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 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.

Watch this great TEDx talk about nuclear energy history and perception. Don Miley has worked at the Idaho National Laboratory for more than two decades. He gives tours of the Experimental Breeder Reactor I, the world's first electricity-producing nuclear power plant.

By Lenka Kollar

Last week I was thrilled to attend a lunch program with ambassadors from the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), hosted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The ambassadors present at the lunch and on the panel included:

• Dato Yusoff Abd Hamid, Ambassador of Brunei to the US 
  
• Seng Soukhathivong, Ambassador of Laos to the US 
  
• Awang Adek bin Hussin, Ambassador of Malaysia to the US 
  
• Kyaw Myo Htut, Ambassador of Myanmar to the US 
  
• Ashok Mirpuri, Ambassador of Singapore to the US
  
• Vijavat Isarabhakdi, Ambassador of Thailand to the US

With a combined GDP of more than $2.2 trillion and a population of 620 million people, the ten ASEAN member states represent a region of critical economic and geostrategic importance to the United States. ASEAN is the third-largest Asian trading partner of the United States, after China and Japan, and U.S. investment in the region is growing.

Ambassador Mirpuri of Singapore outlined that that main goals of ASEAN are to create a production base that is economically competitive, ensure equitable development for all member states, and to fully integrate with the global economy. The United States has been critical to the success of ASEAN over the past 50 years and will continue to be essential in the future.

The panelists were asked an important question by the moderator prompting them to discuss what factors will be important to ensure future economic growth in the region. The ambassadors stated that ASEAN is well-prepared for future growth, but no mention was made of meeting future energy needs. So, I prompted the question of how they plan to meet energy needs with growing economic development, increasing population, and a higher quality of life. The answers were vague but I was able to discuss this issue further with Ambassador Mirpuri after the session. He said that Singapore is very concerned with energy issues because they import ALL of their energy. He also said that current nuclear reactor technology is not suitable for their needs. However, Singapore was looking at the nuclear energy option before Fukushima.

The ASEAN Centre for Energy does have a civilian nuclear energy program in cooperation with China, Japan, and South Korea. Right now, Vietnam and the Philippines seem to be the most interested in nuclear energy development in the region. Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand were also interested in the past but plans were delayed after the Fukushima accident.

In my opinion, energy is one of the most important factors for future economic development. Being a production base requires electricity, infrastructure, and transportation. As the economy develops, the middle class also grows and quality of life is directly related to electricity production. Meeting energy needs in a sustainable way is an issue that needs to be discussed now, and especially in growing economies.

The Head of the Department of Safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Tero Varjoranta, is interviewed in this video and provides a great overview of the international safeguards process. His department ensures that countries are not making nuclear weapons out of out of peaceful nuclear technology, such as research and commercial nuclear power plants.