By Wes Deason

Cyber security experts from the United States nuclear power industry discussed efforts taken to protect the nation’s nuclear plant fleet from cyber-attacks. This topic, recently having been brought into discussion following the famed Stuxnet computer worm attacks on Iran’s enrichment facilities, is one of upmost concern for nuclear plant operators.

Nuclear plant operators are required through federal nuclear regulations to build into their facilities safeguards against possible cyber-attacks, but plants also self-regulate and share working procedures through the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). Gary Garret of INPO, a member of the four person panel discussion at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) Annual Meeting last week, shared that his organization evaluates all U.S. nuclear plants to insure that they are properly guarded against attacks.

The panel assured attendees that the equipment used to control operation of nuclear reactor systems is 100% electrically isolated from external access, a security paradigm called a ‘data diode’. Any changes to the system would need to be approved through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and both software and hardware components of the system would be evaluated to insure proper operation upon delivery from vendors. On top of these steps, all security and operational personnel are trained to recognize malicious behaviors and report suspicious activities.

When asked about attacks similar to the spread of the Stuxnet computer worm, panelists said that it was mainly due to social engineering that the attack took place. However, current security measures rely primarily on judicious human performance and training to prevent a similar attack from occurring in the United States. The establishment of this safety culture, key to preventing cyber-attacks from occurring on critical plant systems, was also emphasized as being the most the biggest challenge for nuclear plants to properly implement.

By Lenka Kollar

University of Tennessee nuclear engineering graduate student Alicia Swift had a chance to jump into international nuclear issues from the beginning of her career. As a part of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Graduate Fellowship Program (NGFP), she spent a year at the NNSA headquarters forming crucial components to their current research and future careers at the DOE national laboratories. 

At the 2014 American Nuclear Society (ANS) Annual Meeting, Swift elaborated on shared the global impact of her work while at the NNSA. In particular, Swift worked on the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), where she was responsible for the physical protection of nuclear materials in Central America. Her team conducted training on radiological safety and security and installed physical protection measures in places like Mexico City and Barbados. Swift now conducts her graduate research as Los Alamos National Laboratory in neutron imaging. 

The NNSA Graduate Fellowship provides graduate students and recent graduates an opportunity to work on national security projects sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The fellowship is a one-year program catered to students interested in nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. The fellowship attracts students from technical backgrounds and policy backgrounds and can be a unique learning experience for both.

By Wes Deason

Three years after the tsunami that caused the meltdown at Fukushima Daichii, Japanese academics shared concern over the continued use of “absolute safety” measures in the country. The methods used by the Japanese Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) rely upon the concept, where historical earthquake data is used to establish a standard which all nuclear plants are required to meet. However, these methods are considered to be excessively conservative, and may put several nuclear plants at risk of shutting down if they prevail.

Professor Koji Okumura of Hiroshima University explained that the NRA seismic activity standards do not allow for the use of probabilistic analysis methods, even following the accident at Fukushima Daichii. This differs from the United States, where probabilistic analysis methods have been used by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for characterizing seismic behavior since 1997.

The benefit of probabilistic analysis methods is that they allow for a technical judgment to be made on the effect of an uncommon hypothetical situation, such as an earthquake, on nuclear plant operation. Characterization of these uncertainties allow for regulators and plant operators to distinguish between real plant safety issues and issues which just appear to be unsafe. They may also allow for more economic operation of plants, as safety features can be applied where they are needed most.

Much of the panel discussion, which took place at the 2014 American Nuclear Society (ANS) Annual Meeting, focused on the technical aspects of characterizing the uncertainty of seismic behavior in regions which lack detectable faults, also called diffuse or background seismicity regions. Experts from the NRC encouraged Japanese regulators to embrace probabilistic analysis methods in order to prevent getting blindsided by more likely but smaller scale incidents that may occur.

They also recommended Japanese regulators to pursue establishing a committee of global experts. These experts could then assist in interpreting seismic analysis results and their effect on the design and operation of nuclear plants. This committee would follow the example of the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee, established by the NRC in the 1980’s.

By Lenka Kollar

Engaging the public in an open dialogue can be one of the most essential elements in explaining complex scientific topics, such as nuclear science. Community and policymaker support are critical for the ongoing successful operations of nuclear plants and other nuclear facilities. Engineers and scientists are in a unique position to be credible leaders and effectively communicate about nuclear energy and technology. 

Organizations, such as the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), communicate with their surrounding communities in a proactive way rather than a reactive way responding only in emergency scenarios. Nicole Stricker, nuclear communications lead at INL, focuses on giving employees tools based on factual information that they can engage the public with. Scientists and engineers are trained to speak to the public to explain research and operations activities to the local community. 

Harsh Desai, ANS Congressional Fellow, noted that, “less than 2% of science is utilized in making a policy, so we need to make sure that that 2% is communicated correctly.” Policymakers have unlimited access to information and scientists and engineers should be actively reaching out to legislators with factual information on nuclear energy and other nuclear technologies. Desai encouraged scientists and engineers to form relationships with their Congressional representative, as well as their staff in order to be a credible source of information. 

The “Focus on Communications” panel was convened at the 2014 American Nuclear Society (ANS) Annual Meeting in Reno, NV.

By Lenka Kollar

There's been a lot of debate on the new Clean Power Plan proposed by the EPA last week. The plan outlines carbon reduction goals for each state that would cut carbon pollution by 30% by 2030, as compared to 2005 levels. Each state will come up with a plan to cut carbon emissions using the following mix of steps:

The bad news is that the coal industry is going to take a hit (see map of affected power plants above) and this may cause a rise in electricity costs. The good news is that the EPA is recognizing more than just the popular renewables, wind and solar, as "alternative" low-carbon generation. The word "nuclear" is mentioned 76 times in the proposed rule, mostly when talking about the current energy sector, but also as a solution to cutting carbon emissions. These statements about how states should meet carbon reduction goals are getting us really excited:

As the Atomic Power Review says, we've seen a complete change in the prospect of nuclear energy in the United States with this proposed rule. Utilities have been threatening to close nuclear plants because of economics (low energy prices caused by low natural gas prices and subsidies for solar and wind) but the EPA is now encouraging sates to keep nuclear power plants open and even build new ones.

This is great and all, but what will the policies to discourage premature retirement and encourage new construction of nuclear power plants look like? Does this mean subsidies for nuclear energy or maybe a reduction in the red tape associated with regulation? We have the technology to build new nuclear power plants and to keep existing plants running, but how do we address the economic and political issues?

By the way, as with any government rule-making, you can voice your thoughts at a public hearing or comment on the proposal online.