We urge that you promptly designate a senior official with sufficient authority to coordinate all of the DOE elements involved in the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations.”

The report noted that the Obama Administration’s decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the latest indicator of a nuclear waste management policy that has been troubled for decades and has now reached an impasse. Allowing that impasse to continue is not an option, the report said.

“The need for a new strategy is urgent, not just to address these damages and costs but because this generation has a fundamental, ethical obligation to avoid burdening future generations with the entire task of finding a safe, permanent solution for managing hazardous nuclear materials they had no part in creating,” the Commission wrote in the report’s Executive Summary.

Three crucial elements

The strategy outlined in the Commission report contains three crucial elements.

First, the Commission recommends a consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities, noting that trying to force such facilities on unwilling states, tribes and communities has not worked.

Second, the Commission recommends that the responsibility for the nation’s nuclear waste management program be transferred to a new organization; one that is independent of the DOE and dedicated solely to assuring the safe storage and ultimate disposal of spent nuclear waste fuel and high- level radioactive waste.

Third, the Commission recommends changing the manner in which fees being paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund – about $750 million a year – are treated in the federal budget to ensure they are being set aside and used as Congress initially intended.

Geologic repository still needed

Spent fuel canister for dry storage
Image: World Nuclear News

The report also recommends immediate efforts to commence development of at least one geologic disposal facility and at least one consolidated storage facility, as well as efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from current storage sites to those facilities.

The report also recommends the U.S. continue to provide support for nuclear energy innovation and workforce development, as well as strengthening its international leadership role in efforts to address safety, waste management, non-proliferation and security concerns.

The Commission noted that it was specifically not tasked with rendering any opinion on the suitability of Yucca Mountain, proposing any specific site for a waste management facility, or offering any opinion on the role of nuclear power in the nation’s energy supply mix.

“These are all important questions that will engage policy makers and the public in the years ahead,” the Commission wrote. “However, none of them alters the urgent need to change and improve our strategy for managing the high-level wastes and spent fuel that already exist and will continue to accumulate so long as nuclear reactors operate in this country.”

Policy leadership needed too

What the Commission has endeavored to do is recommend a sound waste management approach that can lead to the resolution of the current impasse, and can and should be applied regardless of what site or sites are ultimately chosen to serve as the permanent disposal facility for America’s spent nuclear fuel and other high-level nuclear wastes.

The United States currently has more than 65,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at about 75 operating and shutdown reactor sites around the country. More than 2,000 tons are being produced each year. The DOE also is storing an additional 2,500 tons of spent fuel and large volumes of high-level nuclear waste, mostly from past weapons programs, at a handful of government-owned sites.

In addition to co-chairmen Hamilton and Scowcroft, members of the Commission included Mr. Mark H. Ayers, the Hon. Vicky A. Bailey, Dr. Albert Carnesale, Sen. Pete Domenici, Ms. Susan Eisenhower, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Mr. Jonathan Lash, Dr. Allison M. Macfarlane, Dr. Richard A. Meserve, Dr. Ernest J. Moniz, Dr. Per Peterson, Mr. John Rowe, and Rep. Phil Sharp.

The Commission’s full report is available at: http://www.brc.gov

# # #

TVA's count down to MOX fuel

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:24:00 +0000

The utility is assessing options to use it

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) could be one of the first nuclear utilities to accept mixed oxide fuel (MOX) from the Department of Energy (DOE) for use in its commercial nuclear reactors.

The government is building a $4.8 billion factory in South Carolina that is scheduled to start producing MOX fuel assemblies by 2016 by blending weapons grade plutonium with uranium. The resulting fuel can be swapped out for regular uranium fuel.

The government’s nonproliferation objective is to get 34 tonnes of surplus weapons-grade plutonium out of circulation forever. TVA’s objective is to get nuclear fuel that will work safely in its reactors and at a competitive price.

Read the complete details exclusively at ANS Nuclear Cafe online now.

# # #

NRC’s Waste Confidence Update

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:51:00 +0000

Is this trip necessary?
This is my updated coverage from Fuel Cycle Week, V11, N456, 1/19/12 published by International Nuclear Associates, Washington, DC

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced in early January it is starting work on an update to the Waste Confidence decision. With the Obama administration’s successful bid to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository project, one of the agency’s key assumptions for the update is that interim storage of spent fuel will be the norm for up to 200 years after a reactor's operations come to an end.

Most recently revised in December 2010, the Waste Confidence decision states that disposal of spent fuel is technically feasible and will eventually be made available. The decision conveys the NRC's confidence that until disposal is available, the material can be managed safely under the NRC's oversight. Where or how that management takes place is not spelled out.

C.J. Milmoe, an attorney in private practice based in Arlington, VA, tells FCW the NRC's latest move to update the decision "is a punt, and it is an instance of kicking the can down the road."
Consider his point in light of the fact that the original waste confidence rule was issued in 1984, revised in 1989, and published in its latest form just a year ago.

It originally addressed the safe management of spent fuel for 30 years beyond what was then the 40-year licensed lifespan of reactors. The current rule posits 60 years of post operational safe storage. Assuming most reactors are relicensed for an additional 20 years, these sequences accumulate quickly to exceed the lifetimes of the engineers who built them.

The new NRC effort announced Jan. 3 now contemplates a timeframe that is 200 years or nearly three times longer. It will take the agency about six years to complete the required environmental impact statement and update to the Waste Confidence decision.

Paying twice for the same deal
Milmoe wonders if all this work is even necessary. He says "spent fuel at a reactor site is a reality regardless of the time frame for the waste confidence rule. The NRC and the reactor operator are responsible for the safety of the spent fuel in perpetuity until DOE takes title to it and relocates it to an interim or permanent storage site."

Not only does Milmoe think that "the [NRC] exercise to update the Waste Confidence Rule is meaningless," he points out U.S. taxpayers are paying twice for spent fuel storage. The first payment is the more obvious of the two: those that use electricity generated by nuclear power plants pay a levy into the Nuclear Waste Fund.

The second payment is more subtle. Every time a federal claims court rules that the Energy Department has failed to meet its Nuclear Waste Policy Act responsibilities, the suing utility is awarded a judgment paid out of the U.S. government’s general revenue account.

According to The Wall Street Journal, as of last August the Nuclear Waste Fund contained $25 billion, with an estimated $16 billion in liability payments had been or will be paid to utilities. For the $41 billion involved, the U.S. could have built at least two interim storage sites and an 800 ton/year spent fuel reprocessing plant.

Failure is not an option

Lake Barrett

And Milmoe isn't the only critic who's hair spontaneously lights on fire when the subject of Yucca Mountain and the Waste Confidence Decision comes up.

Lake Barrett led the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Nuclear Waste Management and also worked at the NRC. He told FCW the six year roadmap for revision to the Waste Confidence Rule is a case of the NRC "slow walking the issue."

The reason the agency is dragging its heels, Barrett says, is that it is a reflection of Chairman Jaczko's desire to avoid a case of the emperor not having any clothes.

There is no 'Plan B" to Yucca Mountain. For this reason, Barrett thinks updating the Waste Confidence Decision is necessary because of pending litigation.

He says there could be real potential consequences for the federal government's current state of denial. Barrett says that a credible waste confidence rule is "fundamental for the operational status of nuclear plants."

Within a year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is likely to rule on litigation over the government's failure to open Yucca Mountain. One of the potential outcomes of the case is that the court could issue an order stopping all new reactor licensing, and relicensing, until the government figures out what to do with the current inventory of spent fuel before making any more. In a worst case scenario, the entire U.S. fleet of nuclear reactors could be shut down.

Barrett says, "core reload licenses could be challenged. The motivation of these challenges will be the shut down all nuclear plants in the country."

And the NRC isn't the only group dragging its heels. Barrett fumes that the Department of Energy Blue Ribbon Commission "has taken us backwards 25 years."

"There is no realistic path forward for dealing with spent fuel in their draft report."

The final BRC report is expected by the end of this month.

NEI's reality check
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), whose members include the nation's nuclear utilities, acknowledges that there is a possibility that the fuel will remain in storage at reactors for extended periods.

Rod McCullum, NEI's Director, Used Fuel Programs, told FCW the reason is there is considerable uncertainty about when a repository will be built, but that the organization continues to press for progress.

That does not mean the organization is endorsing an option of perpetual storage at the nations reactors.

He told FCW the industry still strongly maintains that DOE must fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations.

McCullum says NEI would prefer to see the spent fuel moved from reactors to interim storage sites and that option includes recycling.

Recycling option
Assuming the Waste Confidence Decision is revised with a 200 year time frame, then what? Rip Anderson, a nuclear scientist with experience at DOE laboratories, told FCW his research shows that it is safe to store spent fuel at reactors in dry casks, or other secure places, for very long periods of time.

However, he pointed out that once you start working with timeframes of hundreds of years, the spent fuel becomes less dangerous to reprocess, and he says, "we will want to reprocess it."

"The current process is not smart. It is like burning the bark off a log and then throwing away the log."

Frozen in place
Where does this leave us? Critics have used the metaphor of "kicking the can down the road," and "slow walking the issue." A better metaphor might be "frozen in place."

Nothing will change, short of a startling outcome from current litigation, until at least the end of the current decade. In terms of the extended storage scenario of up to 200 years, that might be a comfort to anyone in elected office today since by 2212 they will long since passed the baton to distant generations.

Background - What is the NRC trying to do?
NRC's process steps, which will take it to 2019 to complete, starts with a public comment period to support its update of the preliminary assumptions for an environmental impact statement (EIS). That document, when published six years from now, will contain an analysis of the effects of storing spent nuclear fuel from the nation's commercial power reactors for up to 200 years.

The scoping process for the EIS will address several storage scenarios. The alternatives include the current practice of storing spent fuel at reactors, developing regional sites or a centralized site for interim storage, or a combination of storage options and reprocessing. It assumes that the 200 year clock will start ticking sometime about 2050.

In the meantime, the NRC assumes a scenario best described in sailing terms as "steady as she goes." It means that even under an extended storage scenarios of 60 years, the NRC will continue to regulate the management of spent fuel under a program similar to the one it has in place now.

NRC's schedule to revise the Waste Confidence decision
The NRC will hold an online webinar on the update to the Waste Confidence decision on January 31, 2012 from 2:00-3:300 PM eastern time. The agency's public meeting notice has details on how to participate in the webinar.
Process Milestones
· April 2012 – publish a final report on preliminary assumptions for the EIS
· 2012-2013 – develop preliminary information for the EIS scoping process
· 2013 – Federal Register notice of intent to develop the EIS
· 2013-2016 – Develop the EIS, draft decision and possible proposed rule
· 2017-2019 - Draft EIS published, draft Waste Confidence Decision for public comment, final decision and rule.

