by Nicholas Thompson
Disclaimer: Any views here are purely my own. This article was originally posted on the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

“A Tale of Two Cities” begins with the famous phrase, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,” and I think in many ways, that truly captures the current state of nuclear energy.

It was the best of times:
With 60 reactors under construction in 15 different countries, it’s hard to argue that nuclear isn’t undergoing a renaissance, although it’s not the renaissance many had predicted. Most of these reactors are being built in growing, energy hungry countries like China and India. Additionally, four reactors are under construction in the US, and Watts Bar 2 is now finished, has gone critical, and is producing electricity.

It was the worst of times:
In the US and Germany, nuclear reactors are being shut down. While in Germany this is primarily occurring due to politics, in the US, reactors are shutting down primarily due to economics. Kewaunee shut down in 2013, Vermont Yankee in 2014, and now Fort Calhoun will be closing this year, FitzPatrick and Clinton are scheduled to shut down in 2017, Quad Cities in 2018, with Pilgrim and Oyster Creek in 2019. Even closures of San Onofre and Crystal River 3 were related to economics, in that it would take too much money to fix the plants. There are other facilities which are also at risk of closure, including Ginna and Nine Mile Point Unit 1. Additionally, Diablo Canyon, the last nuclear energy facility in operation in California, has decided it will not seek a relicense for its two units, meaning they will close in 2024 and 2025.

It was the age of wisdom:
Given all that, it does seem the federal government and  certain states are starting to wake up to the realities of the impacts of closing nuclear facilities. The Department of Energy recently held a large Summit on Improving the Economics of America’s Nuclear Power Plants, where Senators, Representatives, industry leaders, regulators, scientists, advocates, and even the Secretary of the Department of Energy spoke about the value and importance of nuclear, and what policies could be enacted to keep these facilities running. Additionally, N.Y. state has proposed a plan to help struggling nuclear facilities by providing them zero emissions credits, which could be sold on a market.

It was the age of foolishness:
It’s quite clear that man made climate change is a major problem, and the vast majority of ANS members agree. ANS has collaborated with 39 other nuclear societies around the world and made a clear statement, “Nuclear energy is a part of the solution for fighting climate change.” And yet, nuclear facilities, which provide 60% of the low carbon electricity in the US, are still being shut down, primarily because of the cheap price of fossil fuels. Deciding to close these critical pieces of infrastructure at a time they are needed the most is foolish, as making permanent decisions based on short term economic situations usually are. But it is hard to place all the blame on the company making the decision – companies need to make money, and it’s hard to justify keeping a plant open when it is losing money.
​
That’s why we as Young Members must start advocating for solutions. ANS’ Special Committee on Nuclear in the States recently published a Toolkit of these solutions, which is available here. If we do not act, more nuclear facilities will close.

We discussed before how the EPA's Clean Power Plan ignores nuclear and there's still time to submit your public comments by December 1st. It is important that the EPA here's from you that they should:

1. Treat existing plants equally by including 100% of their current output in the baseline CO2 calculation.
2. Allow states with new plants under construction to count their clean energy generation toward their EPA emissions target.

Submit comments to the EPA here!

By Wes Deason

Current and former executives from the nuclear security industry shared insights on the evolving role of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in the nonproliferation and global security community. The NNSS, once home to the Nevada Test Site where hundreds of above and below ground nuclear weapons tests were once conducted, now carries a much different role.

Focus by the NNSS has pivoted to assisting in the enforcement of the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. However, some sub-critical weapons tests, physics tests where no self-sustaining fission chain reaction is created, continue to be held in accordance with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. These evolving changes were discussed at the 2014 American Nuclear Society (ANS) Annual Meeting in Reno, Nevada.

