atomic power review

Carnival 94 at NEI Nuclear Notes

2012-03-04T21:50:00.003-05:00

NEI is hosting a blockbuster-sized Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers at its NEI NUCLEAR NOTES blog today. This is one of the weightiest (if that is a word) Carnivals yet - so I'd highly suggest everyone get right over there and start reading in order to get a handle on the most significant, the most interesting and the most timely issues addressed by the pro-nuclear blogging world.

CARNIVAL 94 at NEI Nuclear Notes

9:55 PM Eastern Sunday March 4, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Palisades post-hearing, and more on embrittlement

2012-03-01T16:25:00.007-05:00

As we all probably expected, the NRC hearing on Palisades went off last night with the NRC assuring the attendees that while there are significant personnel related (and that really means procedural, or else "safety culture") issues and opportunities at Palisades the plant is safe to operate. The NRC assured everyone that if Palisades were not safe, it would not be on line.

Click here for a brief locally written roundup on the NRC hearing.

In relation to my previous post on Palisades and the issue of pressure vessel embrittlement and the threat of PTS or Pressurized Thermal Shock, I received today a fascinating e-mail from A. David Rossin, a former President of the American Nuclear Society who actually was at work for around a decade at Argonne National Laboratory studying the neutron embrittlement of reactor pressure vessels.

Dave tells us that back at that the issue of PTS only seriously first came up toward the end of the 70's. He says that some of the very earliest theoretical data (and this has to be from the 50's or 60's I would guess) was proven inaccurate in its assumptions, so that he and a number of other people really got the ball rolling on new research. When the research was in full swing a number of the major national laboratories involved in nuclear energy research were involved, including Oak Ridge and the Naval Research Laboratory among many others. Still, with only a few large computers in the country at that time, highly complex and involved calculations were not easy - and the limited time that any of the computers was available for a specific job didn't make things any easier.

Later on, in the early 1980's (as I mentioned in my previous post) a new wave of work began to more closely estimate the real effects of neutron damage to pressure vessels far more accurately than before - and Dave was in on this again. (It is important to note that until then, and in fact until now in 2012, no reactor pressure vessel - no matter how old - has ever failed in a brittle fracture mode, nor has any failed in a PTS environment.) What Dave relates as the end of this span of serious research was a very conservative rule set by the NRC that satisfied everyone in terms of protection against embrittlement damage and failure.

Also, according to Dave, and very interestingly, there was evidence that the actual service these reactor vessels were performing was actually essentially annealing them while in service; that is to say, the heat was high enough that the vessels self-annealed and essentially removed the damage. Most of the new research stopped around 1985 as a result of this discovery and the NRC's conservative approach. The fact that no vessel had still ever failed at that time gave weight to the safety of the assumptions at that point - but irradiation samples continued to be used and tested, and continue to be all the way through, non-stop, until today.

Above, artwork showing a pre-completion artist's conception of the Palisades Nuclear Plant. Artwork produced by Combustion Engineering and included in AEC publication WASH-1082, "Current Status & Future Technical & Economic Potential of Light Water Reactors," March, 1968.

Now, when we discuss embrittlement of reactor vessels what we are talking about is a slow alteration of the material's physical qualities, such that the material would behave in a more brittle (likely to shear along crystalline lines) and a less ductile (likely to exhibit a rough tearing effect) type of failure when stress is applied which is high enough to cause the material to fail. More important though is the fact that the temperature at which the material transitions from a ductile material to a brittle material continues to go up as the material is exposed to radiation - in this case, neutrons.

I mentioned in the previous post that the over-simplification that neutrons are blowing holes in the metal is too simple. At low energies, neutrons might displace one or two atoms at most. At higher energies, they might displace more - and at really high energies, they might cause a scattering effect that displaces an equivalent to perhaps several thousand times the volume of one atom. But as Dave has now told us, this damage can be removed by the annealing effect of the heat that the vessel is exposed to in normal operation.

Annealing as a deliberate method - in other words, removing the reactor core and internals and artificially applying heat from, say, an electric source - has only ever to my knowledge been performed once on an actual reactor vessel in service (SM-1A, a small PWR at Fort Greely, Alaska which was contracted to Peter Kiewit & Sons who subcontracted the reactor to ALCO Products, Inc.) although the West Germans did construct an entire apparatus for use in 600 MW pressurized water plants; their research showed that (for the specific metallurgy of the vessels in question) an application of 450C for 60 hours would recover the damage from neutron embrittlement. According to ASTM STP 819 the effort required to anneal even the small pressure vessel of SM-1A was considerable from an engineering standpoint.

For a reactor plant which is considered to have an embrittled reactor vessel, there are a number of measures that can be taken; after all, the metallurgy of vessels now in service represents a coverage of many years' worth of manufacturing, during which new discoveries were made all the time which improved the vessels' performance. Some measures that can be taken to mitigate the embrittlement are:

-Move active fuel elements away from the vessel; use partially burned elements at the outside of the core, or dummy elements, thus reducing neutron exposure
-Establish automatic limits to heating up and cooling down the plant to keep within operating curves (thus avoiding operator error)
-Insert poison rods, or else neutron shields, outside the active region of the core but inside the vessel to reduce neutron exposure

There are many other things that could be done - and sometimes, nothing is required if testing shows that a vessel can still safely operate in its previous operational limits. The above are merely a few suggestions from several sources consulted here.

What is most important for the outsider to understand is that an incredible amount of effort has actually been devoted to the study of neutron damage to reactor materials for half a century, and that standards have NOT relaxed; rather, research and many kinds of testing of actual reactor materials have shown both that by and large the original conservative metallurgical assumptions have proven highly protective, and that modification of operational limits and/or core arrangement and material can extend reactor vessel life far beyond that originally conceived. This is one case where design from decades ago has held up in intensive service.

----------------------------------

Thanks to A. David Rossin for his wonderful input and experience.

Some source materials for APR's continuing discussions on reactor pressure vessel metallurgical qualities and behavior:

-REACTOR STRUCTURAL MATERIALS: ENGINEERING PROPERTIES AS AFFECTED BY NUCLEAR REACTOR SERVICE. Anderson, Beck, Kephart, Theilacker. ASTM STP 314, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1962

-RADIATION EMBRITTLEMENT AND SURVEILLANCE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR PRESSURE VESSELS: AN INTERNATIONAL STUDY. Steele, ed. ASTM STP 819, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1983

-TOWARD IMPROVED DUCTILITY AND TOUGHNESS. The Iron and Steel Institute of Japan / The Japan Institute of Metals / Climax Molybdenum Development Company (Japan) Ltd. 1971

----------------------------------

8:48 PM Eastern Thursday March 1, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Palisades - some general comments.

2012-02-28T20:41:00.006-05:00

Over the last several months, I have received numerous questions about Palisades Nuclear Power Station which is located near South Haven, Michigan and which is presently operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations. I have until now declined to comment as most of the inquiry has concerned personnel issues, which are all too well described in the various NRC releases and findings which the press have seized upon. Since these things are well covered there has been no need to respond. However, a new allegation has arisen which is similar to one I confronted about a plant in Japan some time back. First, some background.

Palisades is a Combustion Engineering pressurized water plant which was ordered by Consumers Power in January 1966. According to an official Palisades press kit issued by Combustion Engineering and Consumers Power which I have here, Palisades was the first nuclear station in the United States that was not a "turn key" project contracted to a single firm; rather, Consumers Power contracted Bechtel Corporation for general consulting and engineering services, and the two firms, working closely, independently ordered all of the equipment required to construct the station. Original plans called for four identical units at the site, but only one was ever begun. This plan did lead to the single completed plant being referred to as "Palisades Unit 1" in some publications in the late 60's and early 70's which could lead to some confusion if this fact wasn't clearly described.

The reactor thermal output as built was 2200 MWt; the Westinghouse turbine generator at that reactor power produced 710 MWe of power although it was rated at 845 MWe maximum. The 2008 data for the plant are a reactor thermal power of 2565 MWt and a corresponding net electrical output of 778 MWe. Modern data from Entergy indicates a net electrical output of 798 MWe. When this plant was built, Consumers Power had been operating Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant since 1962 (this was a GE BWR/1 plant.) Consumers Power was also at that time building the Midland nuclear station, a two-unit Babcock & Wilcox plant that was never finished.

Palisades achieved initial criticality May 24, 1971 - about a year behind the original ambitious schedule. The plant first delivered power commercially on December 31, 1971 (both dates according to WASH-1203-73, US AEC 1973.) Like many other plants, Palisades had some initial problems that had to be ironed out but they weren't nearly as bad as those at some other plants built both before and after.

Palisades' earliest serious unplanned outage took place starting at about the middle of 1973 to repair leaks in "B" steam generator. The photo here, courtesy AP and which is an old AP Wirephoto, shows Palisades in October 1974 while undergoing testing after the year long outage. Notable is the addition of cooling towers - these were not a part of the original plant design which used only lake water for plant cooling. The Combustion Engineering - Consumers Power press kit (which is from early 1970) makes no mention of, and does not show, any cooling towers. Note the excavated area beyond the plant where the second unit would have been constructed.

Entergy bought this plant from Consumers Power in April, 2007.

So now we have a bit of background on Palisades - which I might add showed a very high capacity factor of 99% as recently as 2008. More recent problems have put the plant in a bad light, and local activist press has not helped. We now bring to focus the following commentary found on line:

"Palisades must be shut down"

This commentary needs some sober observation and reflection. This exact same kind of argument was brought up some time back concerning Genkai nuclear station in Japan. I conducted a VERY thorough description of reactor vessel embrittlement on Atomic Power Review at that time - and it's applicable here.

Genkai Reactor Vessel Embrittlement Discussion on APR

While much of the above discussion is targeted at Genkai, it's all generally applicable to Palisades and relative to the commentary I linked. Some points in the linked commentary:

-The NRC has never weakened safety regulations. When new analyses are made, then old ones which are less accurate are reconsidered. This process can both help and hinder relicensing processes for plants.

-No "old, degraded" reactors are operating. None exist.

-The phenomenon of PTS or "Pressurized Thermal Shock" was originally developed in the early 1980's after two incidents (one at Palo Verde, the other at Crystal River) gave evidence that there was a remote chance that the design basis accident causal mode known as brittle fracture (this being relative to the reactor pressure vessel) which had never happened even once could possibly be induced by a pressurized thermal shock sequence wherein a pressure vessel was taken from hot, critical normal condition through a rapid cooldown and depressurization, and then a rapid repressurization. The fear was that while no vessel had ever experienced the dreaded brittle fracture failure, so that this eventuality (still designed against) became highly unlikely, there could be some other chain of events that would essentially duplicate it but would be much less immediate, more nuanced, and harder to prevent. As it turns out, there were massive discussions about PTS in some quarters during the first half of the 1980's but as a practical matter later, much better knowledge of how pressure vessels age has lowered concerns... largely through the use of sample materials placed in high neutron flux areas inside reactors, which samples are then removed and tested exhaustively.

According to Gregory Myerson the NRC found a solution to any serious worry about PTS was to order alteration to the alloy used to fabricate reactor vessels and did so as early as 1971 - while monitoring any vessels built prior exceedingly carefully to ensure they don't pose any increased risk. To date, none has been identified.

The commentary then soars off into ridiculousness, with every incredible worst-case type assumption and scenario being topped by the next one. As such it's easily recognizable as anti-nuclear hyperbole and hype. But... what DID the NRC resident inspector really say?

Probably, the inspector wished to convey that neutron damage to a pressure vessel really consists of the displacement of atoms from their normal positions in the crystalline metal structure or lattice. This makes essentially gaps that are one atom wide. Not exactly the holes this commentary describes. Moreover, this damage is easily designed against by careful control of materials used in the pressure vessel, careful manufacturing and extremely generous allowance for the effect of the damage over decades so that even with embrittlement the vessel still behaves normally and can handle the original specified temperatures and pressures. Some plants have very old vessels which require some modification of the allowed rate that you can heat up or cool down the vessel - but this is normal for very old vessels, frankly. As mentioned in my Genkai article, so much monitoring and study is being done and has been done that vessel embrittlement is probably one of the most studied metallurgical phenomenon to come out of the whole history of nuclear engineering.

Left, reactor vessel and internals, Palisades Nuclear Power Station, as originally built.

Getting now to the present NRC findings - which have far more substance than the allegations of embrittlement - there will be a public meeting tomorrow night (February 29, 2012) that will likely gain some attention. Click here to read one article about the meeting. Click here to read another. I will be watching to see what comes out of these meetings and report on it here. It suffices to say that the personnel issues brought up seem to have more substance than any of the reactor vessel issues the activists are attempting to invent. It is those on which the attention must be cast.

Click here to view Entergy's page on Palisades.

9:50 PM Eastern Tuesday February 28, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

NOTE: Some questions were received about San Onofre, in California, which also has Combustion Engineering plants whose (new) steam generators were found to be leaking very recently. These new steam generators were built by Mitsubishi in Japan, and so there is no direct correlation at all between the primary-secondary leaks at San Onofre and any other Combustion Engineering plant.

Frontline on PBS at 10 Eastern 2/28/12

2012-02-28T20:26:00.003-05:00

Frontline will be airing its second piece in recent months on nuclear energy - this time focusing on the Fukushima Daiichi accident and events on and off site at the time of the accident.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (linked on the right panel of APR) has representatives who will be watching the special and tweeting in real time. You can follow NEI tweets using @N_E_I. NEI notes the use of twitter hashtags #fukushima and #frontline.

For those who wish to have detailed reports of the accident chronology as well as assessments by recognized governmental and industrial bodies, I highly recommend use of the new page on this site which is labeled "Fukushima Daiichi Accident Reports" and which is linked from the right side of APR. Or, you can click here.

Frontline will also be tweeting using @frontlinepbs if readers would like to follow that account as well.

8:40 PM Eastern Tuesday February 27, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Atomic Power Review - February 24, 2012

2012-02-24T21:27:00.004-05:00

It's time for another roundup of widely published and not so widely published nuclear energy news... but first, a note about a new APR feature.

Sharp eyed readers may have noticed the appearance of another link in the "Pages on this site" section, labeled "Fukushima Daiichi Accident Reports." This new stand-alone page gives links to all of the official compilations of accident events, reports on the actions taken, analyses of the quality of the response by official bodies, and so forth. It is intended to be a single stop clearinghouse for finding official (and thus realistic) appraisals of the events leading to the accident, during its progression, and during the recovery. I will continue to add more links as I find them so that this resource continues to be relevant. Now to the news.

FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI - There appear to be some further intermittent problems with some of the temperature indications at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 plant; TEPCO seems unworried by these random spurious indications, even though it states that it continues to monitor No. 2 containment for xenon. In a separate area, TEPCO has decided that movement of barges and small vessels inside the breakwater which are anticipated for further recovery work would stir up the contaminated sea bed; therefore, TEPCO will soon begin covering the seabed inside the breakwall with concrete. According to TEPCO's press releases the equipment for this work is already on hand.

More on a previously reported story -- Denki Shimbun has a good article on the price Japan is paying for shutting down almost all of its nuclear generating capacity.

Nuclear Energy - USA and Around the World

Byron Station (Illinois) has received an award for progress in developing onsite wildlife habitat by the Wildlife Habitat Council. Click here for a short story. Byron has been certified under WHC's "Wildlife at Work" program; click here to read about this program.