# # #

Wasting an opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:38:00 +0000

The U.K. pushes back on PRISM and the U.S. gets ready to kick the spent fuel can down the road

The UK's idealistic view of how to
deal with spent fuel

One thing you can say that is the U.K. and the U.S. agree when it comes to avoiding make a decision on surplus nuclear materials. In the U.K. the government's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has just turned down an offer from General Electric to use its PRISM fast reactor to burn surplus plutonium.

In the U.S next week the Department of Energy Blue Ribbon Commission will issue a final report that will fail to set a strategy for dealing with the nation's spent nuclear fuel.

There are different reasons for these decisions which are explored here. What they have in common is that both governments are composed of people who outside of their offices have the usual allotments of common sense, but seem to lose their collective grip on it once in office.

Plan for Sellafield rejected

The Guardian newspaper reports Jan 24 that plans to use two 300 MW sodium cooled fast reactors to burn 82 tonnes of surplus plutonium has been rejected by the NDA. According to the newspaper, it reviewed internal emails from the government agency. An anti-nuclear activist obtained them under a Freedom of Information request and shared the messages with the newspaper. The newspaper reports that the NDA's reason for rejecting the technology is that it regards it as "immature and commercially unproven."

The agency's managers also reportedly said in their electronic communications that they felt the reactor would create large amounts of plutonium contaminated waste and increase the risk that terrorists might access it to make nuclear weapons.

Last November, GE submitted an unsolicited offer to the NDA to use its new technology which is based on the design of the Integral Fast Reactor first deployed at the Argonne National Laboratory - West site in Idaho. It was in continuous development for several decades until it was cancelled by the Clinton Administration in the mid-1990s.

The Guardian reports that in an email sent to GE on Nov 29 NDA strategy and technology director Adrian Simper said that the NDA and GE worked at an agreement but could not come to terms. Simper reportedly wrote the government "is not prepared to take technology risk on a new reactor."

In addition to technology risks, the government also reportedly demanded a price cap on the project of $3.9 billion. It isn't clear how it came up with that number.

The NDA then sent an email to the U.K. Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC).

It reportedly said that while the NDA had carried out a "high level assessment" of the PRISM technology, it concluded that the technology had not yet been demonstrated in a commercial setting and that it was not developed enough for the agency to commit to using it.

Perhaps most significantly, the NDA reportedly said the PRISM reactor would not be ready to run until 2050. The agency says it wants a solution sooner than that date.

Eric Loewen, the chief engineer for the PRISM reactor, disputed that last claim pointing out the technology has 30 years of experience under its belt. He may get a chance to make his case. The DECC said in an email response to the NDA it remains open to "technically mature proposals."

In the meantime, the government maintains that its best option is to use the plutonium to make mixed oxide fuel. More than 30 reactors world wide use MOX which typically, is about 5% PU-239 and the rest U238. There are differences depending on whether the plutonium is weapons grade or taken from spent fuel burned in commercial reactors.

The MOX is a good source of export revenues for the government which also may be the reason it prefers that option.

For more details on the PRISM reactor proposal see my report at ANS Nuclear Cafe published 12/22/11.

Update 01/26/12: According to one source, the UK NDA says it is still considering GE-Hitachi fast reactors at Sellafield for plutonium disposition.

Blue Ribbon Commission to punt

Next week you should be able to download a thick report from the Department of Energy's Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC). It will be an instant doorstop because it won't move the government any closer to taking action on dealing with spent fuel.

Instead, due to election year politics, the BRC, which has been called the "do nothing before the 2012 election commission" will basically tune up its draft report released for comment last July.

The Blue Ribbon Commission’s draft report contained little that could not be written on the day of its first meeting in January 2010. The draft report calls for several well understood actions.

Set up interim storage at one or more locations, any place but Yucca mountain. Charter an off-the-books federal corporation, funded by waste fees, to pay for management of spent fuel.
Find a deep geological site to put the stuff.
Conduct R&D on reprocessing and fast reactors.
Do the work consistent with the nation’s nonproliferation objectives.

The BRC noted that it sees “no unmanageable safety or security risks associated with current methods of storage” in the U.S. This is the essence of the charge the BRC has kicked the can down the road leaving nuclear utilities holding the bag, so to speak, with wet and dry at reactor storage of spent fuel.

The situation could remain unchanged for decades or longer. Spent fuel can be moved to dry cask storage after cooling off for about five years. The dry casks have expected lifetimes of up to 60 years under the NRC's current waste confidence decision.

Not satisfied with kicking cans

Dry cask storage. Image: U.S. NRC

The New York Times reports Jan 24 that a coalition of nuclear energy industry groups thinks the government can and should do better. According to the newspaper, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the main trade association of the reactor operators, was joined by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition.

All three have endorsed development of interim storage sites for spent fuel. Currently, almost all spent fuel is stored at the reactor sites where it was created in the first place.

The three groups also want a new agency such as the one proposed by now former Ohio Sen. George Voinovitch. As an off-the-books agency, it would be funded by the $25 billion nuclear waste fund and take title to and manage the nation's inventory of commercial spent nuclear fuel. Finding an interim storage site, and moving it there, would be the first order of business. Recycling the fuel could come later.

So far the Obama administration has shown little interest in the idea. That head in the sand stance is likely to continue until it wins a second term. As the White House sees things, there is no sense in aggravating the voters in Nevada until after November this year.

# # #

Safety first in Idaho

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:18:00 +0000

An editorial published by the Idaho Falls Post Register nails it in one

The Materials Fuel Complex (MFC)
located 26 miles west of Idaho Falls, ID

On November 8 a group of 16 workers at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Materials Fuels Complex (MFC) were contaminated by an uncontrolled release of radioactivity from plutonium reactor fuel.

An accident investigation report prepared by the Department of Energy released Jan 19 says the accident was preventable and that lab management missed several opportunities to take steps to stop something like it from injuring workers.

The report also found that the lab erred in not activating its emergency response quickly enough which may have compromised the medical treatment of the affected workers.

The 16 workers were exposed to plutonium when a container holding a fuel element was opened in the process of preparing it to be shipped to another facility. Among the 16 exposed, 13 tested positive for radioactive contamination on their clothes and two were found to have inhaled radioactive particles. A lab spokesman said it is believed the exposure levels were "minimal" and all 16 workers were back on the job the next day with no signs of radiation sickness.

The DOE safety report says that the lab's prime contractor, the Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA), should have paid more attention to the documentation about the plutonium fuel elements and taken more precautions in guiding the work.

According to the report, knowledge of the fuel was not transferred to the lab when the Argonne National Laboratory - West site was transferred from the Office of Science to the Office on Nuclear Energy in 2005.

It noted that a 2009 White Paper by an Independent Safety Review Committee that described problems with the plutonium fuel elements went unrecognized for its significance by the current lab management.

Finally, the DOE report said the work order for the project lacked an appropriate hazard analysis and the identification of means of mitigating any problems.

The decommissioned nuclear reactor involved in the accident is part of a massive cleanup project involving spent nuclear fuel, radioactive waste, and other irradiated materials.

Government report findings
This section is taken verbatim from the report's executive summary.

Direct, Root, and Contributing Causes
The Board determined that this accident was preventable. The Board determined that the direct cause of the accident was the cutting and handling of the plastic wrapping around the Pu fuel plate, which released the Pu contaminants. Root causes are the causal factor(s) that, if corrected, would prevent recurrence of the same (local) or similar (systemic) accidents. The Board determined that the local root causes were:
• BEA did not accurately analyze the Pu hazard in the safety basis and establish commensurate controls.
• The management system lacked requirements intended to influence the decision making of the nuclear facility manager (NFM) and shift supervisor (SS), resulting in a single-point decision to cut the wrapping. The Board determined the following systemic root causes:
• DOE-ID accepted the risk of known safety basis deficiencies and allowed continued operation of the ZPPR Facility within the framework of a multi-year safety basis upgrade plan without putting effective interim controls in place.
• BEA continued operation of the ZPPR Facility with known safety basis deficiencies and without adequately analyzing the hazard to the worker or establishing effective work control processes.

Words worth reading in the senior management suite

In an editorial in the Sunday, Jan 22, edition of the Idaho Falls Post Register, the newspaper's editors wrote that safety on the job has much wider implications for the future of nuclear R&D at the Idaho site.

"At the center of this community's support for the Idaho National Laboratory is a belief: that when we send out loved ones to the desert, they will come home in one piece."

And the newspaper dips into the dynamics of what should be keeping senior DOE and BEA managers awake at night.

These kinds of incidents, small as they are in terms of injuries to workers, raise the issue of "safety culture."

Specialists in the field will tell you that a series of small, even unrelated incidents, are, statistically speaking, seen as precursors to much bigger ones that can lead to catastrophic outcomes including fatalities. Unless workers trust their management, and themselves through peer-to-peer safety awareness, accidents will happen.

". . . the Battelle Energy Alliance has a sacred duty to do everything possible to create a safety culture where there is an almost paranoid belief that if you don't pay attention to the smallest details, the worst case scenario will come true."

The newspaper points out that an excellent track record on safety is at the heart of community advocacy for current and new nuclear energy missions at the Idaho lab.

That community support translates into votes for these programs by the Idaho congressional delegation. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who's district includes the Idaho lab, is a member of the House Appropriations Committee.

"The support of this community is the foundation for everything that has been built at the lab. If because of fears for worker safety, that support erodes, the whole thing might just crumble to the ground."

Cleanup milestone

The Arco desert looking southwest from MFC

The Department of Energy celebrated a milestone in December at the Idaho National Laboratory, the 20th anniversary of the start of cleanup work at the site.

The Idaho site on the Arco desert was added to the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund national priorities list in 1989 to protect the Snake River plain aquifer.

Over the past two decades, contractors have disposed of radioactive and contaminated soil, dug up buried nuclear waste and removed three nuclear reactors.

There is more work to be done a DOE spokesman told KIFI, a local TV station

"Some long-term work as far as managing spent nuclear fuel, those kinds of things," said DOE spokesman Brad Bugger. "Main thing is getting buried waste taken care of (and) closing underground storage tanks. Those should be done in the near term."

Multiple contractors have carried out the work since 1989. Bugger said the bulk of remaining work should wrap up around 2020.

# # #

Water rights granted for Utah's Blue Castle project

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:43:00 +0000

State engineer completes a two-year process to allocate water for twin nuclear reactors in Green River

Map of Utah's Green River region

The State of Utah has granted water rights to the privately-held Blue Castle project which plans to build a nuclear power station that would generate between 2,200 to 3,000 MW of power at a site in Green River, Utah. The decision allocates 53,600 acre feet of water a year. (Blue Castle press release)

Blue Castle CEO Aaron Tilton told the Salt Lake Tribune the decision was expected and that without it the company would not have been able to proceed with its plans. The reactors are slated to be built on a 1,700 acre parcel in an industrial area of Emery County. Tilton told the newspaper the plants could cost $18 billion.