Dr. Raymond Juzaitis, President of National Security Technologies LLC, emphasized the increasingly complex nuclear security environment exposed by the rising popularity of nuclear power production worldwide. To adapt to this complex environment, the NNSS currently conducts research and development activities in the fields of nuclear materials security, nuclear materials detection, pre-detonation nuclear forensics, nuclear treaty monitoring and verification, and post-detonation nuclear forensics.

The discussion also focused on the interactions with the state of Nevada which include environmental monitoring and restoration work. Additionally, collaborations currently are being pursued with the University of Nevada at Las Vegas and Reno.

By Lenka Kollar

While many in the United States might spend some time thinking of the many options for recycling household goods or food waste, few focus on the many reusable options that are available for used nuclear fuel. 

The concerns with recycling used fuel include nonproliferation issues, cost, waste management requirements, and time factors related to radioactive decay, as expressed by Emory Collins from Oak Ridge National Laboratory at a gathering of the American Nuclear Society. However, Collins says that many of these issues can be addressed. “Engineered safeguards and safeguards-by-design can be used to provide adequate proliferation resistance and ensure nonproliferation security,” said Collins. “The cost to implement fuel recycle will be an insignificant change to the cost of nuclear electricity.” 

Currently in the United States, nuclear fuel assemblies are used in a commercial reactor for about three years until they are removed and safely stored. The current plan in the U.S. is to dispose of this used fuel in a permanent geological repository. However, up to 95% of the used fuel can be recycled and used again as fuel in a reactor. Other countries, such as France, are actively recycling their fuel to “close” the nuclear fuel cycle. 

Sven Bader of AREVA Federal Services made the case that uranium is a valuable nuclear material and that “its recovery and recycling saves natural resources.” AREVA is a French-based company that manages the recycling of used fuel in France and also provides the service for other European countries. While the technology is robust, Bader admits that without building new reactors in the US, there is a lack of justification for reprocessing because the economics do not add up.

By Lenka Kollar

The Focus on Communications Workshop held on June 19 at the 2014 American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting posed the question: “What will it take to move nuclear energy forward?” Mimi Limbach of the Potomac Communications Group covered some very interesting poll data and facilitated a conversation on how to move nuclear energy forward through effective communication.

Read more on the ANS Nuclear Cafe...

By Wes Deason

A panel of nuclear safety experts convened to discuss the how the safety of U.S. nuclear plants have been addressed following a detailed analysis of the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan. The panel focused mainly on changing regulations from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), new performance standards from several professional engineering societies, and improvements in technology related to mitigating the effects of a Fukushima-type accident – also known as a station blackout (SBO).

William Reckley, a member of the NRC’s Risk Management Task Force, explained that the new NRC regulations would require all plants to prepare mitigation strategies which would be implemented in the event of a SBO. These Station Blackout Mitigation Strategies (SBOMS) are evaluated using a three phase approach, with an end goal for maintaining core cooling and containment and spent fuel pool cooling for an indefinite amount of time. The three phases, which occur in increasing time periods after reactor shutdown are:

• An Initial phase which must be survived with installed equipment.
• A Transition phase which must by survived with portable, onsite equipment.
• A Final phase which must be survived with resources obtained from offsite.

The panel, which convened at the 2014 American Nuclear Society (ANS) Annual Meeting, also featured representatives from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The professional society representatives discussed several standards, which would supplement regulations developed by the NRC. Concerns were expressed over the consideration of “beyond design basis accidents” (accidents of either type or magnitude considered to be out of the realm of possibility for a nuclear plant) in the present standards.

The technological improvements presented at the panel, which help mitigate issues observed at the Fukushima Daiichi accident, were related to the over-pressure and over-temperature of the core containment and subsequent leakage of gasses. One of the places of concern for containment are the penetrations which allow electronics cables to carry information over the containment boundary. The development of “glass-to-metal seals” greatly increase the pressure and temperatures that can be handled by these containment penetration points. Additionally, the development of better hydrogen detectors aid in the mitigation of hydrogen buildup external to containment and the prevention of an associated hydrogen explosion.

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.