Pilgrim Watch, an activist group who would like to see Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station shut down (Pilgrim is a GE BWR/3 in a Mk I containment at Plymouth, MA) have been turned back again at reopening a hearing concerning Pilgrim's licensing -- but they have been joined by NRC Chairman Jaczko (who dissented with the other NRC Commissioners who all voted to halt this attempt by Pilgrim Watch) in the sentiment that more public questioning on Fukushima related issues is needed. Click here to read more. It certainly seems to be getting more and more clear as to whether or not Chairman Jaczko feels as if all new plant licensing, relicensing and construction should wait until every last possible deduction from the Fukushima Daiichi accident has been made - but those could continue for twenty years. Discretion might be the best part of valor, but he who hesitates is lost; the energy policy of the United States is what hangs in the balance.

Speaking of post-Fukushima unfounded fears, we have on the opposite side of the spectrum the president and CEO of Ontario Power Generation coming right out and saying that post-Fukushima fear should not be allowed to stop the public from understanding the potential of nuclear energy - and in a way he's glad that the nuclear industry has been pushed back into the spotlight. Click here to read a very solid, pro-nuclear but definitely post-Fukushima article about nuclear energy in Canada.

Alstom is so sure of the nuclear renaissance that it's expecting good things from its now two-year-old plant in Chattanooga. According to Alstom's CEO, the nuclear renaissance is delayed but not scuttled by any means. Click here for a brief article.

That's this week's late-week roundup!

10:25 PM Eastern Friday February 24, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

REMINDER!

Atomic Power Review has a TWITTER account (@atomicnews) as well as a Facebook page, and a YouTube channel, all of which are linked from the right side panels of the APR site.

Japan should consider restarting nuclear plants.

2012-02-22T09:28:00.005-05:00

Thanks to Dan Yurman and Margaret Harding for the tip on this developing story.

As of today, there are increasing reports out of Japan that various industries and private companies are feeling a serious pinch due to the shortage of electric power - a shortage that is going largely unreported in the West.

Click here to see a great roundup by Bloomberg of the plants now shut down.

Click here for an interesting pre-paywall story tease at Petroleum Economist.

Daily Yomiuri has a good piece on the struggle and issues as well.

It is this author's opinion that the anti-nuclear sway in Japan has become seriously and irresponsibly overwhelming. The plain fact of the matter is that none of these IAEA or otherwise developed "stress tests" are going to do anything to reassure the public, overall, about nuclear safety. What will do something is to successfully get plants back on line generating electricity without incident.

It my opinion that the best course of action that Japan could take would be to develop a two-tiered recovery plan regarding nuclear safety. Those nuclear stations which are considered in very high tsunami risk areas are the only ones that should remain shut down for an extended period until tsunami protection is in place. Japan's nuclear plants have sustained serious earthquakes for decades with no troubles until now of any note; thus, the plants that are not in tsunami threatened areas should be given a thorough but brief inspection by the Japanese authorities - without waiting for the development of the new agency - and restarted before Japan's economy worsens seriously due to lack of industrial production.

At what point in the past would Japanese manufacturers have considered outsourcing production, or moving their manufacturing offshore? The answer is that they would never have - it is an essential part of Japan's economy that the vast majority of its products are manufactured in Japan. Only now, with a serious energy shortage, is this considered. The effect on Japan's economic health is shown all too well in the articles I've linked above.

The time to hide behind fear and uncertainty is over. The Japanese should stand on the previous forty years of safe nuclear operation and restart those plants which can meet immediate safety standards as soon as it is possible to do so. To do otherwise is to threaten the nation's economic foundation.

9:55 AM Eastern Wednesday February 22, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

ADDED NOTE: Perhaps Japan should look at the example India is setting; India plans to have roughly 63,000 MW of nuclear generating capacity installed in twenty years' time. This would be a good place for Japanese companies to move their factories in order to take advantage of more reliable energy and (probably) less expensive labor. Other nations are not standing still waiting for stress tests. Click here for a full story on India's nuclear build program.

Carnival 92 - link here!

2012-02-19T16:54:00.002-05:00

The 92nd Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is up at the American Nuclear Society's ANS Nuclear Cafe blog right now.

Click here to get to Carnival 92!

This rotating feature gives all of us a chance to get a finger on the pulse of the pro-nuclear blogging world every week. If some topic or other appears in common on multiple posts submitted for the Carnival, you can bet that it's highly newsworthy and relevant - and this week's Carnival is no exception. If you have not already done so, do yourself a favor and go check it out.

5:00 PM Eastern Sunday February 19, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Atomic Power Review- February 17, 2012

2012-02-17T21:57:00.001-05:00

It's been a while since I've rounded up some of the more interesting news in the world of nuclear energy; thus, it's time for another Atomic Power Review.

FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI - TEPCO has arrived at the conclusion that the single lower pressure vessel high temperature reading is erroneous, but not before injecting boric acid twice and vastly increasing the injection rate (both core spray and feed line.) TEPCO then resistance checked the detector and found it to be faulty. As of February 16, the reading on this instrument dropped from the 200C range to roughly 0, and at times is now reading negative (below freezing) temperatures. TEPCO indicates it will drop the injection rate to the reactor, which it may have already by the time this is published.

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE USA. It has been brought to the attention of the nuclear industry and professional organizations that CNN has developed a fairly heavily biased story (and will run a TV segment, Sunday) concerning boiling water reactor plants which incorporate the Mk I containment. Allow me a few observations - having seen the online version.

Immediately, I'm struck by the fact that the CNN piece describes the plants of interest as being "GE Mk I reactors." There are no Mk I reactors. I have explained this exhaustively on this website before ... here are some links.

Click here to see an old but thorough video I made and which is on the APR YouTube channel that shows many facets of the Mk I pressure suppression containment, and related plant details. This was made for non-nuclear people to examine as well as those in the business; feel free to pause as needed. I recommend viewing it full screen or else as large as possible.

Click here to see an April 2011 article describing the difference between models of GE boiling water reactors (such as "BWR/3") and types of containment structures (such as "Mk I.") Note the many backlinks to even further APR descriptive stories. This article is a really good sort of "Nuclear 101" entry.

Now that we have our nomenclature fixed, let's turn to the real purpose of the CNN article, which namely is that of getting people everywhere to tie the Mk I containment to the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Let me be brief and clear - the real cause of the accident was the tsunami, which flooded the plant causing a loss of all AC and eventually DC power. This robbed the operators of all indications and all remote operability. Core damage in this condition was inevitable. This would have occurred whether these plants had Mk I pressure suppression containments, or Mk II or Mk III or, for that matter, dry ambient or ice-condenser PWR containments.

The article DOES go on to say what I've said above, to some degree. What it then does is assure us that the Mk I containment is unable to do its job - which is to contain the results of a major nuclear accident. What the article does NOT say is that many years' worth of work has been put into modifying and updating Mk I containment structures at all US plants which have them, and that it continues to be put into them even now. Click here to see a report I did on exactly this some time back. And, you can click here to see a recent document filed at the NRC from the BWR Owners Group discussing just one aspect of continued Mk I modifications - hardened wetwell vents. Seeing this information, it is clear that the NRC, GE, the architect-engineer firms and the Owners Group are working continually on making improvements and modifications to these plants as the needs arise and as new issues are brought to light. On the balance, the CNN article should have given more weight to the facts concerning continued effort to ensure safety of all plants which incorporate Mk I containment buildings.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AROUND THE WORLD

INDIA - Nuclear Safety Regulatory Bill stopped by committee. Click here. In this author's opinion, it would be wise for the nuclear industry in India to get the public informed on what proprietary information is -- information that could be sensitive to the business of a company -- and inform the public that the 'right to know' legislation should not cover such data for the simple reason that such data are not likely to be of any use, ever, to the public. Further, the article says that information related to nuclear safety would not be disclosed if proprietary information were withheld but this is far from the case. Proprietary information is NOT safety-related information. We see here a nation just beginning to have open discussion and debate about nuclear energy and nuclear energy safety .. and the growing pains are all too obvious.

Further on India.. India's first nuclear powered submarine is about to go on sea trials. The ARIHANT is powered by an Indian-built 80 MW pressurized water reactor. A sister ship is under construction. Click here. Click here for an exceedingly detailed history of India's leased nuclear subs and its indigenous construction program including some historical perspective on its submarine PWR program. Click here for fas.org open literature summation on the Indian nuclear sub program.

KENYA - UN says "hold on" to a nuclear future in Kenya. Click here. One has to wonder what the motivation of the UNEP actually is in this case. Oh, wait a minute - we DO know, because the references to the UNEP report go on all the way through warning of global disaster. (Read the full article all the way to the end.) And somehow, Kenya is supposed to bank on low-reliability and low capacity factor solar and wind and geothermal energy to move forward. I would have to say that considering the number of solar companies that have failed, and given the low overall KW/H output of 'renewables' that nuclear would be a far better bet production wise and would also give Kenya a place and a reason to really focus serious technical education. Not that Kenya will go down this path. What this author finds alarming is the lock-step UNEP slapdown of nuclear in line with present thinking in Europe - or in some parts of it.

VIETNAM - ROSATOM promises quake and tsunami safety for Vietnam's first nuclear generating station. Click here. If Vietnam is to go nuclear, it's a sure bet that its nuclear plants will have to be built to the most rigorous and up to date specifications for both quake protection and tsunami protection; ROSATOM, selected to build Vietnam's first station starting in about two years, assures the nation that the plant will tap the company's long experience of building plants world wide in many harsh conditions and that it will be the safest possible. ROSATOM assures protection even against quakes as strong as 9 on the Richter scale.

That's all the news for this edition. Keep watching for further Fukushima Daiichi updates as well as US Nuclear Renaissance news.

9:50 PM Eastern February 17, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 temperature update

2012-02-14T15:25:00.003-05:00

This writer's assumption of February 7 seems now confirmed by TEPCO, who are now saying that the high-reading instrument near the bottom of the reactor vessel at their 1F-2 plant is likely failed. The detector has failed a resistance check performed by TEPCO, meaning that the indication is confirmed incorrect.

It is thus safe to disregard this one outlier in terms of temperature readings at 1F-2 and continue to consider the state as announced previously by TEPCO and the Japanese government as essentially 'cold shutdown.'

3:30 PM Eastern Tuesday February 14, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Author note: I do apologize to ALL of you out there whose e-mails I have not yet gotten to. I am buried under them at the moment and am trying to dig back out! Please be patient and I will answer everything which requires an answer that is in my inboxes.

Carnival over at Yes Vermont Yankee (No. 91)

2012-02-11T19:47:00.003-05:00

MEREDITH ANGWIN has put up, this evening, the 91st Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers at YES VERMONT YANKEE. As I've said so many times before, if you really want to get the true substance of what pro-nuclear bloggers think is the most important information to get out and the most important items to discuss, then you've got to check the Carnival (wherever it is being held) every week in order to keep up.

Many of the top nuclear blogs in the world have hosted the Carnival, which rotates between them and appears at the end of every week. Rain or shine.

Click here for Carnival 91 at Yes Vermont Yankee!

7:55 PM Eastern Saturday February 11, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Vogtle COL approval vote indicates perspective on "nuclear renaissance"

2012-02-10T18:47:00.008-05:00

Quite a number of people, including this author, have used the term "nuclear renaissance" to indicate the present tide that appears to lead to at least six new nuclear plants within the decade at a total of three sites, and the term is in fairly wide use. Some people not aware of the overall history of nuclear energy in the United States may wonder how this term really applies. To fill in that gap, I hereby present a VERY truncated history of commercial nuclear energy in this country, with a specific focus on the rundown in the mid-70's. This will help to give perspective on just what was lost in this country when the nuclear industry infrastructure ran down.

THE BEGINNING

Prior to National Nuclear Science Week, many sites gave details on the first nuclear reactor to operate anywhere - this being the CP-1 pile near Chicago in 1942. After this, a number of military Manhattan Project weapons-production reactors were built and programs were begun right after the end of the Second World War to develop nuclear energy as a real, useful tool.

The first and best known program to accomplish this result was that of the Navy. The Atomic Energy Commission (and with it, later, a special branch of the US Navy's engineering bureau known as the Division of Naval Reactors, later NAVSEA08) launched work on two different designs with the hope that one would yield fruit.

One was Project Wizard - a pressurized water cooled reactor whose design and construction were assigned, with AEC co-operation, to Westinghouse Electric.

The other was Project Genie. This program was originally (according to notes here in the APR collection from Admiral Hyman Rickover, head of the Design Branch of the AEC and Chief of the Navy's nuclear engineering staff and bureau) conceived as a civilian powerplant project using a sodium cooled reactor. When this program ran into financial trouble, it was militarized and handed over to the Navy for completion as a submarine power plant. The project was awarded to General Electric.

History is clear on the outcome; the Westinghouse plant worked so well that it was surprising, while the GE plant failed quite badly due to problems inherent in the physical design and construction of the plant which were intractable. The Westinghouse plant was first started up in March 1953; a copy of this plant was installed in the submarine USS Nautilus, the first nuclear powered vessel of any kind in the world; the submarine went to sea in January 1955. This marks the beginning of the use of nuclear energy to provide useful power in the United States.

While many military programs developed rapidly, another step was required to move nuclear energy into civilian, commercial power generating operation. This step was made when a project to power a nuclear powered aircraft carrier for the Navy was cancelled and turned into a civilian project (the reverse of the GE sodium cooled plant's process.) This plant, originally known as the CVR project, became the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. The project was originally known as the PWR project (for Pressurized Water Reactor) and was authorized by the AEC in July, 1953 - just a short time after the Nautilus' prototype plant first became operational.

At the same time, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (a joint Senate-House affair) made a request to the AEC for details on a five year atomic energy development program. The AEC responded early the next year with a plan.

In another coincidence, in the same month that the Nautilus went to sea (January, 1955) the AEC announced its Power Demonstration Reactor Program. This program was essentially a program to encourage the construction of civilian nuclear plants of different technologies, with government assistance in many ways; nuclear energy was not yet economical when compared with other forms of energy generation, and only through development could it reach its potential. The AEC, seeing that few companies would likely risk only their own capital, provided assistance in the funding of new plants.

COMMERCIAL PLANTS - TWO MAJOR COMPETITORS AND APPROACHES

Shippingport was the responsibility of Westinghouse, already experienced with the Nautilus prototype plant (S1W) and the Nautilus' plant itself (S2W.) This plant was built with government funding for the nuclear portion, and private funding for the conventional (turbine generator, auxiliaries, switchyard, etc) portion. This would set the pattern for a number of Demonstration plants to come over the next decade.

At the same time, General Electric decided to develop boiling water reactors on its own with no government support. This project then developed over time into what would become the first totally privately funded nuclear station in the United States - Dresden Nuclear Generating Station - and it was running, for a while, neck and neck with Shippingport.

Shippingport Atomic Power Station was completed and placed in commercial service in December, 1957, marking the first operation of the first large dedicated commercial nuclear power station in the United States. Dresden Nuclear Generating Station was first started up in late 1959. The era of commercial nuclear electric generation in the United States was underway.

DEMONSTRATION AND EXPANSION

The AEC's Power Demonstration Reactor Program had several rounds of bidding and contract award. In the first round, large commercial stations were intended with the AEC helping with development and with fuel costs. This resulted in three plants: Yankee Atomic Electric (Westinghouse PWR plant), Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Station (consortium designed sodium cooled fast breeder reactor), and the Hallam Nuclear Power Facility (Atomics International sodium cooled graphite moderated reactor plant as part of the Sheldon Station.)

The second round was aimed at encouraging small, rural power stations with advanced reactors, and with the AEC actually owning the reactor for a specified time period. The results were the Piqua Nuclear Power Facility (organic cooled and moderated reactor, by Atomics International), The Elk River Reactor (indirect cycle boiling water reactor, by ACF - later taken over by Allis-Chalmers), the BONUS project (boiling water reactor with direct nuclear superheat - General Nuclear Engineering, later taken over by Combustion Engineering), and the Lacrosse Reactor (improved cycle boiling water reactor, Allis-Chalmers.)