Blue Castle officials said they are in the process of preparing an Early Site Permit (ESP) to be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2013. Assuming that deadline is met, review of that application could take about three years or by sometime in 2016 at the earliest.

Time line to revenue service

Assuming the ESP is approved, and Blue Castle's investors have another $50-100 million to spend, the firm would still need to apply for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for the twin reactor project. The NRC's review time for that process is about four years which means the earliest the project could break ground is 2020. That time frame might be shorter depending on how things go with the ESP and how much of what's in it can be incorporated into the COL.

CEO Tilton told the Salt Lake City Tribune he thought the firm could break ground by 2016 and have the plants in revenue service by 2020. These are very optimistic dates and don't match the experience with the NRC for Southern's twin AP1000s in Georgia. Even with an NRC approved ESP in place, the process of applying for a COL would still push the firm toward breaking ground several years later than Tilton's estimate.

It isn't clear from the projected power generation numbers whether the Blue Castle Project has settled on a reactor design. With former General Electric executives in senior management positions, it is possible a COL could reference the new GE ESBWR, a 1,500 MW reactor.

That design, which is still undergoing safety certification review at the NRC, has been referenced by DTE's Fermi III project and Dominion's plans for a third unit at North Anna. A smaller configuration of 2,200 MW might indicate interest in the 1,100 MW Westinghouse AP1000. Either way, the Blue Castle project appears to envision building two reactors at the site.

Blue Castle claims it has signed power agreements with 18 utilities that would be investors in the project. Company officials told the Utah news media they would retain a minority interest in the plant.

Power hungry utilities in California are likely customers for the plant's output. This is a continuation of California's "colonial" strategy of banning new reactors within its borders while buying nuclear powered electricity from plants in other states. The City of Los Angeles cancelled its interest in the 900 MW third unit of a coal fired plant in Utah because of local and state laws in California prohibiting investment in projects that add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The good news for the quality of Utah's air is that nuclear power plants are carbon emission free and won't pollute the skies or add to global warming. Had the coal fired plant been built, Utah residents would have seen dirty air as a price they would pay to ship power to southern California.

Water rights fight not over

Opponents of the decision to grant water rights to the project said they would fight it every step of the way. Matt Pecenza, policy director of HEAL, an anti-nuclear group based on Salt Lake City, issued a statement that said the group would pursue its fight against the project.

HEAL opposed the decision by the State Engineer to grant the water rights. He told the Salt Lake City Tribune, "the good news is the project still has many obstacles ahead of it."

State Engineer Kent Jones said his office granted the water rights after a two-year review process. He said the review found that the Blue Castle Project would not harm other water users, wasn't speculative, and that there was sufficient water available even during a drought.

Jones defended the process to make the decision

“We have listened to and very much appreciate the concerns raised by those in the local community and others,” said Jones. “Those concerns helped us look carefully and critically at the proposal as we considered the appropriate action on these applications.”

Almost 4.4 million acre-feet of water flows by the city of Green River every year. Blue Castle is seeking 53,600 acre-feet of that water to be allocated for its project.

“That amount of water is not a lot on the Green River,” said Jones. “But it is a significant portion of the water Utah has left to develop on the Colorado River and a significant new diversion from the Green River where efforts are underway to provide habitat for recovery of endangered fish.”

Approval of the application does not guarantee sufficient water will always be available from the river to operate the plant. Plant design will need to address the possibility of interruptions in water supply

Environmental groups in Utah along with tourism business interests have rallied against past proposals for power generation projects that need large amounts of water. One of their tactics has been to claim that the water withdrawals will harm endangered species. This claim brings the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service into the picture.

State Engineer Jones wrote in his decision that river flows can fall below targets set by state and federal agencies to preserve endangered species. And he wrote that the decision to approve the water rights for the nuclear reactors could make things worse. An interactive map of Utah endangered species in the Green River region shows listed foxes, ferrets, toads, and other critters in the area.

Opponents of the plant have also claimed that it will compete for water with the Central Utah Project which supplies water to Utah's urban areas that stretch along the Wasatch Front from Logan and Salt Lake City on the North to Provo to the South. Much of the state's population lives along this corridor. In what sounds like a scare tactic, opponents claim that the Blue Castle Project would complete with water for this population in a drought year.

The State Engineer disagreed with this assessment in his decision pointing out the water rights for the plant would not take precedence over those of the Central Utah Project.

Outlook for the project

The Blue Castle Project is the only credible new nuclear reactor project on the NRC's radar located west of the Mississippi. In Idaho AEHI, a penny stock firm, is fighting an uphill battle to convince investors, local government officials, and the Securities & Exchange Commission that it really intends to build a nuclear power plant in Payette County north of Boise, ID.

In its early days in 2007 the Blue Castle Project suffered from a splash effect from AEHI's antics. CEO Tilton had a rocky start early in his career bumping heads as a state legislator with the Utah Republican party which declined to endorse him for a second term.

Blue Castle's new found success in pursuit of water rights and commitment to complete an ESP have distanced the firm from that image.

Raising the $18 billion to build two nuclear reactors, and everything that goes with them, remains a major challenge. Blue Castle still intends to sell off most of its interest in the project to a consortium of utilities who would then have to raise the $18 billion the firm says would be need to build up to 3,000 MW of generating capacity.

In the past Tilton tried and failed to get the Utah State Legislature to approve the principle of "construction while in progress" or CWIP. It means that rate payers of the utilities that are investors in the new reactors would pay for construction costs as they are incurred rather than after the plant enters revenue service. Of course, the more utilities Blue Castle lines up participate in the project, the more likely Blue Castle might have the clout to go back to the legislature to try again.

Given the amount of power the plant would generate, it is likely it's utility investors would also have to build new 345KVtransmission and distribution infrastructure across much of Utah which is largely public lands managed by two agencies of the Federal government. Every one of those rights-of-way for power lines will require an environmental assessment prepared under the regulatory requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (See EIA map of current power lines.)

In short, winning the approvals for the water rights is just the start of a long road toward construction. Getting the regulatory approvals that will allow the plant to be built is half the battle. The other parts will be raising the money to build the reactors, building them on time and within budget, and completing the power lines to wheel the power to customers.

# # #

A win for Vermont Yankee

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:13:00 +0000

Federal District Court rules against efforts by the State of Vermont to assert regulatory authority over radiological safety issues

Efforts by the State of Vermont to regulate a nuclear reactor within its borders were struck down Jan 19 by U.S. District Court Judge J. Gavan Murtha in Brattleboro. He ruled in three instances against the state which had sought to shut down Entergy's Vermont Yankee reactor which is located on the banks of the Connecticut River.

His ruling follows a three-day trial last September. The decision was fast tracked to insure it would be handed down prior to the expiration of the current license on March 12, 2012.

Murtha wrote in his 102 page decision that the State of Vermont could not use the legislature's refusal to issue a Certificate of Public Good as a basis to force the reactor to shut down. He said that state law is preempted by the Atomic Energy Act which assigns radiological safety regulation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The judge emphasized that the legislature was focused on "radiological safety concerns" which are the province of the NRC.

A second item in the judge's ruling enjoined the State of Vermont from using its assertion it has authority over management of spent fuel at the site as a means to force the plant to shut down.

Finally, the judge said the legislation could not make a condition of continued operation contingent on the existence of a below-wholesale-market power purchase agreement between Plaintiffs and Vermont utilities, or requiring Vermont Yankee to sell power to Vermont utilities.

Read the full story exclusively at ANS Nuclear Cafe online now.

# # #

Covert bombing kills Iranian nuclear scientist

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:32:00 +0000

It is the latest in a series of deadly attacks

An Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in Tehran Jan 11 by a bomb magnetically attached to his car. It is the fifth such attack in the past two years. The scientist was identified as Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, age 32, who was a mid-level manager at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant.

The attack came one day after it was reported that that Iran had launched uranium enrichment production at its underground facility at Fordow near the city of Qum. There Iran is reported to be enriching the uranium to 20% U235 which is the boundary between commercial use and weapons use. Iran has been making 20% enriched uranium at Natanz, about 400 km south of Tehran (250 miles), since February 2010.

In a related development, the Wall Street Journal reported that two days later on Jan 13 that Iran agreed to allow a high-level team of IAEA nuclear inspectors enter the country Jan 28. The delegation will be headed by the agency's chief weapons inspector, Herman Nackaerts.

It is not clear whether the Iranian government will let the inspectors visit nuclear sites, underground uranium enrichment facilities, and interview officials the U.N. agency believes may head a nuclear-weapons program.

The combination of three events occurring within a few days of each other indicates the intensity of the issues surrounding Iran's nuclear programs. Read the full story exclusively at ANS Nuclear Cafe online now.

# # #

87th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:15:00 +0000

The 87th carnival is up at ANS Nuclear Cafe

This post is the collective voice of blogs with legendary names which emerge each week to tell the story of nuclear energy.
If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

Past editions have been hosted at Next Big Future. Yes Vermont Yankee, NuclearGreen, Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, NEI Nuclear Notes, and CoolHandNuke, as well as several other popular nuclear energy blogs.

The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by the leading pro-nuclear bloggers in North America that we will speak with a collective voice on the issue of the value of nuclear energy. While we each have our own point of view, we agree that the promise of peaceful uses of the atom remains viable in our own time and for the future.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog, and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brian Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

# # #

Books about Nuclear Energy - 2012 List

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:03:00 +0000

This blog post is an update of the list posted in October 2010

I have revised the resources tab on top at my blog and have created a new list titled "Books about Nukes" The link will open a new window. The list will be updated over time. The date of this edition of the list is: January 15, 2012.

Nuclear energy is the
stuff stars are made of

This list is intended to reach the NON-TECHNICAL reader. This means the book must explain nuclear energy for commercial use, and closely related issues, e.g., uranium mining, spent fuel management, etc., in a clear and intelligent manner that is accessible to someone who has no technical background in the industry.

I would especially like to hear about books that would be readable by a high school senior or freshman / sophomore college student interested in a career in the nuclear industry.

Comments and suggestions for additional listings are welcome.

Before you comment, please check the current list. I only need a few volumes in each category.

Please be complete with title, author, ISBN number, date of publication, and a link to an online bookseller of your choice or the publisher/author website.

Want to know more? Read a book on nuclear energy and share it with your friends. While it won’t compete with cocktail chatter about ‘Dancing with the Stars’, in fact, nuclear energy is the stuff stars are made of.