The third round focused again mostly on large generating stations, with private utility participation. The third round included the Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor (Westinghouse heavy water moderated tube type pressurized water reactor), Big Rock Point (GE BWR plant based on Dresden), Pathfinder (Allis-Chalmers integral nuclear superheat BWR plant), and the HTGR project (General Atomics gas cooled reactor, eventually built as Peach Bottom.)

Above, detail from commemorative tray showing the CVTR plant and listing project participants.

In 1960, the AEC announced a further "Ten Year Program" to make nuclear energy profitable, as well as to advance further reactor technologies. With all of the above mentioned programs in place, and the three rounds of PDRP plants being planned, built and operated, the true spread of nuclear energy around the country had begun.

FULL SCALE ORDERING AND CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR PLANTS

The years at the end of the 50's and during the beginning of the 60's saw relatively few new nuclear plants ordered per year. In 1958, three were ordered; in 1959, one. None was ordered in 1960 or 1961; in 1962, two were ordered. Five were ordered in 1963 (although one, Malibu, was never built) but none in 1964.

1965 was the year that saw the beginning of the real flood of nuclear plant orders. In that year, seven nuclear stations were ordered - and all of them were large, central station types with outputs in the high end of the range which at that time was in the hundreds of megawatts. From this point on, orders would skyrocket as indicated below.

1966: 20 plants ordered
1967: 31 plants ordered
1968: 17 plants ordered
1969: 7 plants ordered
1970: 14 plants ordered
1971: 18 plants ordered (through 9/30/71)

Source for the data immediately above is AEC publication "The Nuclear Industry - 1969" and a later version of the same annual, titled "The Nuclear Industry - 1971" which has publication number WASH-1174-71.

With this flood of new orders, Westinghouse and General Electric were joined as major reactor vendors by Babcock & Wilcox and also by Combustion Engineering who began to receive orders for commercial PWR plants of their own designs in 1966. (Babcock & Wilcox built one commercial plant, Indian Point 1, with contract awarded in 1955 and also the plant for the nuclear ship NS Savannah; Combustion Engineering was the reactor vendor for one prototype and one parallel seagoing small submarine nuclear plant for the USS Tullibee - so both had prior experience as reactor vendors, in addition to being involved as subcontractors in reactor manufacturing since nearly the beginning.)

The first two commercial plants ordered from Combustion Engineering were Ft. Calhoun and Palisades. Above we see Palisades' containment building under construction.

THE DOWNTURN

The economics of nuclear plants have very widely been discussed, both back during the 70's at which point we find our discussion, and today during the new nuclear renaissance. The fact of the matter is that economic considerations led to a shutoff of orders for new nuclear plants in 1978. Perhaps of greater interest is the incredible number of plants ordered, and on many of which construction began but which was never finished. According to "The Second Nuclear Era," between this order cutoff time period in 1978 and 1983 when that important volume was published, 58 reactors in some part of the ordering and/or construction process were cancelled.

This does not however give the full picture as cancellations (as well as some construction) did continue. According to a study performed by the Energy Information Administration in 1983, over half the total nuclear generating capacity that had ever been ordered in the United States had already been cancelled. This comprised 100 reactor plants. Several factors contributed to the cancellations, as found by the report:

-Lower electric demand than had previously been predicted
-Problems with financing construction of the plants
-Loss of the cost advantage of nuclear energy in some locations
-Regulatory constraints / complications / costs
-Failure of the State government to allow operation.

The fourth of these is actually highly significant, because it includes very many changes made as a result of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

THREE MILE ISLAND AND REGULATORY NIGHTMARES

The TMI accident in 1979 caused an abrupt halt in NRC licensing (NRC had taken over from the old AEC) of new plants, and the initial result was a great deal of new safety problem identification and operator retraining. What really damaged the position of many utilities constructing plants was the incredible delay forced by the NRC until the perceived required fixes in the regulatory and operating frameworks could be identified, examined and implemented.

According to the official history of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant - Unit 2, by Detroit Edison, the number of binding industry and regulatory rules covering reactor plant design and construction increased (in number only) from four in 1970 to 108 in 1973, to 541 in 1977 and to almost 2000 in 1982 (post TMI accident inclusions.) This drove engineering costs for Fermi-2 up from about $27 million in 1973 to about $275 million in 1983.

It is clear that the delays and the increases in cost and changes in plant construction required by TMI killed many projects. No help was given by increasing EPA regulations that added cooling towers to plants and required other changes as well. All of this, coupled with lower load growth during the early 1980's than had been predicted, and economic slowdowns, explains the massive nuclear generating plant cancellations which occurred through the 70's and 80's.

Above, Midland 1 and 2. Ordered by Consumers Power (Michigan) in 1968; major contractor problems, cost overruns, public outcry led to the plants never being completed. Both cancelled in the mid-1980's.

By the end of 1985, the total number of cancellations reached 113. More were to follow, but at this point the majority of the cancellation bloodbath was over. A number of nuclear plants continued to be constructed, some rapidly and some not so. The last of the uncancelled plants to be completed was Watts Bar 1, which entered commercial operation in 1996. In terms of plants eventually completed, the last year in which plants were ordered and then eventually ever completed was 1973. Any plant ordered in 1974 or later was never completed. This then gives us a period from 1973 until this new "nuclear renaissance" during which no new nuclear plants were ordered; it also gives us a period from 1996 until a few years from now when Vogtle 3 and 4 go on line that is the gap between startups of newly finished nuclear plants in the United States.

Ordered in 1973 and eventually all completed were the three reactor plants of Palo Verde. These were the last Combustion Engineering plants completed, and are the only CE System 80 plants (the last word in CE PWR plant design) ever completed.

I hope this brief, and for many probably overly simplistic, timeline will help to indicate the ebb and flow of nuclear plant ordering overall in the US. So much misreporting in the press over the last 48 hours has been noted by this author that this post seems warranted. I hope it is put to good use by the major media.

9:40 PM Eastern Friday February 10, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

The long drought is over; a new energy future for America.

2012-02-09T20:12:00.002-05:00

Today's announcement by the NRC that the vote to approve COL's (combined Construction and Operating Licenses) for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 has brought literally a firestorm of blog posts on all of the pro-nuclear blogs that this author follows - these are included in the link list at the right of APR. There have of course already been some anti-nuclear posts in other quarters. There is no worry concerning exaggeration when I say that today's event, while already predicted, is a monumental step. Indeed, this step essentially is the official (that is to say, regulatory) restart of the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States.

This author had the good fortune to purchase (at a regular book store, no less) a copy of the work entitled "The Second Nuclear Era - A New Start for Nuclear Power" which was published in 1985, and authored by Alvin M. Weinberg, Irving Spiewak, Jack N. Barkenbus, Robert S. Livingston, and Doan L. Phung. This work essentially takes the nuclear energy industry and field at the immediate post-TMI phase, with a number of issues from the Presidential Commission still to be resolved, and tries to find a way to move nuclear energy forward. Alternate technologies are discussed, as well as the most advanced commercial PWR and BWR plants of the day. Many reactor safety aspects were also studied in this book, as well as some condensed nuclear energy history, some examinations of incidents and accidents, and a whole lot more.

The essential points that this volume made to me back then (and of course anyone else who read it) were that in order for nuclear power plants to resume construction, there would have to be almost concrete proof to the public that they were safe; to that end, the authors selected the PIUS (Process Inherent Ultimately Safe) reactor as a prime example of the type of design that the public would approve of having built; that the public, once assured, would approve of further construction having never swung seriously anti-nuclear for long, even after the TMI accident; that safety was far more complex an issue than could be addressed simply by DBA approach, or defense in depth approach, or fault tree approach.

We now find ourselves in essentially that exact world. Sentiment in the United States has continued to become more and more pro-nuclear in the years since TMI, and the continued rise in the number of those concerned with AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has coupled with a new rise in energy demand to fuel a new nuclear renaissance. (It was this renaissance which caused the launch of Atomic Power Review in April, 2010.) The Westinghouse AP1000 has passed the most serious and rigorous safety reviews imaginable, and has even endured having the Chairman of the NRC attempt to publicly detract from the integrity either of the design or the people responsible (or both) in an unprecedented display of lack of decorum, all to naught.

Some people are certainly startled (and some appalled) that we are at this point less than one year after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. One of those is the Chairman of the NRC, Gregory Jaczko, who is the only one of the five NRC Commissioners that voted against approving the COL's for Vogtle. Jaczko has indicated that he feels that all of the post-Fukushima recommendations and changes should be implemented to the AP1000 design before it is built.

Those persons everywhere with nuclear plant knowledge are quite well aware that the AP1000 is the most advanced design ever built in the United States in terms of nuclear safety. It is still unclear to this writer, even with his extensive knowledge of the Fukushima Daiichi accident (having covered it continuously since its onset) what possible additions could be made to the AP1000 that would further increase safety in LOOP and SBO scenarios.

Today's decision by four of the five NRC Commissioners is the right call. Moving forward with nuclear energy that reliably provides base load generating capacity without worry about climactic conditions (solar energy requires daylight; wind energy requires wind sustained above a certain velocity) and without worry about greenhouse gas emissions is the sensible move at this point in our nation's still developing and still modernizing energy system.

TOMORROW: APR will present some historical perspective on nuclear energy in the United States to bring today's development into sharper focus. You won't want to miss that!

8:40 PM Eastern Thursday February 9, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Nuclear Halftime in America is Over

2012-02-09T16:02:00.003-05:00

Today, the NRC has announced completion of its mandatory hearing to approve COL (Combined License) for the two Westinghouse AP1000 PWR plants at Southern Company's Plant Vogtle in Georgia. The NRC staff is expected to actually issue the COL's within ten working days, according to the NRC press release.

The vote to approve the licenses was 4-1, with only Chairman Jaczko dissenting.

The "Second Nuclear Era" in America has now officially begun. This borrows a phrase from one of this writer's favorite books; I will have an in depth article on the COL issuance, and related historical topics, later this evening.

4:05 PM Eastern Thursday February 9, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW\

Additional info: NEI has a fabulous roundup HERE. See the story and other links to the right of it. BRAVO, NEI Nuclear Notes!

Fukushima Daiichi update - February 7, 2012

2012-02-07T10:56:00.004-05:00

It is time to make a brief update on two items of interest which have been brought up by certain media and which are now gaining traction in other outlets.

First, TEPCO has been reporting that one of three temperature indications on the lower reactor pressure vessel head at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 plant has been rising slowly for days, although now it has begun to decrease. The other two temperature indications have remained essentially unchanged.

Click here for Feb. 7 PDF tabulation of lower RPV temps at 1F-2 plant.

Below we see a fresh graphic from Tokyo Electric which indicates the location of the three temperature instruments, as well as a graphic showing the rise of just the single parameter as compared to the other two.

Tokyo Electric has been monitoring the rise of this single parameter for some time now. No other parameter changes of note have occurred. For example, gas sampling of the containment at 1F-2 has shown no alteration of note. Tokyo Electric has been adjusting injection flow rates at all three damaged reactors for some time now in order to optimize temperature control vs. buildup of contaminated water; TEPCO has also been making some alterations in systems involving injection water sources and backup pump availabilities. TEPCO's opinion at the beginning of this trend was that one of its flow alterations (variance between feed ring flow rate, and core spray flow rate, as well as total overall flow rate) had caused some sort of flow rearrangement (this is only a paraphrase) which allowed an alteration of temperature at the one location.

This writer's first suspicion is a progressing failure of the single temperature instrument. Barring this, it is conceivable that some disarranged portion of the internal structure of the reactor itself may have moved, causing the difference in temperature indication. For example, if part of the core further collapsed against the lower RPV head, this could conceivably be possible - however unlikely it is. It is also conceivable that any volume of accumulated, solidified salt from the time period early in the accident during which salt water was being injected may have moved, causing a similar indicated event.

Having said all of that, there is no indication at the moment that any sort of increased risk exists as to further core damage, release of material, or recriticality. Even though this last mentioned possibility is exceedingly remote, TEPCO has, on Feb. 7th, injected boron into 1F-2 reactor as a wholly precautionary measure... although I should point out that at least once TEPCO has injected boric acid in an attempt to help cooling by dissolving perceived accumulated salt deposition.

I will continue to monitor this situation and report on it as needed - but for now, the hyperbole of the main website in question (which I won't grace with a link) seems highly unfounded.

The second overall Fukushima Daiichi concern is just a repeat of an earlier one; there is a thought that 1F-4 is in danger of collapse. The spent fuel pool of this plant was supported by steel girders, during a large construction project post-accident by TEPCO, and that space surrounding the girders filled with concrete, so that the spent fuel pool is now resting on a giant steel reinforced concrete monolith. Further, TEPCO is using giant cranes to remove debris and structural material (and, thus, considerable mass) from the tops of the damaged reactor buildings at 1F-3 and 1F-4 so that the risk of any collapse is further reduced. This "fresh" risk is also thus not fresh at all; TEPCO has no present concerns about this eventuality.

As stated before, if anything develops further at Fukushima Daiichi, you can be sure it will appear here.

11:20 AM Eastern Tuesday February 7, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Editor Note: In official TEPCO parlance, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear generating station is site "1F." No. 1 reactor plant at Fukushima Daiichi is thus "1F-1," No. 2 reactor plant is "1F-2" and so on.

Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers No. 90

2012-02-04T19:08:00.014-05:00

This week ATOMIC POWER REVIEW is proud to present the collective work of the world's leading pro-nuclear bloggers, with the return here of the rotating CARNIVAL OF NUCLEAR BLOGGERS. This weekly feature rotates between a volunteer list of pro-nuclear blogs and always showcases the best and brightest of those people who dedicate their time and effort to write about things nuclear. I strongly recommend to my regular readers world-wide a good review of all of the Carnival posts if they don't already do so every week.

As has become the established custom here at Atomic Power Review, I do not generally make one of APR's posts also a contribution to the Carnival. This is not by any means a cop-out, because I spend a considerable amount of time and effort attempting to stump literally thousands of nuclear professionals with very rare and sometimes completely unidentifiable illustrations of things nuclear preceding each Carnival; I then explain whatever 'that contraption' was after the Carnival. February 4, 2012 and Carnival No. 90 will be no exception.

Click the picture below to enlarge it - you'll need to if you wish to have any hope of guessing "What is this?"

The answer and much more after the Carnival.

Now, Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers No. 90!

----------

ROD ADAMS - ATOMIC INSIGHTS

Nuclear focused investment fund proposal

Many investors – large and small – that believe in nuclear energy and its potential to dominate the energy market want to find a diversified “pure play” where they can focus a portion of their portfolio. (Note: a diversified “pure play” on the technology would provide some protection to the fund from the risk of any particular project being mismanaged.) If the structure was a mutual fund, the size of the required investment could be well within the reach of anyone who buys stock funds for their retirement plan or their children’s college saving funds.

----------

DAN YURMAN - IDAHO SAMIZDAT

Two fast moving stories with surprising twists

A series of breaking news reports, followed by energetic denials, create confusion about the status of two new nuclear reactor projects

Two fast moving stories caught people by surprise this week. First, the Salt Lake City Tribune reported that a key investor in the privately-held Blue Castle nuclear reactor project was being investigated by the Securities & Exchange Commission for alleged fraud. Second, The Tampa Bay Times reported that Progress Energy (NYSE:PGN) had cancelled its EPC contract with The Shaw Group throwing the future of the twin reactor project into serious doubt.

It turns out there is a lot more to the rest of the story in both cases. The good news is that despite the startling nature of the reports the facts did catch up with them.

----------

MEREDITH ANGWIN - YES VERMONT YANKEE

Back to the Public Service Board: Next Steps for Vermont Yankee

The recent ruling in the Vermont Yankee court case invalidated several laws that the Vermont legislature had passed in order to close down Vermont Yankee. Now, without those laws, the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) must rule for continued operation of the plant. PSB permission was required in the original contract when Entergy bought the plant.

This post at Yes Vermont describes the implications of the judge's ruling for PSB deliberations. It also critiques some articles about the judge's ruling. An AP article is mostly a collection of quotes from Ray Shadis, a nuclear opponent. A Burlington Free Press article gives a fuller story.

----------

STEVE SKUTNIK - THE NEUTRON ECONOMY

Interminable Innumeracy: 'renewables' versus nuclear

Often the case is made of the vast natural resources for renewable sources to tap into for electricity generation, often with the implication that such sources can displace baseload (and in particular, nuclear). Actual numbers of course are often a stranger to such conversations. In an effort to combat such widespread innumeracy, Steve Skutnik at the Neutron Economy lays out the answer to the question, "Just how many windmills would it take to replace one nuclear unit?" The answer: a lot.

----------

BRIAN WANG - NEXT BIG FUTURE

Update on China's Nuclear Energy plans

China will likely be approving only three or four projects each year from 2012-2015. This will be 12 to 15 reactors in the remainder of the five year planning period. The country had been accelerating its nuclear development since 2008, with 14 reactors approved in 2008 and six in 2009.

The slowdown will effect the number of nuclear reactors that come online in the 2016 to 2020 period. The reactors under construction and the backlog of approvals will be for reactors that will be built by 2015. China should still have about 40 reactors and about 40 Gigawatts of nuclear power by 2015. Then China could slow to about 60-70 Gigawatts by 2020. I expect a return to more in reactor approvals to occur before 2015. In the meantime China will ensure that any generation 2 reactors get generation 3 safety improvements. They will also increase the percent of the reactors that are produced domestically.

Also...

China, India and Ukraine increased nuclear power generation in 2011

Los Alamos is working on a minirailgun system for nuclear fusion

----------

Paul Bowersox sends us the ANS NUCLEAR CAFE article of this week, written for the ANS blog by WES DEASON.

Plutonium in Space: Why and How?

Many famous space exploration missions past and present have been powered by plutonium-238, and future exploration will continue to be powered by it. In the first of a new series on nuclear space topics from the American Nuclear Society's Aerospace Division, new ANS Nuclear Cafe contributor Wes Deason explains why the rather misunderstood Pu-238 isotope is so popular with space exploration mission planners, and some options to address a dwindling supply

APR note: Wes looks to be one of the bright new stars in the nuclear energy field! I would imagine we'll be seeing a lot more from him in the future in many ways.

----------

GAIL MARCUS - NUKE POWER TALK

Fuel from the Middle East: A Sense of Deja-Vu

The unstable situation in the Middle East reminds Gail Marcus of the disruptions caused by the oil embargo of the 1970s. Between the Middle East and the cutoffs of natural gas from Russia that they've observed more recently, Europe is trying to enhance their ability to share energy resources in case of future supply disruptions. This is a step in the right direction, but of course, it doesn't create new energy.

----------

And that does it for all of our Carnival features for the 90th weekly edition. The only thing left is to tell you what that assemblage of equipment shown earlier represents.

The illustration I presented earlier is actually only about one quarter of a large blueprint which illustrates a gas cooled, closed cycle, direct drive marine nuclear power plant. This is an exceedingly rare illustration, which comes from a set included with a copy of 'Study Contract MA 1252 - for 20,000 SHP Nuclear Propulsion System for Tanker" which was produced by the Research Staff of the General Motors Corporation and which is dated April 1, 1957.

Many people are somewhat familiar with the nuclear powered NS Savannah, which incorporated a Babcock & Wilcox pressurized water reactor plant. Most are not aware that a very wide project which began slightly earlier called the Maritime Gas Cooled Reactor program was carried out, and which produced no sizable working hardware.

A number of companies contributed detailed design proposals to the AEC and Maritime Administration for this project. General Motors' project is shown in this drawing, and is seen in overhead view below in a portion of the same blueprint. Click to enlarge - very large!

The "General Intent" portion of the report reads as follows: "This is a final report on a "Contract for Design Service" made and entered into as of the 13th day of September, 1956, with the objective of furnishing to the United States Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration, an optimum design of a 20000 SHP closed-cycle, gas turbine system with a gas-cooled reactor for installation in a 38,000 ton D.W.T. tanker."

The drawings and plant layout were performed by the Cleveland Diesel Engine Division of General Motors. This was the GM division responsible for the many thousands of successful Model 248, 278 and 278A diesel engines which powered roughly half of US submarines during the Second World War. This may be a bit surprising, so here I'll show the detail block from the blueprint.

Some of the plant characteristics are as follows:

Normal shaft horsepower, ahead: 20,000 SHP @ 102 RPM
Maximum shaft horsepower, ahead: 22,000 SHP
Shaft horsepower, astern: 8,000 SHP
Working fluid: Helium
Max cycle pressure: 1000 PSI
Max cycle temperature: 1300 F
Maximum speed, power turbine (propulsion): 6750 RPM

Reactor power at 22,000 SHP: 55 MWt
Cycle thermal efficiency at screw: 29.8%

DC reactor plant direct driven generator: 6000 KW
Steam driven turbine generator set: 2000 HP turbine power
(steam TG set drives 750KW generator for starting reactor plant and 500KW alternator for ship hotel loads.)

Weight of reactor, complete: 1,808,000 lbs
Weight of machinery: 1,700,000 lbs

Maximum fuel element surface temp: 1600 F

The reactor was to be graphite moderated, would have used highly enriched uranium fuel (UO2 dispersion in 316 stainless steel matrix clad with 316 stainless steel.) The core would have been 5 feet in diameter and 6.5 feet high.

Many other details and considerations are contained in the report; I am sure I will present these here or elsewhere later on.

As an interesting aside, some people are surely aware that this was not the only proposal of note in the MGCR program. Many other proposals were developed; some only reached the marketing stage with few meaningful details worked out, while others were as fully designed as the GM design was. Let's glance at two others as shown in documents I have here.

Above is a simplified view of a closed cycle gas turbine nuclear plant as designed by American Turbine Corporation. The sales brochure for this equipment gives some details, but not many:

Working fluid: Nitrogen
Overall cycle efficiency: 34%
HP turbine inlet temp (essentially reactor outlet temp): 1300 F
HP turbine inlet pressure: 729 psia
Power rating: 20000 SHP
Reactor moderator: Graphite or Beryllium Oxide

Other views are given, and these will also appear somewhere later on.

Manufacture of this plant would have been complicated, if the brochure is to be believed. American Turbine Corporation lists itself as a licensor to Escher Wyss, Ltd. of Zurich Switzerland who, it is stated, had extensive experience with fossil fuel heated closed cycle powerplants. This firm then lent its experience to American Turbine's staff to develop this MGCR concept. However, listed at the bottom of the back page as licensees to American Turbine are Westinghouse Electric, and Nordberg Manufacturing. This seems to imply that American Turbine had no intent of actually constructing the plant, which also is implied by the final sentence of text which reads "The American Turbine Corporation is available to discuss with you any special problems which you may have in adapting this power plant to your power needs, as well as licensing arrangements."

Finally, a view of one component from a power plant as fully fleshed out as the General Motors plant was. This plant was designed for the MGCR program by General Atomic, a division of General Dynamics Corporation.

As can be seen, this is the reactor pressure vessel assembly, with internals, for the GA closed cycle gas cooled maritime reactor study. Some of the introductory material for this report helps us further with overall historical focus:

"In response to an invitation from the Maritime Administration for proposals on nuclear propulsion of merchant ships, some preliminary nuclear calculations were carried out by General Atomic early in 1956 on the above reactor concept using zirconium hydride as a solid moderator in a high-temperature gas-cooled system. This concept, with suggested structural details and adaptation to a closed cycle turbine-compressor power plant for a merchant tanker, was disclosed in the resulting proposal of March, 1956 to the Maritime Administration."

The text then goes on to say that the resulting study following was prepared under AEC contract AT(04-3)-118 and was based on the previous proposal. This study then was a direct parallel to the General Motors study described earlier. Like the GM study, this plant had a thermal (reactor) power rating of 55 MW and a sustained shaft horsepower rating of 20000 SHP. Everything else was different, including the use of carbon dioxide as a working fluid.

I hope you've enjoyed this little look into the closed-cycle nuclear plants which ended up going nowhere, but which for a brief time period certainly seemed as if they would. You can expect to see more about these in the future.

APR note: These reports are part of a vast collection of material now in my hands which originated with a former employee of both Westinghouse (Bettis) and Sylvania-Corning Nuclear.

8:25 PM Eastern Saturday February 4, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

San Onofre - Primary to Secondary leak

2012-02-02T16:23:00.003-05:00

Unit 3 at California's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station has experienced a primary to secondary leak in one of its steam generators. This kind of failure cannot be described as everyday or commonplace to the point of normalcy, but this kind of failure does happen frequently enough that there are widely known and standardized procedures to deal with it. This type of failure usually results in plugging the U-tube or tubes if multiple which are leaking in the steam generator. Since each generator has many thousands of tubes, plugging several or even dozens does nothing to the heat transfer from the primary to secondary and in no way makes the plant any more dangerous than it was before the leak occurred. Many plants have operated with dozens or hundreds of plugged steam generator tubes for many years.

Here is the text from the official NRC report:

MANUAL TRIP DUE TO A PRIMARY TO SECONDARY LEAK GREATER THAN 30 GAL/HR

"At 1505 PST, Unit 3 entered Abnormal Operation Instruction S023-13-14 'Reactor Coolant Leak' for a steam generator leak exceeding 5 gallons per day.

"At 1549 PST, the leak rate was determined to be 82 gallons per day. At 1610 PST, a leak rate greater than 75 gallons per day with an increasing rate of leakage exceeding 30 gallons per hour was established and entry into S023-13-28 'Rapid Power Reduction' was performed.

"At 1630 PST, commenced rapid power reduction per S023-13-28 'Rapid Power Reduction'. At 1731 PST, with reactor power at 35% the Unit was manually tripped. At 1738 PST, Unit 3 entered Emergency Operation Instruction S023-12-4 'Steam Generator Tube Rupture'.

"At 1800 PST the affected steam generator was isolated."

All control rods fully inserted on the trip. Decay heat is being removed thru the main steam bypass valves into the main condenser. Main feedwater is maintaining steam generator level. No relief valves lifted during the manual trip. The plant is in normal shutdown electrical lineup.

Unit 2 is presently in a refueling outage and was not affected by this event.

The licensee has notified the NRC Resident Inspector. The licensee has issued a press release.

-----------------------------------

San Onofre 3 is a Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactor. The containment style at this plant is dry, ambient.

The steam generators on San Onofre 2 and 3 are however not original to the plants. These steam generators were manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan, and were installed as replacements for both plants' original CE steam generators.

There are now reports circulating fairly widely that NRC officials have noted excessive wear on a number of the steam generator U-tubes in San Onofre Unit 2, which is presently shut down for refueling. Clearly, with a tube rupture or leak having occurred in identical equipment while at power on the same site, a much deeper investigation will take place.

There are reports circulating that "a radiation leak has shut down the San Onofre nuclear plant." The cause of the shutdown was a primary to secondary leak, not a "radiation leak," whatever that is. There are reports that a small amount of radioactive material in gaseous form may have been released to the atmosphere. I am continuing to look into this - but NO threat to the public exists.

The plant is shut down, and the affected loop is isolated from the reactor.

Here is a view of a typical Combustion Engineering pressurized water commercial nuclear plant primary system - called typically the NSSS or Nuclear Steam Supply System. In the large steam generators seen at the sides, heat is transferred from the primary coolant (circulated through the reactor by large pumps, clearly visible) into the secondary water as the primary water passes through many thousands of small diameter tubes. On the outside of these tubes is the secondary water, which boils, turns to steam, and then powers the turbine generator and other plant equipment. If a primary to secondary leak occurs, then, it is possible for some radioactive material to enter the steam plant.

Having said this, ALL steam plants at nuclear stations are designed with this eventuality in mind and primary-secondary leaks through small holes, or even tube ruptures, have occurred many times before. When controlled properly (as at San Onofre) there is no risk to the reactor, or its cooling or monitoring.

Finally for now here is Edison International's press release:

SAN ONOFRE LEAK PRESS RELEASE - FEB 1

4:50 PM Eastern Thusday February 2, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers No. 89

2012-01-29T16:16:00.002-05:00

The 89th installment of the rotating Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is up over at my friend Dan Yurman's IDAHO SAMIZDAT nuclear blog. This rotating feature is the best way to see what the world's top pro-nuclear blogs are reporting and saying about the nuclear energy industry, and about nuclear education and history. I always recommend that my readers look through the Carnivals for interesting perspective and news analysis you can't find elsewhere.

Carnival 89 at Idaho Samizdat

4:20 PM Eastern Sunday January 29, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

National Nuclear Science Week - Day 4

2012-01-26T09:51:00.004-05:00

National Nuclear Science Week - Day 4

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Here is a link to today's official NNSW site posting.

Safety has been a prime consideration in nuclear plant design since the very beginning. The United States' commercial nuclear program has its original roots in the safest program ever created - that of the US Navy. Since the construction of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, a culture of respect for the requirement of safety has existed in the US nuclear industry, pervasive among reactor vendors, suppliers, owner-operators, architect-engineers, and among regulators.

Look here to see some information about the newest commercial plant design which will be built in the United States - the Westinghouse AP1000 - and how the design deals with a total loss of offsite power and onsite power, known as SBO or Station Black Out.

A while back an AP piece questioned safety at US nuclear plants. See this video produced by the NEI to describe safety at US nuclear power plants.

Some writers have further questioned the 40 year lifetime of plants (so clearly explained in the previously linked video) because they think that they have found a probable cause in terms of reactor vessel embrittlement. This however is not the case at all and we can prove that if we read this post.

Here is the Nuclear Energy Institute's page on Safety & Security at nuclear plants.

Finally for today, here at NEI's website is a great page with comments on nuclear energy made after, and in light of, the accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station. These are statements by people in place to make law and policy, from all walks of life and 'both sides of the aisle' as it were.

Safety is absolutely the top priority in any successful nuclear energy or nuclear related operation; those who cannot or will not adhere to the best practices are removed from the operation as soon as found - and this happens every day. Those few persons who cannot respect a fifty plus year heritage of safety and respect are not damaging any operation through their absence.

11:30 AM Eastern Thursday January 26, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Nuclear Icebreakers 101

2012-01-25T10:11:00.013-05:00

An addendum for National Nuclear Science Week - Day 3

In the previous post I gave the briefest overview of the history of the Russian fleet of nuclear powered icebreakers. In this post I'll go into detail on the powerplant designs used in these ships.

The Lenin was built in 1957-1959 with three pressurized water reactors which were designed by a group known as OKBM which originally was formed as a part of the Gorkiy Artillery Plant. The organization has a complicated history (as do all Soviet design bureaus) but basically was the same group responsible for the design of the first Soviet submarine reactor, prototype for the NATO "November" type, which first achieved criticality in September 1957.

Lenin was originally constructed with three 90 MWt two loop pressurized water reactor plants of type OK-150. Let's take a look at the construction of the powerplant.

First, we see from The Atomic Energy Deskbook a cutaway model illustration originally provided by the Atomic Energy Commission. This blows up very large, so make sure to click on it.