* * *

Note: I do not make any money with referrals to Amazon from this list. The list is not linked to the tower ads from Amazon on the main blog page. The Amazon listing is used so that a reader can extract the ISBN number if they want to get it from their preferred bookseller or borrow it for free from their local library.

# # #

New reactor deals for the new year

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:38:00 +0000

Jordan short lists three firms and selects six potential sites for a $5 billion project

Map of Jordan

Jordan's plans to develop a nuclear reactor to supply the country with electricity reached several important milestones this week. Government energy officials completed a site selection study with assistance from Belgian consultant Tractabel.

Also, the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) shortlisted three potential bidders for the $5 billion project.

The JAEC, which had already selected two sites at Mafraq, 60 km east of Amman, and Aqaba, Red Sea port city, said the criteria for the first two and the other four are safety, seismic stability, and access to cooling water.

The Jordan Nuclear Regulatory Commission will review the sites for safety issues.

The three firms which have been short-listed to bid on building the reactor, are Atomstroyexport (Russia), AECL (SNC Lavalin, Canada), and a joint venture of Areava (France) with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan). Khalid Touqan, head JAEC, told financial wire services in Jordan the winning bidder is expected to be announced by the end of 2012.

In late 2011 Jordan had announced a temporary postponement of the project while it firmed up financing for the project. While no details have been announced, one option is that the reactor will be an owner operated project with a guaranteed rate of return for a set period of years followed by sale of the plant to local investors. Negotiations with potential investors are expected to begin in March 2012.

Khalid Tougan, JAEC Director

Negotiations for engineering and construction services, and the procurement of components of the reactor, are also expected to get underway soon with GDF Suez, Rosatom, Datang International Power, and Kansai Electric.

Energy security v. energy costs

The JAEC has said it expects the reactor to enter revenue service by 2019 and to be a source of electricity with 12 other countries in the region. One of the drivers for the project is energy security as the country has seen interruptions of natural gas supplied from Egypt. A pipeline network between the two countries has suffered 10 sabotage attacks in the past 12 months.

JAEC's Touqan has had to address the cost of the reactor in the country's parliament where critics have charged that cost over runs could severely impact the government's finances. He defended the safety of the reactor designs saying all vendors are offering third generation reactors with advanced safety features.

Nuclear cooperation agreements

Touqan noted in his testimony that Jordan has signed nuclear technology cooperation agreements with Spain, France, Russian and the U.K. However, a so-called 1-2-3 Agreement with the U.S. has not been signed due in part to opposition in the U.S. from nonproliferation groups.

Ellen Tausher,
U.S. Under Secretary
of State for Arms Control

The U.S. is trying to get Jordan to signed an agreement similar to the one inked by the UAE which gives up any plans for uranium enrichment or spent fuel reprocessing.

According to wire service reports, Ellen Tausher, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, said Jan 12, a draft agreement is being reviewed by the Jordanian government. She said she plans to go to Jordan in February to negotiate an agreement along with Department of Energy Under Secretary Daniel Poneman

The U.S. has pursued the UAE model in the Middle East, but not elsewhere, Tausher said, because proliferation issues are more significant in that part of the world. Pressure from Congress may play a role in negotiations with Jordan.

In 2011 the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed H.R. 1280 that broadens the review process for 1-2-3 agreements with a preference for the UAE model. For its part, the Obama administration objected to the House bill saying that its new restrictions would impede nuclear technology cooperation agreements. The bill was not reported out by the committee to the House floor for a vote.

Jordan has an estimated 70,000 tonnes of uranium deposits and has asked Areva's mining operation to further define the deposits and develop a plan to exploit them. It isn't clear whether Jordan is interested in developing fuel cycle production facilities or will simply sell the uranium to firms like Areva in return for a guaranteed fuel supply.

Indian billionaire takes stake in Terrapower

Reliance Industries, which is one of the world's foremost operators of oil refineries, has taken a minority stake in TerraPower LLC, a nuclear reactor design effort privately funded in part by former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates. Reliance told financial wire services that billionaire chairman Mukesh Ambani sees nuclear energy as having a big role in the future of energy supply on the planet. The firm is diversifying its portfolio.

Bill Gates visited China in 2011 telling his hosts the project will take time to reach technical maturity and may cost $1 billion. The reactor is expected to be designed to produce either 500 MW or 1,000 MW. It is a sodium cooled fast reactor based in part on the technology of the Integral Fast Reactor developed at Argonne National Laboratory. TerraPower claims the reactor will be designed to run on depleted uranium for up to 60 years on a single fuel load.

Another investor in the project is Vinod Khosla, a U.S. venture capitalist. See ANS Nuclear Cafe 12/15/11 for a detailed report and analysis of the Gates visit to China and TerraPower's prospects.

CEZ downsizes Temelin bid

Daniel Benes CEZ CEO

A major change has been announced for what was once Europe's biggest new nuclear reactor project. The Czech state-owned utility CEZ told financial wire services Jan 9 it will probably reduce the size of its planned tender from five to two new nuclear reactors. CEO Daniel Benes said the firm now has plans to build two new reactors at the Temelin site with an option for three more.

Benes said the reason for the change is that demand for electricity has been stagnant and that given the economic doldrums of Europe, isn't likely to grow much in coming years.

The original tender was expected to be worth $28 billion but now may come in at about $10 billion. Bids are due in July 2012 with a winner expected to be selected in 2013.

The option for an additional three new reactors, one at CEZ's Dukovany site and two in Slovakia, would most likely be the subject of an entirely new bid and proposal process.

# # #

U.S. Nuclear manufacturers lukewarm on AP1000

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:24:00 +0000

There is so much excess production capacity for pumps, pipes, and parts that few plan expansion when orders show up

This is my updated coverage for Fuel Cycle Week, V11;N454 January 5, 2012 published by International Nuclear Associates, Washington, DC.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted unanimously on Dec. 22 to approve the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design for use in the United States. The action sets the stage for construction of two of these reactors at Southern's Vogtle site in Georgia and two more at Scana's V.C. Summer station in South Carolina.

However, an industry trade group told FCW that few of its members, who are expected to make the parts for the reactor, plan to expand capacity to fulfill the orders. Instead, they say they will wait and see if there is a second round of construction of new reactors based on the first two at Southern’s Vogtle site coming in on time and within budget.

Applications for combined construction and operating licenses (COL) are pending before the NRC. Both Southern and Scana have expressed hope the regulatory agency will issue them in the first quarter of 2012.

However, Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the agency, told FCW in an email Jan. 2 that NRC has not yet scheduled the necessary meetings to issue the licenses.

"In order for a COL to be issued, the Commission must provide affirmative findings that the application and staff's review satisfy AEA (Atomic Energy Act) and NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) requirements,” wrote Burnell. “If the Commission sees fit to require any additional license conditions, they would be included in the Order from the affirmation session."

If the NRC does take the next step, the four pending COLs will be the first issued under the new 10 CFR Part 52 process that replaces the old Part 50 regulation which required separate construction and operating licenses.

The Part 52 process is designed to streamline the approval of licenses with potentially lower costs to utilities. The Part 50 process was widely seen as vulnerable to multiple legal challenges from anti-nuclear groups, making a commitment to build a new reactor a risky decision for a publicly traded utility.

Arduous road to success

Aris Candris, Westinghouse CEO, (right) told the Associated Press that the road to the NRC decision “has been long and sometimes arduous."

The NRC vote brings the U.S "one step closer to constructing AP1000 units and putting thousands to work to ultimately provide future generations with safe, clean and reliable electricity," he said.

CEO Cardis said that the U.S. projects will produce 3,000 construction jo bs at each of the twin reactor sites. About 1,700 workers are working at Vogtle now in pre-licensing construction of non-safety related systems.

Turn-Around for Jackzo

Nuclear industry observers noted that Chairman Gregory Jaczko said in the agency's prepared statement that he is satisfied the design is safe. That represents a change from his views of last May.

At the time, he issued an unprecedented statement to the news media criticizing Westinghouse and alleging the company was dragging its feet in responding to agency questions.

And in October he said that he was "sympathetic" to the views of a coalition of anti-nuclear groups who wanted the agency to stop all reactor licensing, including life extensions, until it has completely updated its regulations with Fukushima related safety measures. That process will take years.

But last month, Jaczko wrote in his vote in favor of certification that “the design provides enhanced safety margins through use of simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative safety and security functions, and also has been assessed to ensure it could withstand damage from an aircraft impact without significant release of radioactive materials.”

Implications of Design Approval

The NRC's approval of a reactor design is a global "gold standard" and may open markets for the reactor in other countries. The new design certification is good for 15 years.

Westinghouse is building four AP1000s in China and is in negotiations to build more of them there. The firm has executed technology transfer agreements with China, which is planning to shift from older Gen II domestic designs to Gen III through adaptation of the AP1000's passive safety features. The first Chinese unit is expected to come online in 2013.

Earlier this month the U.K. Nuclear Safety Agency issued an interim approval of the reactor under its generic design assessment. Westinghouse has said it will complete the expensive process when a customer places an order for a unit in Britain (FCW #452, Dec. 8). Multiple sites have been approved by the government for new reactors.

Nuclear Fabricators Cautious

The Nuclear Fabrication Consortium, based in Columbus, Ohio, said that while its members, who manufacture components for nuclear reactors, welcome the prospect of orders based on new construction, few will invest in new plant capacity to meet demand from the Southern and Scana projects. (Cooling pump image source World Nuclear News)

Nathan Ames, NFC's Director, told FCW in a telephone interview Jan. 3 that companies who make pipes, pumps, and parts are waiting to see how well the new construction process goes and whether the nuclear industry has a second wind after these four units.

"There is no great upwelling of enthusiasm among our members about the first four AP1000s,” Ames said. “Our members tell me they have sufficient capacity now. If a second round of plants get commitments, then people will invest in new production facilities."

The NFC official cited the low price of natural gas, uncertainty over how long the low prices will hold, and whether Southern and Scana can bring in their four reactors on time and within budget, as factors for the consortium’s caution.

"There's a lot of fear we could get a situation like the one in Finland," Ames said, which could deter other utilities from moving forward with new reactors.

There are significant differences in the costs of the projects. Southern, which has an $8.3 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, says its two reactors will cost $14 billion. Scana, which did not pursue a loan guarantee, says its plants will cost $9 billion. Southern's reactors are expected to come online in 2016 and 2017, and Scana's in 2016 and 2019.

Prospects for a second round of new nuclear reactor construction include a GE-Hitachi ESBWR at DTE's Fermi III in Michigan, another at Dominion's North Anna III in Virginia, and two Mitsubishi APWRs at Luminant's Comanche Peak twin new units in Texas. Following them are proposals by Duke for two AP1000s in South Carolina, two more AP1000s by Progress on Florida's west coast and yet two more by Florida Power & Light near Miami.