In this view, we can see the heavily shielded reactor compartment in the center. According to the Soviet propaganda booklet "Report From The Arctic," 1964, which includes many press stories about travels on the Lenin, this shielding weighed over 2000 tons and was over 17 inches thick. It included both steel and concrete. Each of the reactor plants had two loops; in each loop was one steam generator and one main coolant pump.

This plant as originally designed had a number of details that can only be described as being very developmental and early, and which were designed out of any later plants. (Some of these kinds of things hold true for early US plants as well.) Let's take a look at a few primary plant components to illustrate the design better.

Above is a cross section view of the internals of one of the OK-150 plant's reactor vessels. Notable instantly is the single coolant inlet at the bottom of the vessel; this violates the tenet that no primary coolant system leak should be able to drain the reactor vessel of coolant. This was designed out of later plants. Note also that one inlet is used for both loops; flow is joined from the loops at a "T" junction below. The core used 5% enriched uranium, and was single pass. Reported primary plant characteristics included pressure of 2940 psig, hot leg temperature of 616F, and cold leg temperature of 478F at full power.

The above illustration is from "Nuclear Propulsion for Merchant Ships", A.W. Kramer and published by the AEC. Let's use another illustration from that volume to show the plant layout better.

Above, side view of Lenin's original OK-150 reactor plant. Note the main coolant pump motors protruding through the plant shielding, one fore and one aft. There is also a backup coolant circulating pump shown. Note again the "T" junction under the reactor for coolant inlet. The compact nature of the steam generators is also notable.

As in some other early plants elsewhere the space above the reactors was accessible during critical plant operation; this allowed work on the control rod drive mechanisms. Below is a view of this space from "Report From The Arctic" showing all three reactors abreast of each other.

In the model shown earlier it's possible to see two engine rooms, fore and aft of the reactor compartment. These house four steam turbine driven generator sets. Lenin used turbo-electric drive; the screws of the ship were driven by large electric motors. This allowed for rapid changes in propulsion power and rapid reversing, necessary for icebreaking. Each turbine drove two DC generator units through a reduction gear. The DC generator units were not identical, however; one unit had both armatures wired in parallel and powered the center propeller while the other set had two separate armatures, one powering each of the two outer propellers. Thus, the center propeller had twice the power of the outer ones with a total of all three at full power of 44,000 horsepower. In order to accommodate rapid power changes on the propellers without having the reactors load follow immediately (which they could not, due to large thermal inertia due to the relatively low fuel enrichment) the Lenin was provided with steam dumps around the turbines directly to the main condensers.

Item: On the Lenin as originally built, the feed pumps, condensate pumps, condensate boosters, and seawater pumps were ALL driven by steam turbines. This is in contrast to the NS Savannah, roughly contemporaneous in design, on which only the main feed pumps were steam driven, all others being electric.

The Lenin did not require all three reactors to develop full power. The ship normally had only two reactor plants critical at any time; in fact, the original design called for two but it was found that a third could be installed with almost no penalty (only the weight of that plant itself, no increase in shielding, or plant length or width overall) and so three were used in order to provide reserve in terms of operational time between refuelings.

A number of serious difficulties were encountered with the powerplant in the middle 1960's, and the Lenin was out of service for a few years while the orignal OK-150 reactor plants were removed and replaced with two OK-900 plants. One volume in the APR collection indicates that Lenin had its turbines replaced as well, although the photos of the ship as a museum contradict this. Below, from OKBM's site is an illustration of what all of the new generation icebreaker powerplants look like.

Above is the KLT-40 reactor plant developed from the OK-900 / OK-900A. Note that the plant is very compact; no components penetrate the reactor compartment; no penetrations are below core level on the reactor pressure vessel; four loops, one pump each; vertical steam generators.

Sharp readers with nuclear experience who looked at the photo links on the previous National Nuclear Science Week installment on this site will have noticed the Reactor Plant Control Panel depiction, pictographically, on board the Lenin of a powerplant essentially identical to this one, exactly as one would expect after the rebuilding.

The next two ships after the Lenin were originally built somewhat like the modified Lenin; they incorporated two OK-900A reactor plants. The OK-900 as installed in the Lenin was rated 159 MWt; the OK-900A was rated 171 MWt. All of the large icebreakers up through the 50 Let Pobedy use two OK-900A plants. One volume in the collection here indicates that Arktika and Sibir had much different turbine plants from the Lenin, however. Each ship had two 37000 HP turbines which drove the electric generating equipment instead of four small turbines. That volume does not state whether these are generators or alternators, but alternators are much more likely at this size and power rating. The new icebreakers after the Lenin (of the large type, that is) have a shaft horsepower of 75000.

The two smaller 'shallow draft' icebreakers have KLT-40M reactor plants of similar general design and rated the same (171 MWt) - but only one reactor plant per ship instead of two. The containership "Sevmorput" has one KLT-40 rated slightly lower at 135 MWt. All are turbo-electric drive.

I hope you've enjoyed this brief look at the powerplant designs of the Russian nuclear icebreakers. It's a very narrowly covered topic - and it should not be, because this is one job that is tailor made for nuclear energy.

For more information and details:

OKBM (Reactor Vendor) site home page in English

ROSATOM FLOT (icebreaker owner-operator) site in English

Below, from "Report From The Arctic," public space ladder well in LENIN.

11:15 AM Eastern Wednesday January 25, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

National Nuclear Science Week - Day 3

2012-01-25T08:38:00.012-05:00

National Nuclear Science Week - Day 3

Nuclear Energy Generation

Today's topic is well introduced with NNSW's official daily post.

At Atomic Power Review, we're going to focus in on something that nuclear energy has been doing since 1959 - something that many people outside of a somewhat smallish part of the world are totally unaware of. I asked the other day if anyone could guess this topic, and showed the following picture:

Did you guess what this job is? Well, this photo is of the Russian nuclear powered icebreaker LENIN in the Barents Sea. That's right - the Russians (at that time, the Soviet Union or USSR) built and operated the very first nuclear powered icebreaker at the end of the 1950's (the ship was ready for trials in the fourth quarter of 1959) and after a long time with only the Lenin proceeded to construct a complete fleet of nuclear icebreakers and even one nuclear powered container ship!

Many great photos of the Lenin - now preserved as a museum ship - are available. Here are a few in the APR collection.

Above is an AP Wirephoto from September 15, 1959 showing the Lenin traveling down the Neva River in Leningrad on the way to sea trials. The ship had been completed at the Admiralty Shipyard in Leningrad.

Above, special 1978 Soviet post card depicting the Lenin - complete with postage stamp also depicting the Lenin.

According to The Atomic Energy Deskbook, the Lenin first performed actual icebreaking work on the North Sea Route during the 1960 shipping season. The Lenin is reported to have been capable of breaking solid ice up to 11 feet thick, by actual account. The ship could break less than this in continuous motion, and would break the thickest ice by backing away and ramming the ice until it split. Actually, "split" is not entirely accurate since the armor plated bow of the Lenin was designed to ride up over the ice and partially crush it while splitting - giving rise to a rhythmic bow up - bow down motion when breaking fairly thick ice at moderate speed.

The Lenin's stated displacement was 16,000 tons. The ship had three pressurized water reactors when built (it was modified later) and could develop 44,000 horsepower total with three screws (or, propellers.) This amount of power equated to a force at the bow of the Lenin against the ice of about 300 tons. The Lenin served for about a decade before it was decided due to operational and developmental problems to replace the reactor plant. The three original reactors were replaced with two newer models and the ship returned to service.

Below are links to some wonderful resources covering the Lenin. It should be remembered that the Lenin was intended to be both a working ship and a showpiece, and as a result the interior of much of the ship is decorated in the best Soviet late 1950's style. I strongly encourage everyone to visit at least the first link of this set!

English Russia - Tour of the icebreaker Lenin

RIA-NOVOSTI Lenin Slideshow

RIA-NOVOSTI Lenin infographic

As I mentioned earlier, the Lenin was the only nuclear icebreaker in the world for many years. While the Northern Routes did see a lot of shipping prior to the advent of nuclear icebreakers, and while there had been a number of famous conventional icebreakers prior, there was a time before industry and population really needed one hundred percent year-round shipping. As this became more desirable, the USSR made plans to build further nuclear icebreakers and plans for a fleet were made.

The first development in this history was the replacement of the Lenin's original nuclear plants with much more modern designs from 1967 through June 20, 1970. The operational service of the Lenin after this paved the way for the new Arktika in 1975, and the new Sibir in 1978. These ships differed from Lenin in the design of their propulsion plants in a number of ways and set the pattern for the following ships:

ROSSIYA (1985)
SOVIETSKIY SOYUZ (1989)
YAMAL (1992)
50 LET POBEDY (2006)

There are also two 'shallow draft' nuclear icebreakers that are of lesser capacity but which can break ice up into rivers:

TAIMYR (1988)
VAYGACH (1990)

And there is also one nuclear powered containership with icebreaking capacity itself, SEVMORPUT, built in 1988.

These ships are built for some of the most rugged conditions imaginable. They can ram and back out of ice fields to ensure the path is clear. The ships, if wedged in, have high speed ballast pumps and beam tanks that can actually rock the ship violently side to side to get it unstuck. The ships carry provisions for many months at sea without pulling in - the ARKTIKA set a record for such operations by staying out of port, in operation for 357 continuous days!

Of all these ships, Lenin, Arktika, and Sibir are out of service and retired. All of the rest are in service providing a highly reliable, continuous service supplying the needs of people and business - in a way that could only be done by nuclear energy, which allows the ships to remain at work continuously without needing to refuel or return to port. This is one job that nuclear power is excellent at; there are of course many others.

Finally for this section, a couple of the press photos from ROSATOM showing the nuclear powered icebreaking fleet.

Above - Russian ROSATOM nuclear icebreaker YAMAL.

Above - Russian ROSATOM nuclear icebreaker ROSSIYA under the aurora borealis.

Click here to get to ROSATOM's fascinating website - learn much more!

And, coming up shortly -- Atomic Power Review will present "Nuclear Icebreakers 101" - a technical but not too complicated look at how these ships really work. Look for this entry later today!

9:45 AM Eastern Wednesday January 25, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

National Nuclear Science Week - Day 2

2012-01-24T16:51:00.003-05:00

National Nuclear Science Week - Day 2

Careers in the Nuclear Fields

The update on APR concerning nuclear careers has actually already been in place for several days. All readers, both long time and new are encouraged to look through the newly expanded link list at the right side of every page on Atomic Power Review. Very many new companies have been added to this list - and each of those employs a very wide range of people with very wide educational and operational experience.

When we think about nuclear energy, we think primarily nowadays about safety. What gets left out is the vast number of people employed and involved when a nuclear plant gets built.

Utility companies must contract for everything that has to get built at a nuclear plant which the utility will own and operate; the utility also has to hire and train all the workers at that plant.

Architect-Engineer firms are hired to lay out the whole plant, and design its structures and features.

Contractors are hired to actually perform the construction work, using a massive array of materials both generally available (such as concrete) and specially manufactured by other contractors specifically for the plant.

A reactor vendor (like Westinghouse or General Electric) is responsible for detailed design and fabrication of the nuclear plant itself, often referred to as the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) or in some quarters the "nuclear island." These vendors also subcontract a massive number of jobs to other companies who fabricate components... such as electric (or in the old days, steam driven) pumps.

Frequently the utility contracts a different vendor than the reactor vendor to supply the electrical portion of the plant, as distinct from the nuclear island.

Radiation Health workers are also employed to monitor the exposure of persons working in the plants, and these workers further require specialized equipment to record exposures.

If we just think briefly about the vast number of trades involved in the above kinds of examples, the vast number of engineers and specialists, we might begin to see that nuclear energy can offer work to a much wider variety of workers than just simply those with a nuclear specific education.

I strongly encourage everyone to browse through the list at right - which is by no means complete - and just think of the wide variety of skills required by nuclear energy. It really is kind of mind blowing!

Tomorrow- the answer to yesterday's secret question!

Don't forget to check today's post on the official NNSW website.

5:05 PM Eastern Tuesday January 24, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

National Nuclear Science Week - Day 1

2012-01-23T07:56:00.003-05:00

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SCIENCE WEEK

Day 1: "Get to Know Nuclear"

Today is the first day of NNSW, and as we look at the official website for NNSW we find that the topic of the day is "Get to Know Nuclear." Nuclear energy (the primary focus of this blog) has been in the news quite a bit lately - and we have found very clearly as indicated by readers' questions and comments that there is indeed a vast gap in knowledge (at least in the United States) when it comes to things nuclear.

In keeping with today's basic theme, let me just make a few points and state a few facts about nuclear energy and related topics so that they are clear to even the youngest readers we might have.

-Nuclear energy is made possible by the loss of mass that occurs when atoms are split and that mass is converted into energy.

-In nuclear reactors, we use the heat energy produced by fission of atoms to heat water and make steam - steam just like you would use in a coal burning plant.

-Nuclear reactors do not take in any air. They also do not give off any exhaust.

-Nuclear reactors are loaded with enough fuel that they can run at full power for many months or longer. Some kinds of reactors are not refueled for many years.

-Radiation - tiny, invisible particles that are given off by nuclear reactions - can cause damage to your body. But radiation cannot make YOU radioactive; you will not give off radiation if you are exposed to radiation.

-Nuclear reactors can suffer damage just like any other kind of machine man has built, although in terms of the number of hours reactors have run world-wide without damage and injury they are less likely to suffer failure this damage than cars, airplanes, trains, buses or ships. In other words, every kind of machine around you that's larger than a refrigerator is more likely to fail and cause injury than a nuclear reactor is.

-Even in the worst possible situation a nuclear reactor cannot explode in the way that nuclear weapons do. Why not? The uranium or plutonium in a nuclear weapon is extremely pure so that the effect of compressing it will be what we know as a nuclear explosion - a "nuclear yield." A nuclear reactor is composed of thousands of other kinds of parts like fuel matrix material (many tons of it) and fuel tubes and support structures and control rods and guide tubes and support plates to hold all those parts... and much more. In other words, even in the worst situation there's so much other stuff in there that you can't get any kind of pure enough nuclear fuel to allow a nuclear explosion. It just cannot be concentrated enough being so outnumbered by many tons of other materials.

-Nuclear energy is only partially environment-dependent. Unlike solar and wind energy, environmental input has no effect whatsoever on how much power the reactors can develop. With those two, we all know that the sun goes down at night and the wind does not blow all the time! Nuclear energy CAN be affected by environmental conditions on the other end of the process - for example, some nuclear plants cannot generate full power on very hot days because they need lots of cool air or cool water to cool plant systems and condense steam as part of the power cycle.

-Nuclear energy does not produce any greenhouse gases. Or carbon emissions.

These are just some facts about nuclear energy. Some of these may stimulate further discussion among teachers and students.

This week I will be presenting details on a job that nuclear energy has been doing with overall top notch success since the end of the 1950's.. and it's a job most people all over the world don't know about. Perhaps you can guess what it is!

8:30 AM Eastern Monday January 23, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Boroscope at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 inconclusive

2012-01-19T11:00:00.013-05:00

TEPCO has completed the first examination inside any of the primary containment vessels at Fukushima Daiichi, using a boroscope inserted into No. 2 plant's dry well. Below is a graphic explaining the location, practiced a few days back at No. 5 plant.

Click the image to enlarge it. Below for perspective is an Oak Ridge National Laboratories illustration showing some of the same components from the side.

Of course, that image shows only the internals of the dry well and suppression chamber; below we can see these as they are positioned in the reactor building overall which will give new readers a better idea of what the first, overhead explanatory diagram was really showing.