Ames said his members think they really won't know how well things are going with the Southern and Scana projects until 2016 which is when the first Vogle plant is expected to enter revenue service.

Update January 9, 2012

Westinghouse Electric Company announced that its President and Chief Executive Officer Aris S. Candris will retire effective March 31. Westinghouse also announced that Dr. Candris will stay on as a Senior Advisor to Westinghouse.

# # #

National Nuclear Science Week Jan 24-28

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:14:00 +0000

National Nuclear Science Week is designed to recognize the contributions of the nuclear science industry and those who work in it every day. Each day of the week of January 24-28, 2011, the program will be promoting a different aspect of nuclear science.

Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu issued a statement in support of the week long program.

Nuclear science plays a vital role in the lives of Americans and the world. Consider these facts:

• 104 operating nuclear reactors in the US employ an average of 700 people to operate them in the 31 states that have nuclear power generating plants
• 20 percent of our nation’s electricity is generated by nuclear power
• 436 nuclear power plants are operating in 30 countries, supplying 14 percent of the world’s electricity. Fifty-three new nuclear plants are under construction in 14 countries.
• 18 million nuclear medicine procedures are performed per year among 305 million people in the United States

The website offers information for teachers, students, and parents.

For more information, contact the website for National Nuclear Science Week sponsored by the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History, Albuquerque, NM.
# # #

86th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:48:00 +0000

The 86th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at NEI Nuclear Notes

This post is the collective voice of blogs with legendary names which emerge each week to tell the story of nuclear energy.
If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

Past editions have been hosted at Next Big Future. Yes Vermont Yankee, NuclearGreen, Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, and CoolHandNuke, as well as several other popular nuclear energy blogs.

The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by the leading pro-nuclear bloggers in North America that we will speak with a collective voice on the issue of the value of nuclear energy.

While we each have our own point of view, we agree that the promise of peaceful uses of the atom remains viable in our own time and for the future.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog, and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brian Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

# # #

Areva inks $500 million nuclear fuel deal with Xcel

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:16:00 +0000

It is a vertically integrated contract covering the entire front end

French state-owned nuclear giant Areva had some good new this week in its U.S. market. The firm signed a unique integrated fuel and services contract on Jan 4 with Xcel Energy (NYSE:XEL) to supply the utility's Monticello nuclear generating plant in Minnesota. The contact is worth approximately $500 million for a ten-year period of performance.

The deal, which starts in 2015, will cover six refuelings of the reactor. Products and services include uranium, conversion, enrichment, fuel design, and fabrication as well as related engineering services. It is the first integrated contract of its type in the U.S. in several decades.

Read the complete story exclusively at CoolHandNuke online now.

# # #

The politics over Davis-Besse

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 12:24:00 +0000

Concrete cracks in the containment structure aren't the reason for anti-nuclear fervor by Rep. Dennis Kucinich

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH

The ongoing saga of anti-nuclear opposition to the continued operation of FirstEnergy's (NYSE:FE) Davis-Besse nuclear reactor located on the shores of Lake Erie is linked to a gift to voters from the Ohio's Republican dominated state legislature.

In a redistricting plan that is driven by gerrymandering at its finest, the congressional district of liberal Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich is mashed into that of Democrat Rep. Marcy Kaptur.

In the process, it strips Kuncinch of parts of his west side Cleveland political base. However, it gives him a big fat target to raise voter ire and that is the Davis-Besse plant.

Kucinich has long been a critic of the plant, but since it wasn't in his district, until now, he had to contend with the fact that his anti-nuclear rants didn't matter very much. Rep. Kaptur has taken a more balanced approach calling for a focus on safety and also keeping the plant open with its 800 jobs and stable electricity supply for industry in her district which includes Toledo, OH.

Concrete cracks energize criticism

The saga of Davis-Besse this Fall has given Kucinich ample opportunity to ramp up his criticism of the plant now that it is in a district where he has to compete in primary election March 6. The plant discovered small cracks in the containment structure when it replaced the reactor pressure vessel lid, its third, during a scheduled fuel outage.

FirstEnergy notified the NRC about the cracks which launched its own inspections. After extensive reviews including test core drilling conducted by FirstEnergy, the NRC said the plant was safe and it restarted the first week of December.

A public meeting to explain the NRC's decision held in western Ohio Jan 5 drew 300 people including some national and regional anti-nuclear groups. These groups make no bones about their objective which is to shut the plant down. They are opposed to the application to relicense it for another 20 years.

These groups point to safety issues ,which emerged in 2002, involving serve corrosion of the reactor head, and admissions by employees of FirstEnergy that they misled the NRC about the extent of the problem. The firm paid a fine of $28 million and initiated $600 million in repairs which kept the reactor out of revenue service for two years.

However, in the current era FirstEnergy notified the NRC as soon as the cracks were found during the outage. The utility fully cooperated with the agency in the investigation of the problem.

NRC Regional Administrator Cynthia Peterson explained to those at the meeting last Thursday that the agency "rigorously examined the cracks, how big they were, and what may have caused them."

She added that the agency consulted with structural experts and came to the conclusion the plant is safe to operate. Readers interested in more technical detail are referred to the NRC's Fact Sheet on the cracks.

Scare tactics

Anti-nuclear groups were not persuaded that this was the case. In a blatant effort to scare people, Michael Keegan of Don't Waste Michigan, referred to a 4.0 earthquake that took place in Youngstown, OH, last week which is 170 miles away on the other side of the state. Yet, he called it a threat to the reactor. On its face this statement is ridiculous. To put it in perspective, that's like saying a a car crash across town is going to shake the spice rack in your kitchen.

In another leap of exaggerated rhetoric, Kucinich, who has no engineering expertise, said that as far as he is concerned, the cracks are structural and the plant should be shut down. The NRC and FirstEnergy have pointed out that based on their testing and inspections the cracks are not safety related, but this distinction seemed to get buried in the rhetoric flying around the packed meeting room. Instead, Kucinich accused the NRC and FirstEnergy of not being forthright.

This allegation is a dishonest political tactic. Kucinich raises a red flag about safety and then he seeks to undermine the credibility of the regulatory agency charged with making sure the plant is safe.

The objective here is to sow enough fear, uncertainty, and doubt with the public that it becomes "self-evident" the only way to address the issue is to shut the plant down. It is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophetic which Kucinich pushes hard at every opportunity.

In short, the fact that Kucinich now has to get elected in a congressional district that includes Davis-Besse plant gives him a gorilla in the closet to wave at the voters and a reason to challenge Rep. Kaptur on the issue of keeping the reactor open.

Why are we not surprised?

Kucinich isn't the first elected official to run against a nuclear reactor as way to get votes and raise cash for his election. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has made a career out of attacking Entergy's Indian Point reactors. In an alliance with environmental groups like Riverkeeper, Cuomo rakes in election-related cash from the green community by bashing the reactor complex any way he can. He has opposed relicensing of the two reactors there and held up a state water quality permit that is part of the process.

U.S. Rep. Mary Kaptur, D-OH

In Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin won his election based on making Entergy's Vermont Yankee plant out to be a threat of millennial proportions. It didn't help Entegy's case that it's management stumbled badly in communications with the state legislature over the issue of underground pipes and tritium leaks. A pending Federal District Court decision on state authority over the reactor will likely get kicked up to the Court of Appeals.

Getting back to Ohio, Kucinich knows he is in a primary battle with a popular incumbent who doesn't have his track record of left-wing positions. Add to that Cuncinich's widely reported off-the-wall statements about foreign policy, and what you get is a fringe politician who's high velocity hand waving over Davis-Besse strains the bounds of credibility

Keeping the lights on with good paying jobs, at a safe plant, may actually make sense as a campaign position. It is one that Rep. Kaptur has promoted for the past decade. Kucinich's fear agenda may, or may not, make much headway against it, but he is trying hard just the same.

# # #

Plentiful Energy – the book on the Integral Fast Reactor

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:02:00 +0000

Plentiful Energy: The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor: The complex history of a simple reactor technology, with emphasis on its scientific bases for non-specialists [Paperback] Charles E. Till (Author), Yoon Il Chang (Author) (Available on Amazon)

The subtitle of the book is “The complex history of a simple reactor technology, with emphasis on its scientific basis for non-specialists.”

Written by the two leading engineers and Argonne National Laboratory, Associate Directors behind the integral fast reactor, Dr. Charles E. Till and Dr. Yoon Il Chang, it is a landmark in the sustainable energy literature.

The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) (Chang 1988) is a fast reactor system developed at Argonne National Laboratory in the decade 1984 to 1994. The IFR project developed the technology for a complete system; the reactor, the entire fuel cycle and the waste management technologies were all included in the development program.

The reactor concept had important features and characteristics that were completely new and fuel cycle and waste management technologies that were entirely new developments.

The reactor is a “fast reactor”– that is, the chain reaction is maintained by neutrons with high energy, not moderated by water, and which produces its own fuel. The IFR reactor, which is cooled by liquid metal sodium, and associated fuel cycle, is a closed system. Electrical power is generated, and new fissile fuel is produced to replace the fuel burned.

Its used fuel is processed for recycling by pyroprocessing – a new development – and waste is put in final form for disposal.

The scale and duration of the project and its funding made it one of the largest nuclear energy R&D program of its day. Its purpose was the development of a long term new energy source, capable of meeting the nation’s electrical energy needs.

Cancelled!

ANL-W the home of IFR

Safety, non-proliferation and waste toxicity properties were improved as well, these three the characteristics most commonly cited in opposition to nuclear power. Yet, most of the development had been done when the program was abruptly cancelled by the newly elected Clinton Administration.

In his 1994 State of the Union address the president stated that “unnecessary programs in advanced reactor development will be terminated.” The IFR was that program. By 1998 the Clinton Administration has for all intents and purposes zeroed out all nuclear energy R&D funding.

Paradoxically, this policy decision was driven by then VP Al Gore who later won a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming. It is a continuing mystery why Gore has been so hostile to an energy source that does not emit greenhouse gases and is, fundamentally, a replacement technology for coal and natural gas in providing base load power.

Accessible to the non-technical reader
This book gives the real story of the IFR, written by the two nuclear scientists who were most deeply involved in its conception, the development of its R&D program, and its management. The authors felt there is room for a volume that, while accurate technically, is written in a manner accessible to the non-specialist and even to the non-technical reader who simply wants to know what this technology is about.

For more details check out Barry Brook’s blog post, and the back story of his role in the book’s publication, at Brave New Climate.

For more details on how the IFR technology has a new life, see my blog post at ANS Nuclear Cafe on the PRISM reactor being proposed for use in the UK to burn that nation’s plutonium stockpile.

Additionally, last November at the ANS winter meeting, I interviewed John Sackett, who was a senior manager at ANL-W, on his current work to close regulatory gaps for licensing the IFR. Check the links at the end of that post for the technical papers on the project.