Having shown all of this, we can proceed to the views TEPCO has released which are actually just video still frames. Nothing was determined by these views; the location and condition of fuel is unknown, as is the condition of the bottom of the reactor vessel and primary containment vessel. The views, TEPCO press releases, are labeled as to their location and in one instance as to elevation above sea level in centimeters ("OP 9500").

Some comments have been made in general media about apparent rusting of the drywell surface, which is possible - although it is also possible that some of what we are seeing here is the original color of anti-corrosion paint. See below - photo of three GE BWR plants under construction (TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Generating Station) - note the color of the paint on the dry well exteriors:

As noted, TEPCO is no more sure of the condition of the lower end of the reactor vessel at No. 2 plant now than before. Further invasive attempts will be required to ascertain any sort of real estimate of the situation below the reactor vessel.

1:50 PM Eastern Thursday January 19, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

I told you so!

2012-01-18T19:17:00.002-05:00

I find the ability to make this post MOST gratifying.

Let's take a look back at an old APR post from the still-unsure time following the Fukushima Daiichi accident:

Public Opinion Post-TMI (posted on APR April 22, 2011)

Now that we've reviewed that, let's take a look at this article concerning a new poll on nuclear energy in England:

Dip in nuclear power support after Fukushima proves short lived

Actually, that title is somewhat misleading only in the sense that the poll shows a very clear, decided support for nuclear energy in the UK.

I told you so! And there will be more such polls to come in other places. Some of these - with very similar results - have already been done in the United States.

The nuclear renaissance continues.

7:25 PM Eastern Wednesday January 18, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Frontline on PBS: "Nuclear Aftershocks."

2012-01-17T21:32:00.004-05:00

NEI has made two posts today in response to the Frontline special (you can translate that as 'hack job' if you'd like) on nuclear energy. I would refer my readers who may have watched this special to these two posts, for starters.

NEI: Frontline, Indian Point, and emergency preparedness

NEI: Frontline, Indian Point and license renewals

Twitter updates are being made in real time by APR, by NEI, Entergy Nuclear, AREVA, and many other entities. Go to APR's Twitter page using the link in the Twitter box on this website and then find your way to NEI's tweets!

9:35 PM Eastern Tuesday January 17, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Note: APR continues to be on a reduced status as my father is seriously ill in the hospital. Please refer to the APR Twitter feed box for news items that I post and link to occasionally and please also refer to the other blogs in the auto-update blog roll whose new posts appear automatically in order of time / date posted.

APR medical time-out

2012-01-16T08:31:00.002-05:00

Regular readers may have noticed a very recent 'radio silence' on the part of Atomic Power Review. We are experiencing a medical emergency in the family and, as a result, I have no time to devote to things atomic for the moment.

Readers are strongly encouraged to use the 'blog roll' on the right side of the APR web page to see updates from other pro-nuclear bloggers; use of the extensive link list of nuclear industry and blog websites will also help.

Readers should expect one of the extensive "Review" updates on this site when I can return to it, which with any luck could be within a week.

8:30 AM Eastern Monday January 16, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

New TEPCO video on APR YouTube - January 13

2012-01-13T17:09:00.003-05:00

It certainly is interesting that two days after this blog noted what appeared to be a complete and total shutoff of anything other than the daily press releases and compulsory responses (in Japanese) to NISA in terms of communication from TEPCO, another new TEPCO press release video in the Explanatory Series of Videos has appeared.

I'm not going to take credit for this, although I should.

Anyway, this new video is the third video of the third set of videos. The third set discusses radioactive emission and contamination at the Fukushima Daiichi site and outside of it as a result of the accident and of post-accident complications; this new video covers a wide range of the sampling locations, the measurements taken at those locations, and the general trend of those measurements.

Spoiler: The trend is downward in all cases.

This video is the first in the series to display any sort of serious production issue. In this video, after some of the coverage is complete, the narration's description of graphics and the video depiction of those graphics, paginated in numerical order, becomes disjointed. In other words, the narration is a page off from the video. This is a bit annoying the first time through.. however, I must point out the analytical value of the many graphs presented and their general downward trends. These are good ammunition against those who keep saying that the cores continue to melt, or that recriticality has occurred, or that contamination is still pouring into the ocean. All untrue, and all laid out in this video's graphics.

Go to APR YouTube Channel to see the new video by clicking here.

5:16 PM Eastern Friday January 13, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Babcock & Wilcox shuffles businesses

2012-01-11T16:32:00.003-05:00

Babcock & Wilcox has clearly divided its nuclear business into two operating entities as of today; one concerned with conventional nuclear plants, and the other concerned with the new SMR (Small Modular Reactor) business that it is developing under the Generation mPower name.

Babcock & Wilcox official release on business realignment

4:38 PM Eastern Wednesday January 11, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Nuclear Lunch, Fukushima, and other issues.

2012-01-11T10:14:00.003-05:00

Yesterday marked the third Ohio meeting of Nuclear Bloggers, an event that saw the full two hours we'd set aside totally filled with a regular future meeting schedule planned. The participants were Dan Yurman, who writes not only the blog "Idaho Samizdat" but who also writes for ANS Nuclear Cafe and for Fuel Cycle Weekly; Leslie Corrice, whose site "The Hiroshima Syndrome" includes a well done Fukushima update section; and myself.

We believe that only here in Northern Ohio is it possible to assemble three pro-nuclear bloggers in one spot. Are there other places this is possible? Or, can we make it four or more people here? Let me know through the comments if either is possible.

We carried on a number of widely disparate discussions - and of course touched on Fukushima Daiichi. I mentioned the abrupt cutoff of the wide range of press relations material TEPCO had been releasing around three to four weeks ago; Leslie had noted the same thing. Dan mentions that with TEPCO about to be nationalized in all probability, there might be a cutoff of what could be perceived as needless communication to the press. Further, I might add today, with the declaration of "Cold Shutdown" by the owner-operator, the regulatory body, and the government, there may be a perceived lower need for constant communication.

Speaking of Fukushima Daiichi news... here are two news items from today.

-TEPCO has begun to reduce the nitrogen injection rate at No. 2 plant in order to lower the containment pressure (injection rate lowered but gas handling discharge or suction rate maintained the same) as a preparatory step to drilling the containment for insertion of a camera probe as detailed here a short while back.

-There is exactly one news headline at the moment stating that the Japanese government has instructed TEPCO to prepare details on what would be needed to repair the Fukushima Daini nuclear station. This is curious considering the Fukushima Prefecture governor's statement that he will not allow further nuclear plant operation in is prefecture. One might imagine TEPCO would like to obtain revenue from operating these plants, and one might imagine the Japanese government would like to get manufacturing infrastructure up again (as well as electric power in the prefecture for recovery) which both run counter to that governor's wishes. We will have to see if the report spreads outside pay-walls and is actually true.

One of our discussion topics yesterday was the fact that the Japanese cannot survive forever without nuclear energy. Their manufacturing base requires a great deal of electric power; further, the nation cannot operate as a fuel importer. Nuclear energy has been one of the cornerstones of Japan's economic structure for decades and the loss of it now (if plants are kept idle by legislative action, not by safety related regulatory action) could lead to the collapse of Japan's economy. Of course, there are some who feel that the Japanese government also cannot assume the debts of TEPCO should it be nationalized -- making it all the more essential that TEPCO's remaining intact plants be restarted (once quake and tsunami proofed, that is) so that some revenue can begin to come in and add black ink to the books even if it does not erase the red. It does seem to this writer that the Japanese who are now intolerably anti-nuclear cannot see the bigger picture, at least for the short to medium term.

10:30 AM Eastern Wednesday January 11, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Carnival No. 86 is now up!

2012-01-09T18:15:00.002-05:00

NEI Nuclear Notes is hosting this week's Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers. This rotating feature contains posts from the best pro-nuclear bloggers and is always a great way to find out what is on their minds and what is happening in the nuclear industry (and in the regulatory bodies) that matters.

Carnival 86 at NEI Nuclear Notes

6:20 PM Eastern Monday January 9, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

British nuclear stress tests: Results are in

2012-01-04T17:39:00.003-05:00

According to this report, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (the British nuclear regulatory body) has indicated a satisfactory result for the stress testing of the nuclear plants in that country.

The full report can be found here:

Office for Nuclear Regulation - Stress Test National Final Report Dec 2011

5:45 PM Eastern Wednesday January 4, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

AAAS Symposium on Nuclear Reporting

2012-01-04T16:39:00.004-05:00

Thanks to Nicole Stricker, PhD, who is the Science Press Officer at the Idaho National Laboratory, I've been made aware of a very interesting symposium which is to be presented by the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) this February. This event is titled "Misreporting Fukushima: A Failure of Science Journalism with Global Repercussions?" Here is a link:

Misreporting Fukushima - Symposium by AAAS in Vancouver, Feb. 20

There is absolutely no doubt in this writer's mind that the vast majority of what was reported in the mainstream press in the months immediately following the Fukushima Daiichi accident was not only incorrect, but seriously flawed. Consultation of both anti-nuclear speakers such as Arnie Gunderson, and people with no nuclear knowledge whatsoever, like Michio Kaku, was regular and normal in those days. The Union of Concerned Scientists, which actually is an organization with agendas (such as being anti-nuclear) and not some oversight panel, was also consulted and quoted.

I think we all see how their predictions worked out. No contamination in the US; no deaths in the US; no radioactive fallout blanketing the Pacific islands; no massive hydrovolcanic explosion due to 'China syndrome' melt-through; no evacuation of Tokyo. No spent fuel pool fires, or prompt criticality in a spent fuel pool (this last being a wonderful Gunderson gaffe) or recriticality of damaged reactors. None of it. So far, none of the pre-apocalyptic horsefeathers these people and organizations spread around have come true.

The major problem of course is that anyone listened to them. The wide distribution of such clearly anti-nuclear (and thus strongly biased) trash as "news" bothered many in positions to know better - but the actual occurrence of the accident itself seemed to be enough to give them a brief season of credibility. We, on the pro-nuclear side, were saddled with sentiments on the order of "well you said this could never happen and now it has so why listen to you?"

None of us said that this could never happen. That's a straw man put out by people who just have absolutely no clue WHAT we've said because, for thirty or more years, they haven't listened.

So now we find ourselves in a world where several nations have decided to dump nuclear energy in a knee jerk reaction to something that happened all the way around the world and doesn't affect them one iota (Germany, and others.) Fukushima Prefecture in Japan is probably permanently non-nuclear now (its governor, as reported here at APR has indicated he will not allow any further nuclear plant operation) but the rest of Japan is up in the air. The tendency of plants shut down for inspection or maintenance not to restart (except for one plant) is bothersome as well.

Luckily there are places where need for reliable energy is high enough and desire for moral high ground (or self-immolation) low enough that nuclear is quite in the cards. This includes the United States, where the Westinghouse AP1000 has just been approved by the NRC. There are further promising signs elsewhere...

South Korea has over 17000 Mw of nuclear plant capacity on line.

'Fuel poverty' in England can only be alleviated by nuclear and they know it.

Slovakia: 50% of electric capacity is nuclear, and it's passed stress tests.

I could go on and on with links to show places where nuclear energy is moving forward, but suffice it to say that the entire world is NOT anti-nuclear. Recent polls in the United States still show a positive for nuclear energy in acceptance.

Even with the horrible mainstream reporting on nuclear energy and the Fukushima accident, and the rampant celebrity anti-nuclearism as well.

It is in the context I've outlined above that I await the results of this symposium. I've been assured by Dr. Stricker that we'll have as much information from the event as possible. I should also note that each of the speakers has a paper linked right at the AAAS page; these provide great information on the topic. It is about time that the press came to terms with its poor job in reporting technical issues; perhaps this AAAS symposium will wake some of the people in the mainstream media up.

5:10 PM Eastern Wednesday January 4, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

An update on the Russian submarine fire.

2012-01-03T11:04:00.003-05:00

There are new photos and reports out which indicate that the fire which recently occurred while a Russian Delta IV class SSBN was drydocked was actually inside the submarine... at least, inside the superstructure or outer hull.

The fire appears to have taken place inside the outer hull, but outside the pressure hull. The following site has some interesting photos but it should be made clear that what we appear to be seeing here is an outer hull cut allowing access to the forward main ballast tanks and NOT to the submarine's torpedo room.

January 3 update on BARENTS OBSERVER

The actual job that was being performed is not clear, although use of wooden scaffolding is clear. There may have been welding work in the ballast tank to add or remove solid (lead or other material) ballast to correct ship trim, or there may have been welding work to replace piping or ballast tank valves, or there may have been other work underway of another nature.

It's even more clear now that the power plant (two reactors) was at no risk due to this fire.

11:10 AM Eastern Tuesday January 3, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Carnival No. 85

2012-01-03T08:41:00.002-05:00

Meredith Angwin at "Yes Vermont Yankee," one of my favorite blogs, put up what is to be the last Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers of 2011 over the holiday weekend.

85th Carnival at Yes Vermont Yankee

Meredith also points out at the very bottom of the post that January 1 marks the birthday of Yes Vermont Yankee, and on this January 1 her blog is two years old. Congratulations, Meredith! We're all the better for it.

8:45 AM Eastern Tuesday January 3, 2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Russian Delta IV class submarine fire

2011-12-29T23:16:00.003-05:00

A significant fire has occurred involving a Delta IV class ballistic missile submarine, the 'Yekatarinburg,' while in a large floating drydock at the port of Roslyakova.

This class of submarine is reportedly powered by two 90 MWt two-loop pressurized water reactors. The Russian Navy reports that the reactors were shut down (and I'm sure they were before the floating dry dock was raised) and that no damage has occurred. No weapons were on board the submarine.

Reports indicate that non-compliance with maintenance procedures in the dry dock probably caused the fire. The fire may have involved anechoic coating on the submarine exterior. The floating dry dock was partially lowered (submerged) to help stop the fire. The fire was apparently entirely external to the submarine. Reports of injuries are mixed, and unclear.

A number of good reports are out on this event, and I'll link these below.

BARENTS OBSERVER on submarine maintenance fire

AFP via Google report on submarine maintenance fire

FAS.ORG data brief on Delta IV class SSBN

Amateur raw video of the fire in progress

There is also an AP report on this 'favorited' at the APR YouTube Channel.

As of this moment, rather expectedly, nuclear impact is zero. Unless the seawater supply hoses to the boat were severed or seawater cut off, there would be no impact to reactor cooling.

11:30 PM Eastern Thursday December 29, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Fukushima / TEPCO update for December 28, 2011

2011-12-28T08:39:00.007-05:00

Looking at yesterday's APR update, as well as the APR tweets it's clear that there is a lot going on regarding the nuclear plant situation in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. It is now possible to make a more thorough update which includes a number of areas of interest.

FUKUSHIMA WILL REFUSE FURTHER NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATION. Various news outlets in Japan, including NHK and Kyodo have now reported that the Fukushima Prefecture Governor, in a meeting with TEPCO officials, has stated that he will not allow further nuclear plant operation in Fukushima. The impact on TEPCO will be considerable. Not only does this mean that TEPCO will be dismantling and scrapping the four damaged plants, it means all of them in the prefecture. This includes two more at the Fukushima Daiichi site and still four others located to the south at the Fukushima Daini site.

A quick and rough figure in terms of cash to perform this job is possible if we take an NRC report from 1979 covering the decommissioning of a standard GE BWR plant and convert the dollars in that report to today's. The report, completed in 1980, gives a figure for one plant at $43.6 million US dollars - that's using 1978 dollar value. Converting this with an online currency converter to 2010 dollars and multiplying to give six reactor plants (all six undamaged ones) gives us a new additive figure imposed on TEPCO by Fukushima's decision of about $864 million dollars US. Some estimates of the total cost make this figure appear smallish; see the following link to Glenn Williams' brief writeup, which starts with text from my post yesterday and gives some added figures:

Japan May Abandon Ten Nuclear Plants.