# # #

Nuclear Energy R&D Budgets Trimmed

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:18:00 +0000

Congress cuts funding while adding new priorities

A Congress that has public approval ratings in the single digits over deficit-related gridlock managed to get some of the federal budget out the door for 2012. The Energy & Water Appropriations bill, which covers funding for the U.S. Department of Energy, contains $768 million for nuclear energy programs. Funding for some programs were trimmed, and some got a buzz cut.

Nuclear energy at the DOE fared better than some other high profile DOE programs. The Obama administration's poster child for a green economy---Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy---suffered a cut of $1.9 billion reducing the amount requested by the White House by more than half. The DOE’s Science programs also saw a significant reduction of $616 million from the President's budget. And, nationwide environmental cleanup of DOE sites suffered a reduction of $469 million.

Emphasis on small modular reactors

Of the $768 million in the bill for DOE NE programs, $439 million is allocated to nuclear energy research and development. A key element of the appropriation is a $67 million line item for licensing technical support for light water reactors. It provides funds for first-of-a-kind engineering support for two reactor designs and sites.

Read the whole story exclusively at ANS Nuclear Cafe online now.

# # #

A new broom sweeps clean

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:53:00 +0000

News items you might have missed in 2011

Nuclear bloggers work differently than the mainstream media and are not shadows of the nuclear trade press. We don't have time to report everything so we try to focus on developments that look like they'll have more than average influence on the industry. At this blog I try to answer the "so what" question about the news.

During the course of the year, as a blogger I wind up with stand alone news items that just don't fit into larger patterns. I hold on to them hoping that there will be a place to fit them into the jig saw puzzle that makes up the global nuclear industry. So for better or worse, here are a few of those "keepers" that may yet emerge in a larger picture, or maybe not. These are issues this blog will continue to watch to see where they go.

Californians like nuclear energy less, but they still like to eat

Last July conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found a steep decline in support for nuclear energy. The poll shows a 14% drop in support from a year ago. Now just 30% of the population, based on the poll sample, support building more nuclear power plants there. There is a definite partisan split with just 23% of Democrats in favor of new reactors compared to 48% for Republicans. The new levels of "dislike" are linked to the Fukushima crisis in Japan which pumped up anti-nuclear sentiment in California.

The bad numbers appear to have left the Fresno Nuclear Group unfazed by their importance. John Hutson, who heads the effort to build two Areva 1,600 MW EPRs in the state's agricultural belt, says what else is new?

He is pushing ahead with the project which is intended to provide cheap electricity to food processing factories and to desalinate brackish water. Hutson thinks the plants could handle up to one million acre feet of water at a cost of $200/acre foot.

An acre foot is approximately 324,000 gallons. One million acre feet per year times 60 years is a lot of water, a lot for crops, and a lot of clean water for processed food factories. If I were Hutson, I might design a bumper sticker that says - Want to eat? Support nuclear energy!

Thrifty Swiss may balk at the high cost of going green

The Wall Street Journal reported Nov 29 that Switzerland's reliance on nuclear energy means a switch to other sources of energy to generate electricity may hit them hard in the pocketbook. The reason is the country's parliament voted earlier this year to close its nuclear reactors by 2034.

The country has benefited from the reactors by being a profitable net exporter of electricity and by having a stable, reliable supply of energy for heavy industries. Like Japan, Switzerland is not self-sufficient in terms of agricultural production so it exports electricity and high value finished goods and gets food in return. It's a two-way street.

Here's where the sticker shock hits. The WSJ reports that according to a leading renewable energy think tank, the cost of new investments in hydro, solar, and wind power to replace the reactors would be $108 billion, or roughly the price of 15 new 1,000 MW reactors built over the next 20 years. Then there are also the $22 billion in decommissioning costs for the current fleet which will extend into the end of this century.

A U.S. think tank put the diversion of capital into these channels in a stark light. It told the WSJ the phase out of nuclear energy in Switzerland "will have harsh consequences for economic growth and job creation."

South Korea and U.S. at odds over spent fuel

The revision of a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement between South Korea and the U.S. is taking place during an uncertain transition to the North. South Korea wants to get U.S. agreement to support its efforts to develop a spent fuel reprocessing center to provide fuel for its growing fleet of 21 nuclear reactors.

The U.S. sees the request as a red flag for North Korea. That country might regard the new technology as 'dual use' capable of manufacturing weapons grade materials as a deterrent to the threat of invasion by the North's massive army.

The new head of what passes for a government in North Korea is said to be the 20 something son of the late dictator Kim Jong II. Anyone who thinks the kid is a real political leader, and not a "face" for the North Korean military, should line up to buy a bridge in Brooklyn.

For its part, the U.S. is nervous that the North Korean military, which is likely to be inwardly focused these days in terms of who is in charge, may not take kindly to a "provocation" from its neighbor to the south. Bear in mind the North Koreans have their own nuclear weapons capability having conducted at least one underground test.

South Korea has also become an exporter of nuclear reactors selling four of them to the United Arab Emirates in a $30 billion deal. It may be looking at the development of a spent fuel reprocessing center, and MOX fuel fabrication center, as an additional product line to meet needs for nuclear fuel domestically and elsewhere.

So when South Korea talks about the new agreement being an "important test" of relations with the U.S., the translation from diplomatic speak might be something different. South Korea has no geologic repository for a once through fuel cycle and there is value in reprocessing the fuel.

While South Korea lives under the U.S. military's protective umbrella, it doesn't see it as a reason for giving ground on the spent fuel issue. Nonproliferation experts in the U.S. worry that one day a future South Korean government might take the next step and develop its own nuclear weapons program. For now the diplomats will continue to talk with a wary eye on the North.

Bids and finances move up and down

The Czech Republic, which recently released bid documents for up to five new nuclear reactors worth an estimated $28 billion, is looking at providing the equivalent of loan guarantees to investors. The government may also seek to set guaranteed rates for the reactors over a period of years once they enter revenue service.

S&P Credit Rating System ~ Chart: S&P

South Africa is getting ready to let bid documents out for six-to-nine new nuclear reactors. A bid process for up to 12 reactor was cancelled in 2007 because neither the government nor Eskom, the state-owned utility, had the money to pay for them.

It's not clear what's changed in South Africa which may mean it expects bidders to self-finance turn-key plants with guaranteed rates for the first 15-20 years and sale of the plants in their cash cow phase to investors after that point. Bidders include the usual suspects plus China's Guangdong Nuclear Power Group.

Areva, which is a bidder for the Czech project, and an expected bidder for the South African tender, will have a more difficult time attracting capital for these kinds of projects. Standard & Poors cut the firm's financial rating to BBB-. This is the last rung on the "investment grade" ladder.

It said it expects Areva's credit standing and cash flow to remain weak in 2012 with substantial recovery no earlier than 2014. For its part Areva slashed costs and capital investments and will sell over {e}1.2 billion in assets by the end of 2013

Russia's Atomic Energy Power Corp.. got a boost from Standard & Poors which raised the credit rating for AtomEnergoProm to BBB. The occasion is that the normally secretive state-owned firm allowed its books to be audited using international financial reporting standards. S&P went on to say it expects the Russian nuclear company can depend on the deep pockets of the Kremlin for domestic projects. The export arm was not rated by S&P.

# # #

Details emerge about failures at Fukushima

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:46:00 +0000

Interim Fukushima report lists lapses

27 Dec 2011 (NucNet): Japan’s response to the crisis at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant was flawed by poor communication and delays in releasing data on dangerous radiation leaks at the facility, a government-appointed investigative committee has found.

A 507-page interim report released 12/26/11 attaches blame for the March 2011 nuclear accident and its consequences to Japan’s central government and administration, as well as the utility that operates the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco).

(Note to readers: See link at end to 22-page executive summary in English. Additional media coverage at links below.)

Additional Coverage at:

Report highlights

The report says poor planning worsened the disaster response, noting that authorities had underestimated tsunami risks that followed the 9.0-magnitude earthquake.

The 15-meter-high tsunami that struck the plant was twice as high as the highest wave predicted by officials. The erroneous assumption that the plant’s cooling system continued to function after the tsunami struck worsened the disaster, the report says.

The report, whose final version is due to be completed next year, also found that plant workers had no clear instructions on how to respond to such a disaster, causing miscommunications, especially when the tsunami destroyed backup generators.

Workers failed to immediately look for alternative sources of water to cool the overheating reactors because they assumed the system was working, even though warning signs told them otherwise.

The report highlights a number of specific inefficiencies. It says unit 1 at Fukushima-Daiichi lost its all power supplies shortly after the tsunami and when its isolation condenser system (IC) failed “appropriate corrective action” was not taken nor instructions given.

Emergency response headquarters and Tepco head office in Tokyo knew about the IC failure, but maintained their view that the system was operating normally.

“These incidents in sequence indicate that not only the shift operators, but also the emergency response headquarters and Tepco head office did not fully understand the function of IC operation”.

The report says some decisions were made only among shift operators and a limited number of staff at emergency response headquarters. They did not ask for instructions from managers and reports from emergency response headquarters to plant managers were delayed. This was a direct cause of the delay of alternative water injection at unit 3.

The report also highlights failures in establishing and operating an emergency response center. Japanese law says that once a nuclear accident occurs, a local nuclear emergency response centre should be set up close to the accident site.

The center for Fukushima-Daiichi was about five km from the plant, but did not function as intended. It was evacuated for a number of reasons including loss of telecommunications, loss of power, shortages of food, water and fuel; and elevated radiation levels in the building which was not equipped with air cleaning filters.

In other words, says the report, the emergency center lost its functions because there was no allowance for a nuclear accident happening at the same time as an earthquake, and the building itself was not designed to withstand elevated radiation levels, despite being intended for use in nuclear emergencies.

Monitoring radiation levels in the environment should have been indispensable for preventing radiation exposure and planning evacuations, but the monitoring system was not sufficient because “many monitoring posts” were washed away by the tsunami or became inoperative because of power cuts.

The interim report confirms that of the six reactor units at Fukushima-Daiichi, units 1 to 3 were in operation when the earthquake struck and units 4 to 6 were in “maintenance mode”.

It says units 1 to 3 “appeared to have automatically scrammed”, but external power supplies and almost all in-house AC power supplies were lost because of the earthquake and tsunami.

Reactors and spent fuel pools lost their cooling capabilities and hydrogen explosions occurred at units 1, 3 and 4. The explosions “were presumably caused” by hydrogen released from possible core damage The unit 2 reactor core also seems to have been damaged, although the investigation is still incomplete, the report says.

The investigation committee also blames authorities for their “inappropriate preparation” of nuclear disaster recovery. In particular, it says the prefectural and national governments should “proactively involve themselves” with local governments of cities, towns, and villages for prevention and evacuation planning.

The English language executive summary of the report is online:

http://icanps.go.jp/eng/111226ExecutiveSummary.pdf

# # #

Gnomes from the Northern Kingdom defend Jaczko

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:27:00 +0000

Peter Bradford and Mark Cooper have words for the other four NRC commissioners. They're wrong.

Peter Bradford
former NRC Commissioner

The New York Times reports that two leading anti-nuclear activists based in Vermont have spoken up in defense of Gregory Jaczko, the controversial chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Peter Bradford, a former NRC Commissioner himself, and Mark Cooper, an energy analyst, answered questions from reporters during a conference call Dec 28 in which they said there is no such thing as a nuclear renaissance.

In the course of the dialog, they offer the view that Gregory Jaczko is the victim of a conspiracy by the "nuclear party" which they describe as a body of pro-nuclear interests that transcend political and party differences.

To back it up they claim that what the other four commissioners were really up to in writing a letter to the White House about Jacko's reported abrasive management style is to show him the door.

That's the first of two things they go wrong. The other is that the outlook for nuclear energy is bleak.

Why there is no conspiracy

My view is that the reason the letter was written is that the four commissioners couldn't agree on anything else. When asked during a hearing of the House Oversight Committee whether Jaczko should resign, two said yes (Svinicki, Ostendorf), the other two said no (Magwood, Apostolakis). Note that all four are united in the letter to White House Chief of Staff William Daley about the issue of a "chilled environment," per se, but that is after they failed to agree on whether Jaczko should resign as chairman.

The truth at the heart of the personality dispute is found in a comment by Apostolakis who said he was OK with Jaczko staying on the job as long as he could learn to control his temper. The issue of what authority the chairman really has will have to be hashed out in quieter times. Clearly, this is not a situation like the famous gunpowder plot of Guy Fawkes against the British Parliament.

Guy Fawkes,
famous conspirator

What we have here is a failure to communicate. There are a couple of intractable disagreements and they've prevented all four commissioners from presenting a united front to the Chairman's use of emergency authority during the Fukushima crisis.

The fact that the other four commissioners couldn't agree on whether Jacko should stay or go because he has a hot temper sounds almost comical, more like an echo of a Bob's Big Boy commercial.

This isn't a debate about keeping the trademark for a chain of sit down fast food joints. It's a serious issue of how a top federal official conducts himself in office.

For Bradford and Cooper to call it a "conspiracy" misses the point. Dealing with inexcusable behavior in a professional setting is something that should have been handled with kid gloves with behind closed doors and that would have been a conspiracy. If there is blame to be assigned to Jaczko for objectionable outbursts,there is also a portion of blame to be assigned to the other four commissioners for not dealing with the issue as a united group.

Worse, the disagreement, e.g., should he stay or should he go, was most likely seen as a sign of weakness by the politically astute Jaczko who, having worked the as a staff aide in both the House and Senate, apparently has more focus on the implications such nuances than technocrats.

It follows that by the time the personality conflicts inside the NRC reached a flash point, that inability to agree on how to reign in the rambunctious chairman was turned into an consensus to kick the problem upstairs the the White House.

That, in my view, was a mistake since it likely served only to annoy a President, and his Chief of Staff who have much bigger fish to fry. Jaczko's apology was not really to the other commissioners. It was to the president for creating a needless distraction and for offering the Republican House yet another dartboard with his likeness pasted in the bulls eye.

In summary, there is no conspiracy to get rid of Jaczko because the alleged conspirators didn't have their act together as a group. They punted hoping for success with the DC equivalent of a 46 yard field goal. The kick went wide of the mark blown off course by ill-favored political winds.

Even Rep. John Shimkus, (R-IL), who explicitly said he wanted Jaczko fired, also said that the whole ruckus didn't amount to much since there were no legal grounds to force Jacko out of the job.

Why the "bleak" assessment is wrong

Mark Cooper,
Energy Analyst

Bradford and Cooper say in their comments to the New York Times the outlook for the nuclear renaissance is "bleak."

As long as critics of nuclear energy like Bradford and Cooper do not look beyond the U.S. coastline, their views may prevail, but globally they are off the mark.

In Asia China, India, and Vietnam are aggressively developing nuclear energy.

In Europe the Czech Republic has released a tender for up to five reactors $28 billion. The UK has started down a road to build 17 GWE of new nuclear powered generating capacity. That new build is worth approximately $68 billion.

In the Middle East the UAE is building four new nuclear reactors supplied by South Korea in a project worth $30 billion.

The really big news is that in 2012 Saudi Arabia will release a tender for up to 16 new reactors expected to be worth $112 billion.

Also, Bradford and Cooper seem to have missed the news that TVA completed Browns Ferry in 2007, will complete Watts Bar in 2013, and has let over a $1 billion in engineering and construction contracts to finish Bellefonte by 2020.

It seems that globally there is a reality check on their "bleak" outlook for the industry. It doesn't take much energy analysis to add up these numbers.

Consider the source

Both Bradford and Cooper have long standing views that the use of nuclear energy is not a sound policy for the U.S. Coincidentally, both men are listed as adjunct faculty of the Institute for Energy & Environment of the Vermont Law School. Both men are supporters of Vermont Governor Peter Schumlin's campaign to close the Vermont Yankee reactor.

Bradford lists in his online bio that he is vice-chair of the board of directors of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group which frequently takes anti-nuclear positions.

Cooper lists a long history of engagements in rate hearings and related energy economics issues. He has frequently testified on behalf of anti-nuclear contentions against the construction of new nuclear reactors.

Both men have sprung to Jaczko's defense clearly indicating that his future tenure at the NRC is aligned with their interests.

Consider the environment

What's interesting is their use of the term "bleak." Could it be something about Vermont?

NEK in winter

The Northeast Kingdom of Vermont is a ruggedly rural and heavily forested area prized by outdoor enthusiasts in all seasons. It is also thought to be inhabited by gnomes, said to be a clannish people.

In 16th century renaissance Europe they identified with interests who opposed advances in the arts, sciences, and what we now call the humanities. Perhaps the term 'gnomes' is a metaphor for a state of mind.

Getting back to Vermont, the state that is, the winter in the Kingdom can be a bleak landscape and the climate is a challenge to commerce. Perhaps Bradford and Cooper had that environment on their minds when they spoke with the newspaper. Perhaps that's what makes it hospitable to gnomes. The climate keeps people out.

Well, that won't too much longer if the atmosphere keeps heating up because we as a species are building lots of natural gas plants, which still spew CO2, instead of nuclear reactors which produce none.

In any case, a bias towards seeing conspiracies where none exist, and a provincial perspective that stops at the water's edge when it comes to the fortunes of a greenhouse gas emission free global industry, do not serve the nation or the planet well.

# # #

Predictions, speculations, and raw random ideas for 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:38:00 +0000

Another fearless look ahead

Each year this blog posts its fearless outlook for the coming year. For 2012 I will add the caveat that while no one can predict the future, there are plenty of pointers to how things might work themselves out over time. That's what this blog is reporting here.

Japan

A teeth rattling report issued Dec 26 indicates the government's nuclear safety agency was so unprepared for a major nuclear event, that on the basis of news media reports alone, it seems there are potential grounds for charges of criminal negligence.

The Japanese government will consider criminal prosecution of TEPCO and government employees for lapses of judgment during the early days of the Fukushima crisis and for outright willful disregard of repeated warnings about tsunami threats.

While no deaths are attributable to radiation exposure, more than 80,000 people were evacuated from a 20 km circle around the reactors and may not be able to return to their homes and businesses for months if ever. In the nuclear energy world, a "near miss" is considered to be as serious as a fatality itself.

Japan's nuclear utilities will struggle to restart 48 reactors which are now shut down. The national government may have to intervene with provincial officials who want political air cover for the decision to return the units to revenue service. The Prime Minister Noda may dangle the prospect of funding high-value infrastructure projects in return for locals dropping opposition to the safe restart of the reactors.

Japan is less than 50% self-sufficient on food so it must pay for imports with exports of high value durable goods and heavy industrial products. The factory lights can only be kept on in a financially sustainable future if the electricity comes from the currently shuttered nuclear reactors. Japan cannot afford a fossil fuel future.

Areva

The French state-owned, vertically integrated, global nuclear giant will struggle to regain its financial footing. New CEO Luc Oursel has inherited a firm that is over-committed and under-capitalized hence his decision to put some projects on hold. Yet, he also faces competitive pressures that may force the firm to seek capital at market rates to insure market share in new reactors and uranium enrichment services.

Areva CEO Luc Oursel

The firm has to balance the need for cash among current and new projects. It is facing continuing challenges to complete two reactors under construction – one in Finland and the other in France – that are over budget and behind schedule.

Oursel cannot count on much help from French President Sarkozy who is facing an uphill battle against an anti-nuclear coalition of Socialists and the Greens. To avoid making the May 2012 election a referendum on nuclear power, Sarkozy is likely to emphasize jobs and the economy in his campaign messages.

In the U.S. Areva must balance the need to conserve capital relative to start of the construction phase of the $3 billion Eagle Rock Enrichment Plant against competitive pressures from Urenco's operating plant in New Mexcio and a new deal between USEC and the Russians for uranium enrichment that runs to 2022.

Waiting too long could result on losing significant market share. Under the original construction schedule, the plant would have broken ground by now with a start date of 2014 and then reaping a 25% share of U.S. enrichment needs. A two year delay by Areva could encourage Urenco to proceed with NRC licensed plans to double the capacity of the its U.S. operation sooner than 2018.

US CEO Jacques Besnainou told nuclear bloggers in December the firm has a $2 billion loan guarantee for the plant from the U.S Department of Energy. He noted that the assurance investors for the additional $1 billion want is that once Areva starts construction it will finish the job.

While Besnainou said in the blogger conference call that he expected capital could be found by late 2013 or 2014, the firm later clarified that it would start construction as soon as capital is obtained for the project.

United States

Vogtle construction site

Two U.S. nuclear utilities will get combined construction and operating licenses from the NRC for reactor projects in Georgia and South Carolina. Construction of the twin 1,100 MW Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at each of these sites – Southern's Vogtle and Scana's V.C. Summer – will be watched closely by public utility commissions in both states.

Under the doctrine of "construction while in progress" or CWIP, the utilities can apply for rate increases to cover the costs of the reactors while they are being built. The savings of not having to borrow the money at commercial rates will be in the range of $ billions.

Any cost overruns will likely produce contentious rate proceedings as publically funded consumer advocates and anti-nuclear groups will see to stop any project that can't stay on schedule or within budget.