The above article's total figure is staggering, especially when one realizes that TEPCO cannot derive any electric generating revenue from the six plants it will now be tearing down which are not at the end of their normal economic lives.

It is for the above reasons that many are speculating on the nationalization of TEPCO, and in fact the Japanese Government (through Industry Minister Yukio Edano) has clearly suggested to TEPCO that it consider at least temporary nationalization. This comes in the face of TEPCO making a request to the Japanese Government for further capital to the tune of $88.6 million US (equivalent.)

FUKUSHIMA PLANT STATUS AND FUTURE.

Fukushima Daiichi No. 1, No. 2, No. 3: All three plants experienced serious reactor accidents and are in a prolonged process of control, mitigation, containment, cooldown, and decommissioning.

Fukushima Daiichi No. 4: This plant was damaged by secondary causes from the other plants and will be decommissioned. Almost no damage occurred to nuclear fuel at this plant, all of which was in the spent fuel pool. See here for details.

Fukushima Daiichi No. 5, No. 6: These two plants received some tsunami damage but no secondary damage from the accidents at the other plants, being sited far enough north to be spared. However, it is a practical certainty these plants would never have restarted and now with the Fukushima Prefecture decision, they will also be decommissioned.

Fukushima Daini No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4: This separate nuclear generating site is somewhat south of Fukushima Daiichi and did not receive as much quake and tsunami damage. With the new Fukushima Prefecture decision, these four still operable plants will now be decommissioned.

CORE DAMAGE AT FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI No. 1, No. 2, No. 3

There is now a very seriously thought out body of evidence which TEPCO has presented to the world concerning the actual status of the reactor cores, reactor pressure vessels, primary containments (dry wells) and reactor buildings of the three Fukushima Daiichi plants that have experienced reactor accidents. TEPCO has produced a long and somewhat complicated video describing this work in detail.

TEPCO video covering present (Nov-Dec 2011) reactor damage status @APR YouTube.

The conditions can be summarized briefly, and are helped by the following illustration I have prepared.

Brief summaries follow:

Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 - Most of the fuel has been destroyed by melting. Most of the fuel has exited the reactor pressure vessel and has deposited in the area of the dry well directly below the reactor, inside the reactor support pedestal area and in the drain sumps. This fuel did cause a corium-concrete reaction whose effects in terms of gases given off were only all too obvious during the accident. This fuel has not reached the dry well wall; the reaction is stopped; the mass of fuel is properly cooled. Around 25 feet of depth consisting of reinforced concrete remains underneath the dry well and some further depth of concrete inside the dry well under the melted fuel mass. About one foot of water covers the melted fuel mass in the dry well.

Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 - Most of the fuel is still inside the reactor pressure vessel with a majority of it melted and relocated. Some melted fuel has exited. Water level inside the reactor vessel is not detectable due to proximity of water legs to heat. Water level in the dry well is not known but is estimated to be deeper than that at No. 1 and less than at No. 3. The core is suitably cooled by feed flow and core spray flow.

Fukushima Daiichi No. 3 - Most of the fuel is still inside the reactor pressure vessel with a majority of it melted and relocated. Some melted fuel has exited. Water level inside the reactor vessel is not detectable due to high radiation preventing work. Water level in the dry well is perhaps almost half way up the large spherical dry well chamber.

TEPCO TO SCOPE NO. 2 PLANT: There are reports on NHK that beginning soon, TEPCO will prepare to insert a television camera using a device like an endoscope which is only 8mm wide into the No. 2 plant dry well to attempt to view the conditions inside. This will be the first actual visual assessment of the interior portion of any of the three damaged reactor plants.

This about covers the present situation. I highly recommend viewing the TEPCO video linked above if you have nuclear experience; persons without will still find it of interest but perhaps a bit dry.

Finally, there is a further "tour video" of the Fukushima Daiichi site now uploaded at the APR YouTube Channel. There is no description, and captions are in Japanese, but the site views are worth seeing... I've provided some description in the caption below the video to detail what's being shown.

Click here to see the Fukushima Daiichi tour, December 2011 @ APR YouTube.

9:35 AM Eastern Wednesday December 28, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

UPDATE: I've been informed by a friend of mine in a position to know that the estimates I've given above, and also probably some others floating around, for the decommissioning cost of the Fukushima plants are probably quite low in point of fact. He gives the example that Connecticut Yankee, a single reactor (Westinghouse two loop PWR) cost over $800 million to decommission. See here for information on the decommissioning process of Connecticut Yankee.

Fukushima Daiichi - brief update

2011-12-27T09:37:00.002-05:00

Two interesting stories are being carried at this moment by NHK News, Japan. I have seen no repetition of them elsewhere as of now. Briefly...

-TEPCO will conduct an examination of conditions inside the containment (that is to say inside the dry well) at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 reactor plant using a long flexible scope. This television apparatus will be inserted through holes drilled in the building and containment next month. This is the first serious attempt to direclty ascertain the conditions inside the dry well and perhaps the condition of the lower end of the reactor pressure vessel. Previous attempts to determine conditions indirectly all failed.

-The Governor of Fukushima Prefecture has apparently told the TEPCO president that he will permit NO further reactor operation in Fukushima Prefecture. This will mean the decommissioning not only of the undamaged Fukushima Daiichi No. 5 and No. 6 plants (which this author predicted many, many months ago) but also the four intact and undamaged reactor plants at the Fukushima Daini generating station. This could of course place TEPCO in a further state of economic distress as it now will be unable to generate any revenue by operation of Fukushima Daini and will in fact be forced to undertake not only the operation to decommission four damaged plants, three with serious reactor accidents, but also now six undamaged but complete reactor plants - four of which are at a completely separate site. If this plays out as written now, it probably (in this writer's eyes) means further serious economic problems for TEPCO. TEPCO continues to deny rumors of nationalization.

Further details on both as they are available.

9:45 AM Eastern Tuesday December 27, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

The 84th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers

2011-12-24T20:45:00.019-05:00

Once again Atomic Power Review is proud to host the rotating Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers - this, the 84th edition. This feature travels around to the best nuclear blogs in the English-language world of nuclear energy, and presents the best and brightest pro-nuclear authors every week. Many times I have indicated to regular readers here at APR that this Carnival is the best single way to get an instantaneous snapshot of what is going on in the world of nuclear energy, and this week (even though deep in the holiday season) is no exception.

And, once again, before getting to the listing of Carnival contributions, I have to ask you "What is this?" and present something you may or may not be able to identify. The answer and much more will appear below the listing of Carnival entries. So... what is this?

And now.. the Carnival!

------------

BRIAN WANG / NEXT BIG FUTURE

Four entries this week from Brian...

SMR status and review for US, China, Russia, Korea

Westinghouse SMR reactor that would generate 225 MWe and be constructed in 18 months

Inertial electrostatic confinement fusion workshop

A somewhat cleaner and cheaper coal to liquid fuel process. One pathway would use nuclear power for the conversion.

Brian also submits this ROUNDUP of nuclear news.

------------

JEFF MADISON / COOL HAND NUKE

Jeff's post on the anniversary of the first electric power generation from nuclear energy is well worth a look!

The lights have been on for 60 years

------------

Meredith Angwin over at Yes Vermont Yankee submits her fine post which really helps us to look forward to National Nuclear Science Week...

High School Level Educational Resources - Nuclear Energy

Meredith kindly points out that I linked to this post at YVY in a later post at APR which looked forward to NNSW with added information; see here for that post. I do have to thank Meredith for polling the American Nuclear Society Social Media list for the resources she included in her post, and for checking all of them out.

------------

ANS NUCLEAR CAFE

Paul Bowersox has sent us two links to the Cafe...

Jim Hopf at the ANS Nuclear Cafe analyzes and evaluates the serious issues raised by NRC Commissioners concerning NRC Chairman Jaczko, which spilled over into the political arena and into Congressional Hearings last week.

And no Christmas Eve edition of the Carnival would be complete without a (soon-to-be) classic Yuletide poem to capture the spirit of the season, by the almost-anonymous A. Priori at the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

------------

GAIL MARCUS / NUKE POWER TALK

Given the flare-up at the NRC that was made public in the last couple of weeks, Gail Marcus reminisces about the past, when she served as a Commissioner's assistant during a time when the Commission truly functioned as a collegial body, in accordance with the intent of its charter. Although there were differences of opinion, she recollects an atmosphere that was generally open and cooperative.

Since we celebrated the 60th anniversary this past week of one of the very biggest milestones in nuclear power history--the first production of usable quantities of electricity at the EBR-I in Idaho--Gail Marcus returns to a discussion of historic events (started earlier this month) and puts the event in context with some earlier milestones and achievements.

------------

DAN YURMAN / IDAHO SAMIZDAT

US Areva CEO Jacques Besnainou joined the monthly conference call with nuclear bloggers. In response to a question from Dan Yurman, he said that the firm would restart the construction phase of the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Idaho by late 2013 or 2014, or whenever investment funding is found for the project. Also, Besnainou provided an update on the progress of two EPR reactors being built in China. Click here to see Dan's article.

I would also like to congratulate Dan on setting some new page view records on the Idaho Samizdat blog!

------------

That's it for our Carnival rides this week... and now it's time to tell you what that was you saw up there at the top of this post.

This smallish nuclear power plant is significant because of our recent focus here and on other sites on anniversaries ... the anniversary of this plant's first criticality was at the beginning of December 1956, with a buildup or ramp up to full rated power on December 29th, 1956. This plant is the EBWR or Experimental Boiling Water Reactor, constructed at Argonne National Laboratory. Let's take a look at a few other illustrations of this plant; we'll start with AEC publication TID-4562.

Above, we can see the layout of the plant. The first experimental boiling water reactor of this series was an EBWR prototype, built at NRTS Idaho. The plant we see here took lessons from that prototype. The EBWR was designed by Argonne National Laboratory; the plant architect-engineer was Sargent & Lundy, with Summer Sollitt Co. acting as general contractor.

The EBWR was rated 20 MWt / 5 MWe initially when built. The original core contained both natural uranium and enriched uranium plates with Zirc-2 cladding. The core fuel loading was 4536 kg of natural and 66 kg enriched uranium. There were 77 of the natural and 36 enriched fuel elements in a core structure 4 feet in diameter and 4 feet high.

Above, we see a view from TID-4562 (partially ghosted, as published) showing the installation of the pressure vessel in the EBWR reactor building. According to "Nuclear Reactor Plant Data 1959" published by the ASME, this vessel was constructed of SA-212 Gr. B steel, had an 84 inch inside diameter, and was designed for 800 psig and 650F.

Above, simplified flow diagram for the EBWR.

Finally, above we see the operating floor of the EBWR in an AP wire photo dated February 2, 1957. On the left we see the plant's turbine generator, which was constructed by the Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company. According to the ASME data, the nameplate rating of this machine was 6250 kw; however, the plant's maximum capability (input to the turbine) resulted in a 5000 kw rating gross, with 4500 kw net power left to supply facilities outside the EBWR plant. At full load, inlet pressure to the turbine was 560 psig with steam at a temperature of 482F. At full rated power and at the stated conditions steam flow to the turbine was 60,000 lbs/hr. This is probably the smallest Allis-Chalmers turbine generator set ever built as a main power unit for a nuclear power plant; the largest was probably that installed at Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant (Fermi-1), which we have seen before on APR.

In the photo, the reactor is underneath the heavy looking steel structures nearer the center, while spent fuel storage is beyond this more to the right and rear.

I hope you've enjoyed this week's Carnival and a look back at yet another plant well known in history that first went critical and then became fully operational in December.

9:40 PM Eastern Saturday, December 24, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Westinghouse AP1000 certified

2011-12-22T16:34:00.002-05:00

Today, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has certified the Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized water reactor design. This is a significant milestone, and with this announcement by the NRC it's clear that the COL process for Plant Vogtle and V.C. Summer stations (two reactors each station) could be complete in the first quarter of next year.

Here is the NRC's announcement on the NRC blog.

Here is American Nuclear Society's "ANS Nuclear Cafe" post on the subject.

Here is Westinghouse Electric Company's press release, including background and commentary.

4:40 PM Eastern Thursday, December 22, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

National Nuclear Science Week - this time, next month!

2011-12-21T08:43:00.003-05:00

Readers of this site have surely noticed the icon on the right side carrying the emblem of National Nuclear Science Week, which is a link to the website set up to get out the message about this important educational event.

There is about one month left until NNSW; it runs January 23 to January 27; five school days worth of possibilities for our educators to get nuclear science into the schools.

Each day of the week has a specific focus. These are:

Monday, January 23: Get to Know Nuclear
Tuesday, January 24: Careers in Nuclear Fields
Wednesday, January 25: Nuclear Energy Generation
Thursday, January 26: Nuclear Safety
Friday, January 27: Nuclear Medicine

Are you an educator, or school administrator? Are you prepared for this opportunity? Do you have resources in place? It is NOT too late.

You can click here to get to National Nuclear Science Week's site where educational resources are available.

You can click here to access a wonderful compilation of high school level educational resources compiled by Meredith Angwin over at Yes Vermont Yankee.

You can look at the extensive link list on the right side of Atomic Power Review's pages; many of these links have content that can help develop a lesson plan or answer questions. Also, many of the bloggers can and will answer questions sent via comments or via e-mail.

The American Nuclear Society can provide speakers with enough advance notice if any are available in your area, and has materials available on line. Here is one link. There is also "About Nuclear," set up by ANS. Click here to see that site.

So there it is. One month.. plenty of time.. and quite a number of resources. APR will be hosting a special article each day on the relevant topics as well, and I have a feeling a number of other pro-nuclear blogs and sites will be doing so too. Get ready!

8:55 AM Eastern Wednesday December 21, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

60th anniversary of EBR-I power generation

2011-12-21T06:39:00.007-05:00

Yesterday and today mark an important event in nuclear energy history; these two days are the span during which the EBR-1 reactor plant, which was located at the National Reactor Testing Station, Arco, Idaho, generated useful electricity for the first time. The plant was slowly brought up to full power over a two day span; there was a famous moment the first day (December 20, 1951) on which the plant's turbine generator powered four light bulbs, while on the second day the turbine generator supplied all the plant power needs.

Dan Yurman, who worked at the NRTS (later, INEEL) for many years has an excellent posting on Idaho Samizdat which includes two videos. Click here to see his post; I highly recommend it.

Now, to be clear, in those years there were a number of "firsts" and a number of claimed firsts. The event we're talking about at EBR-I was the first generation of useful power to do work by a nuclear reactor plant. This was, of course, in the form of electricity. Let's take a quick look at a "firsts" timeline to get a better perspective overall; this is a generalized timeline I constructed myself a long while back for general reference.

December, 1942: First self sustaining nuclear reaction (CP-1, Chicago)
December, 1951: First generation of electric power (EBR-1, NRTS)
February, 1953: Second plant to generate electric power (HRE-1, Oak Ridge)
March, 1953: First nuclear power plant goes critical (STR-1, NRTS)
June, 1954: First nuclear generating plant critical (APS-1, Obninsk, USSR)
January, 1955: First nuclear powered vessel on sea trials (USS Nautilus)
March, 1955: First criticality of sodium cooled seagoing prototype (SIR, W. Milton)
July, 1955: First US sale of electricity generated by nuclear energy to a commercial power company (SIR, W. Milton, to Niagara Mohawk)
July, 1957: First Army nuclear plant completed (APPR, Ft. Belvoir)
October, 1957: GE Vallecitos BWR goes on line supplying power to PG&E, with commercial reactor license No. 1 from the AEC
December, 1957: Shippingport Atomic Power Station on line with Duquesne Light Company. First US full scale nuclear generating station; also, this was the first commercial nuclear generating station announced and ordered. GE quickly rushed the Vallecitos experimental reactor (preparation for Dresden station) and got a contract with PG&E to distribute the power to beat Westinghouse / Duquesne Light with Shippingport.
December, 1961: Nuclear powered ship NS Savannah achieves criticality.