The rest of the nuclear industry will be watching closely as well since the AP1000, which was approved this month by the NRC, is slated for two other sites in Florida and one more in South Carolina. Progress Energy plans to build two on Florida's west coast and FPL has plans for two at a site near Miami. Duke will have to contend with rate commissions in North and South Carolina for its William States Lee III plant in South Carolina.

Duke's merger with Progress will be challenged by the potential cost of repairing the containment structure of the utility's Crystal River nuclear plant in Florida. A botched job of do-it-yourself cutting into the containment building for a steam generator replacement will require repairs that could cost as much as $2.5 billion. Some of the repair costs may be covered by insurance, and some of the power replacement costs may be covered by rate decisions. There will be plenty of costs left over to worry Duke's stockholders.

India

Planned nuclear reactors for India
Map: World Nuclear News

The Indian government will move to load fuel in two Russian built 1,000 MW VVER reactors at Kundankulam despite vigorous local protests fueled in part by organizers from Greenpace. The government will start work on twin 1,600 MW Areva EPRs at Jaitapur.

The reason is the Indian government knows it cannot grow its economy on coal and must have imported nuclear reactors as part of its energy mix.

The ambitious plan to build 20 GWe of new nuclear generating capacity will have to be scaled back unless the government can find a political solution to revise its current supplier liability law.

U.S. firms are locked out of the Indian market due to the current provisions of the law. Even the Russians and French governments, which self-insure, have complained about the statute.

India may also seek to import nuclear reactor technology from Japan and ramp up construction of its 700 MW heavy water reactor design adapted from CANDU technology.

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) will get into the international market for nuclear reactor turbines. It has an agreement with Alstom thus putting it in competition with Siemens. India's lower labor costs will be a competitive advantage. The turbines will also be used for India's domestic power stations.

Also, the firm has an agreeemnt with GE-Hitachi manufacture large components of nuclear reactors. A factory is planned near the site of a prosposed new nuclear power station. The factory, if built, will speed up access to the very large components of a reactor pressure vessel and lower reliance on Japan for them.

China

China will re-start official approval of new nuclear reactor projects following completion of revised nuclear safety regulations and staffing up of an independent nuclear regulatory agency. China will shift its technology focus from a domestic GEN II design to GEN III+ technology transferred as a result of its deal with Westinghouse. That firm is building four AP1000 reactors in China.

Chinese reactor containment under construction

China may eventually become an exporter of nuclear technology though competition for market share will be tough especially against aggressive market push by Russia, France, and Japan.

China will continue to place multiple bets on fast reactor R&D projects with the idea that at least one or two of them will pay off in the long run. China knows that it cannot be the world's leading importer of uranium forever.

Fast breeders and reprocessing of spent fuel will make the use of nuclear energy in that country sustainable for a much longer period of time. However, a roadmap of China's R&D path shows that plutonium fueled fast breeders don't become commercially viable for another 20 years.

Russia

Russia will compete hard for the $28 billion, five reactor, Temelin project which was advertised for bid last month. Responses are due in July with a contract award in 2013. It is Europe's biggest new nuclear reactor project. The other two bidders are Areva and Westinghouse. Once they are built the plants, which will be operated by Czech utility CEZ, will likely have Germany as one of their largest customers.

The Russians are building the first two of eight planned nuclear reactors in Vietnam, but Japan has the contracts for the next two. A tender expected in 2013 for up to 16 new nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia has all nuclear vendors in a frenzy to get ready to submit bids.

U.K

The British government will surprise Europe by steadfastly moving ahead with support for construction of 17-19 GWe of new nuclear powered generating capacity by 2025.

EDF will commit to building two Areva EPRs at Hinkley Point. RWE and E.on, two German utilities, will likely find investment capital to build Westinghouse AP1000s at Wylfa. One source of capital will be support from the German government with export credits.

Like Japan, German political leaders see no conflict between shutting down nuclear reactors at home while exporting them to other nations.

The U.K. government will complete its loan to Forgemasters building a western challenge to Japan Steel Works for large components of reactor pressure vessels.

The U.K's nuclear future will be limited by the ability of its universities and trade schools to produce the engineers and skilled workers needed to build the reactors. Also, a committee of Parliament has been critical of the government's shorting of funds for advanced nuclear R&D which it says will put the nation at a disadvantage in future years.

There's a lot more out there. What's your prediction?

# # #

84th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:41:00 +0000

Four Calling Birds ~ Photo Credit: J Matlock

The 84th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up Atomic Power Review

This post is the collective voice of blogs with legendary names which emerge each week to tell the story of nuclear energy.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

Past editions have been hosted at Next Big Future. Yes Vermont Yankee, NuclearGreen, NEI Nuclear Notes, Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, and CoolHandNuke, as well as several other popular nuclear energy blogs.

The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by the leading pro-nuclear bloggers in North America that we will speak with a collective voice on the issue of the value of nuclear energy. While we each have our own point of view, we agree that the promise of peaceful uses of the atom remains viable in our own time and for the future.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog, and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brian Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

A little night music for a carnival on Christmas day

# # #

Ghostlight - December 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:03:00 +0000

This blog will be dark for the Christmas holiday

As 2011 comes to an end in what is for now called the "post-Fukushima era," I would like to thank my readers for their kind attention and continued support of this blog.

The month of December was notable for two news items that resulted in multiple blog posts. The first was the unfolding controversy at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the management of the agency by its Chairman Gregory Jaczko. The second was the decision by Areva's home office in Paris, France, to suspend the construction stage of the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Idaho.

The combination of these two events back-to-back produced a new record for this blog on December 12, 2011 with 2,608 page views.

This blog is headed for a new record today, December 23, 2011 due to coverage of the AP1000, Areva, and Jaczko. I'll update this blog post tomorrow with the final count. Update: The final count was 1,912 unique visitors and 3,305 page views, a new one-day record.

Update 01/02/12: Google recorded 34,333 page views for the month of December.

Surely something else happened?

Here are some recent top blog posts that attracted reader attention were, in addition to those about Jaczko's erratic engagement with his colleagues at the NRC, and about Areva . . .

10/14/11 - All is not quiet on the nuclear front - a response to an anti-nuclear OP ED published in the New York Times by a specialist in nuclear nonproliferation.

08/29/11 - Debunking Rep. Ed Markey on Hurricande Irene - in collaboration with the American Nuclear Society, I ran a "hurricane watch" as the storm moved up the east coast. My friend and colleague John Bickel, Ph.D., provided expert technical comments pointing out that the congressman's breathless press release missed the safety significance of just about everything.

11/17/11 - French nuclear fleet could be sunk by socialists - in the elections next May France, which gets about three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear power, may follow Germany into an uncertain future if the Socialists win and turn out the lights.

11/13/09 - Green groups slime Duke on MOX fuel - some stories have staying power and this one is still going strong two years after it was published. Extraordinary claims require similar levels of evidence. Green groups had none that met that test which is why this blog post carries such a powerful message.

09/18/11 - Siemens exits the nuclear industry - Germany's high-tech industrial giant cut its nuclear energy ties to Areva and to Rosatom saying it would concentrate on solar and wind technologies.

11/22/11 - Concrete cracks up costs of restarts at two reactors - The Romans first used concrete 2,000 years ago. In 2011 Progress Energy's Crystal River site and First Energy's Davis-Besse plant attracted plenty of attention over hard rock news. It seems we're still learning about this material.

11/21/11 - NASA Mars vehicle will use nuclear power source - Plutonium will power a space probe to Mars. The New York Times cited this blog post in its coverage of the space exploration project.

11/15/11 - The next generation of nuclear engineers will be raised on games - Interactive environments provide opportunities for hands-on instruction in mechanical, chemical, electrical, and nuclear engineering.

Music for the season

Christmas Food Court Flash Mob ~ On Nov.13 2010 unsuspecting shoppers got a big surprise while enjoying their lunch. Over 100 participants in this awesome Christmas Flash Mob. According to YouTYube this video has been viewed 34 million times.

Happy holidays everyone

# # #

NRC Approves Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor design

noreply@blogger.com (Dan Yurman) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:06:00 +0000

It opens the door to construction of four new reactors at two sites the U.S.

Concept drawing: AP1000

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to approve the design for the Westinghouse AP1000 1,100 MW nuclear reactor for use in the U.S. The action sets the stage for construction of two of these reactors at Southern's Vogtle site in George and two more at Scana's V.C. Summer station on South Carolina.

Applications for combined construction and operating licenses are pending before the NRC. Both utilities have expressed the hope the regulatory agency will issue them in the first quarter of 2012.

The NRC's approval is a global "gold standard" and may open markets for the reactor in other countries. Westinghouse is building four AP1000s in China and is in negotiations to build more of them there. The firm has executed technology transfer agreements with China which is planning to shift from its older GEN II domestic designs to GEN III through adaptation of the AP1000's passive safety features.

Earlier this month the U.K. Nuclear Safety Agency issued an interim approval of the reactor under its generic design assessment. Westinghouse has said it will complete the expensive process when a customer places an order for a unit in the U.K. Multiple sites have been approved by the government for construction of new reactors and several of of them led by French, German, and Spanish utilities are likely to select the AP1000.

Turn around for Jackzo

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko

Nuclear industry observers noted that NRC Chair Gregory Jaczko said in the agency's prepared statement that he is satisfied the design is safe. It represents a change from his views last May.

He issued an unprecedented statement to the news media criticizing Westinghouse alleging it was dragging its feet in responding to agency questions.

In October he said that he was "sympathetic" to the views of a coalition of anti-nuclear groups who want the agency to stop all reactor licensing including renewals until it has completely updated its regulations with Fukushima related safety measures. That process will take years.

Aris Candris, Westinghouse CEO, told the Associated Press that the long road to today's decision has sometimes been "arduous."

However, he also told the wire service that it opens the door to building reactors in the U.S., the first new starts in three decades, and these projects will produce thousands of jobs.

Jaczko wrote in his vote in favor of certification . . .

“The design provides enhanced safety margins through use of simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative safety and security functions, and also has been assessed to ensure it could withstand damage from an aircraft impact without significant release of radioactive materials.”

The AP1000 is a 1,100 megawatt electric pressurized-water reactor that includes passive safety features that would cool down the reactor after an accident without the need for human intervention.

The NRC certification means that when an applicant references the AP1000 in a license application there is no need to submit safety information on it. NRC's review of the license focuses on safety issues specific to the plant.

Build out in the U.S.

The four AP1000s under construction in China will be finished and in revenue service in another two-to-three years.

The reactors planned by Southern and Scana are expected to begin generating electricity starting in 2016-2018.

Following them are proposals by Duke for two AP1000s in South Carolina and two more by Progress on Florida's west coast and yet two more by FPL near Miami.

On the Web

US NRC - Design certification for AP1000

Westinghouse - Multimedia page on AP1000

# # #