--------------------------------------------------------------

That's a pretty solid, if brief, early timeline. At some point I'll publish the entire timeline, but these are the highlights. Now, let's get back to the anniversary at hand with just a quick technical look at the EBR-I plant.

EBR-I was a liquid metal and air cooled experimental fast breeder reactor. It was designed by Argonne National Laboratory, which at that time was the principal design bureau for the AEC. The Austin Company acted as architect-engineer, with Bechtel Corporation building the plant. The purposes of this plant were quite simple; it was supposed to test various breeding core designs (breeding means that you get as much or more fissionable material from core operation as you burn from the initial fissionable material loading) as well as work out various problems that were anticipated with metal cooled fast breeders. For those uninitiated, "fast breeder" means that the reactor is designed to sustain its chain reaction on fast fission - that is, the neutrons are not slowed down or 'thermalized' as they are in water cooled reactors.

Below, we see some illustrations from a TID-4562, Experimental Power and Test Reactors, November 1956 which was published by the Technical Information Service of the Atomic Energy Commission. First, the entire plant in cutaway, with the external building omitted. Click to enlarge.

Caption from TID-4562: "The primary liquid metal coolant flows by gravity from the supply tank (top center) through the reactor core, from which it absorbs heat, and then to the heat exchanger, where it gives up this heat to the secondary coolant, also liquid metal. The primary coolant is returned to the supply tank by an electromagnetic pump (bottom.) The secondary coolant is pumped to the boiler, where it gives up its heat to water, thus generating steam. The steam then passes to the turbine, is condensed, and returned to the boiler by a feed water pump.

This plant used NaK (sodium-potassium) for both the primary and secondary (intermediate) coolants; in the initial core installation, the primary coolant entered the core at 442F and exited at 600F with a pressure maintained at about 100 psig. The NaK flow rate through the core was 292 gallons per minute. The outer blanket was cooled by air, with a total airflow of 5800 cfm. Data indicate that if the inlet temperature to the blanket was 37F the outlet temperature was 196F.

The core configuration shown below is, I believe, the Mark II core. Four cores were used in the reactor; Mark I, August 1951 to January 1954; Mark II, March 1954 to November 1955; Mark III, November 1957 to late 1961 and finally a plutonium core was built and installed as the Mark IV in the spring of 1962. Looking at the Mark II core below:

The outer blanket of this core was movable on an elevator, and could be lowered to act as a control element. The core also had four regulating rods and eight safety rods.

The primary NaK coolant in this core flowed down between the inner blanket rods, and then up through the comparatively tiny central reactor core. As mentioned, there was a double heat transfer circuit also using NaK as the intermediate coolant, and then water as the final coolant. This steam generator produced steam at 400 psig and 3630 lbs/hr flow rate to drive the turbine generator which was rated 200 KWe. The total power of the reactor was divided; 72% of the total power was developed in the core, 14% in the inner blanket and 14% in the outer blanket. The total power rating of this core was 1400 KW.

Finally we have a view of the reactor installation from inside the reactor building. Eight to nine feet of concrete shielding surround the reactor tank; the stairs at the left lead up to the control room for the plant.

I hope you've enjoyed this commemoration, and a brief historical perspective.

7:40 AM Eastern Wednesday December 21, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Radiation deaths in US due to Fukushima Daiichi: Nope.

2011-12-20T17:01:00.006-05:00

The major scaremonger behind the Radiation and Public Health Project, a dedicated anti-nuclear activist non-profit 501(c)3 corporation which pays this scaremonger $82,000 a year, has co-authored a paper which has probably set a new record for the rate at which it was totally torn apart by careful review. Actually, the review required to debunk it didn't have to be that careful.

This report details the deaths supposedly associated with a radiation plume (sic) that hit the US after the Fukushima Daiichi accident. (Long time readers here might recall that the Los Angeles area air quality site had a radiation detection widget up for a month or two and took it down after never having detected anything.) The report was supposedly "peer reviewed," but since for people of this ilk the term "peer review" means that only a few like-minded and paid activists will see it before it's published the term is meaningless. The paper, likewise, has not appeared in any reputable medically oriented venue.

I will give some links below to the paper itself first, and then some articles everyone might want to read in order to get a clear idea of who is at work here and what their agenda is... as well as just how lousy the science is. Heck, Mangano himself doesn't even back up the paper in interviews with both barrels.

First we find a presentation of the paper in the International Journal of Health Services, which as Rod Adams has discovered really has less to do with health and more to do with an agenda. Here is the RPHP link.

Here is the discussion of this "paper" by NEI NUCLEAR NOTES.

Scientific American takes care of this "paper" in this new post. If you want to see what Scientific American had to say previously about Mangano's work you can also click here. (Thanks to Yes Vermont Yankee! for reminding me about this older story.)

Finally, we get a statistical dissection of how the data were manipulated by reading the fine article at The Capacity Factor.

I have debated Mangano before and find even his basic knowledge of nuclear accident history to be not just seriously lacking, but populated entirely with lies. It's certain that this new study has already been subjected to enough withering review that its lies are also now exposed. What this author hopes most of all is that the "peer review" process that such disreputable "scientists" are using is exposed for what it really is and is not. Who reviewed this one... that's what I'd like to know.

5:20 PM Eastern Tuesday December 20, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

UPDATE 6:15 PM TUESDAY... Rod Adams at Atomic Insights has just posted another piece covering the paper in question, and it's well worth reading. Click here to read Rod's analysis.

UPDATE 4:35 PM WEDNESDAY... Cheryl Rofer at Nuclear Diner has sent along a link to another dissection of the report. Click here to see it. Thanks, Cheryl!

UPDATE 5:05 PM THURSDAY... Dan Yurman has tipped us off to the following story run on Vitals @ msnbc.com which further disassembles and invalidates the new "report." Click here to read this story. Thanks, Dan!

"Cold Shutdown" controversy at Fukushima Daiichi

2011-12-20T07:58:00.004-05:00

There has been a lot of bad press about the announcement by the Japanese Government that the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi have achieved a state of cold shutdown. I have tried to clear this up in a previous post, but since there does appear to be continued confusion in some media, I will make a couple of additional points.

It was stated (and continues to be, in places) that the owner-operator of the Fukushima Daiichi site (TEPCO) and that the Japanese government have been less than forthcoming with information, and that operations on the site and effects off site have been covered up. This could not be further from the truth; simply look at all the posts on this site and all the videos on the APR YouTube Channel for this proof. To this end (that is, for the sake of transparency) a very detailed recovery timeline was developed and published widely by all concerned parties and continues to be used to this day.

The achievement of 'cold shutdown' is one of the steps on this timeline, and as such when it's reached, it's announced. This is simple enough for anyone to understand. But who made this determination? Let's look at a quote from NISA's site (Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency) to get the facts:

December 19, 2011... NISA website. "The Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters evaluated that the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi NPS, TEPCO, were brought to a condition equivalent to "cold shutdown" and, even if an unforeseeable event occurs, the exposure dose at the site boundaries can be kept at a sufficiently low level as a result of the evaluation of the securing of safety at nuclear reactor facility of Fukushima Daiichi NPS, TEPCO, at the completion phase of Step 2, stating that a safe condition has been achieved and the accident at the NPS itself has come to be settled."

So, the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters (this is a special construct of the Japanese Government) decided that the condition had been achieved, and it seems obvious to me that NISA and TEPCO would be included in this decision making simply by virtue of the complicated manner in which the Japanese nuclear industry operates. Thus, this is neither a unilateral nor simply a political announcement - it's technical. And it's mapped out on the timeline as a required step.

What does this mean? Well, "cold shutdown" is a term normally used for intact reactors in normal conditions; the term is adapted here to indicate (as I've posted before) that the reactors are cooled down sufficiently and that release of radionuclides to the atmosphere is minimal or zero. Here are some further specific facts:

-No further core damage is occurring (or has for some time.)
-No condition of explosive hydrogen accumulation exits, with nitrogen purge to the reactors and primary containments and gas handling systems operating.
-No condition of decay heat buildup in the reactors exists, with both feedwater system cooling feed and core spray ring feed in progress.
-No condition of dose above 1 mSv/yr exists outside the nuclear power station.
-No condition of wide uncontrolled atmospheric release exits with the reactors cooled down below 100C and thus no boiling occurring to disperse materials with steam.

In the final analysis, this announcement is kind of like saying "I think I have caught a cold." You already had the cold before you knew it; the symptoms accumulated until as a group you put them all together to determine you were sick. This announcement is very similar; each of the contributory factors was reached independently of the others in ways, but tied together in ways so that the actual state of "cold shutdown" has existed for weeks. Only now did the nuclear response headquarters unit, NISA and TEPCO collaboratively decide that it was time to announce without doubt that this status had been achieved. What this means is detailed above; it could not be more clear what this means and does not mean. It also could not be more clear that there is no political advantage in making this announcement for anyone - it's a matter of plant status, and that's all.

8:15 AM Eastern Tuesday December 20, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

---------------------------------------------

UPDATE DECEMBER 21, 2011

Here are some links that readers might find to be of interest.

NRC Definition of "Cold Shutdown"

Nuclear Energy Institute's statement - December 19, 2011

IAEA welcomes news of cold shutdown at Fukushima Daiichi

Link to PDF file from TEPCO to IAEA mentioning previous "stable cooling" threshold and the later, now achieved "cold shutdown" status

NRC Chairman Jaczko's comments after a visit to Fukushima Daiichi, on the cold shutdown announcement and plant conditions

Below, a graph from Tokyo Electric Power Company showing core decay heat generation for all three Fukushima Daiichi reactors. In reality, "Fukushima Daiichi" is "Fukushima Number One" nuclear power plant site, and 1F is the TEPCO code for Fukushima Daiichi. Thus, 1F1 is Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 reactor plant, 1F2 is No. 2 and 1F3 is No. 3. Note that core power due to decay heat as calculated by ORIGEN2 analysis code as of September 2011 is already down to roughly one megawatt for No. 2 and No. 3 plants, and down to roughly 0.8 MWt for No. 1 plant.

Carnival 83 up at ANS Nuclear Cafe

2011-12-20T07:08:00.002-05:00

The 83rd Carnival is now up at one of my favorite sites, the ANS Nuclear Cafe. This rotating feature not only is useful in giving a reader a glimpse of what each of us in the nuclear blogosphere is writing about; it also is a great weekly wrap-up of news items that may or may not have peaked on, say, the Google News page but nevertheless are of specific interest to people in the know. That last fact should be a good reason to check out the Carnival ... what the nuclear bloggers are saying is probably much more fact-filled and relevant than the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) pieces* you see in the mainstream media.

Click here to get to Carnival 83 at ANS Nuclear Cafe.

For those wondering about the Carnival and the upcoming Christmas holiday... there WILL be a Carnival 84 this weekend and it will be hosted ON THIS WEBSITE. That's right - Atomic Power Review is presenting the Carnival this weekend. If you have the time.. or if you have LOTS of time.. then make sure to look here because this feature will be uninterrupted by the holiday.

7:12 AM Eastern Tuesday December 20, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

APR - December 17, 2011

2011-12-17T16:42:00.008-05:00

Beginning with this post, Atomic Power Review will have a new post format intended to give readers a clear update of events accumulated over several days or a week. This new feature appropriately is called APR (no secret what that stands for) and is intended to be a simple review of events. Detailed posts with specific titles and covering specific events will continue. Fully detailed posts concerning the Fukushima Daiichi accident recovery will continue as well. Readers should also note that the APR Twitter feed (seen in a black background box on the right side of this page) serves as a good quick update news ticker - I often tweet things I do not post here. Further, I would always point readers to the auto-updating blog roll on the right, on which you can see the title of the newest post at a number of highly important nuclear energy blogs.

----------------------------------------

JAPAN UPDATES ... This week, the Japanese Prime Minister announced that the Fukushima Daiichi plant's three damaged reactors had officially reached a state of "cold shutdown." This simply means that the reactors' temperatures overall are under 100C, and that the release of contamination to the environment is controlled (practically halted at No. 1 plant, whose reactor building is fully covered) to limit offsite radiation field exposure health risk to none above normal or background. While many sources are saying that this announcement is simply an arbitrary one designed to make it look as if the recovery is progressing faster than it is, the fact is that this step was actually announced in the recovery road map at the beginning as an important one and, now that it has been reached, or in other words the conditions to declare it satisfied, it's been announced and simply means the things I have described. The brief take on this is that the damaged cores are considered reliably cooled and that radiation exposure off site is negligible. It does not mean that all of a sudden a vast improvement has been achieved and should not be taken as an implication of this.

TEPCO has announced that it may take up to 40 years to fully decommission the plants. This writer recalls that two competing consortiums were working to win a contract bid on the decommissioning, and that the going estimate at that time (some months back) was approximately 30 years. That figure was also used again in the Japanese press recently, but now it appears that at least informally TEPCO is beginning to push the estimate out a bit.

Site operations at Fukushima Daiichi continue as before, very largely. TEPCO has experienced repeated but small leaks on its water cleanup equipment, prompting a stern warning from NISA and causing NISA to require TEPCO to essentially recertify its equipment and procedures. Readers may recall a prior APR post where I mentioned a discussion Dan Yurman and I had about the plant.. and you can be sure TEPCO will be patrolling the equipment in entirety on foot more often than every 20 to 24 hours, which we both agreed was just totally inadequate.

TEPCO has made the observation that it is experiencing a fairly recent net intake of 200 to 500 tons per day of ground water into the plant buildings, and that this is adding to the total accumulation of water that must be processed and stored.

UNITED STATES.... Perhaps the most encouraging news anywhere on the nuclear front is the report this week carried by a number of media and blogs that the Westinghouse APR1000 plant now has a majority of favorable votes in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that licensing for these plants is probably imminent. Two plants are actually under construction now at Plant Vogtle, Georgia (at least the foundation work is underway.) Combined construction and operating licenses for the two Vogtle plants, and two to be built at Virgil C. Summer station in South Carolina, may be issued by the end of the year after the full Commission vote.

Vastly more prominent in the news this week, unsurprisingly, was the House Oversight Committee hearing which included investigation into the letter sent to the White House Chief of Staff by all four NRC Commissioners, accusing NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko of quite a number of inappropriate behaviors that essentially (if true) amount to harassment and development of a hostile work environment. Certain allegations were also made that imply Jaczko's behavior may be worse toward women, and the behavior was said to extend not just to the four Commissioners but to senior NRC staff as well. He was also accused of withholding and/or controlling information provided to the Commissioners. Those are essentially the accusations; I have an opinion piece about this posted on this site which you can read by clicking here.

That debacle briefly behind, Jaczko is now in Japan and will visit the Fukushima Daiichi site. Jaczko was quoted on NHK TV as saying that the achievement of cold shutdown status is a milestone.

OPINION.... This writer feels that the action being taken by certain Republican members of the House of Representatives (read about it here) is probably a very good idea. The allegations made by the four Commissioners (Svinicki, Ostendorff, Apostalakis and Magwood) against Chairman Jaczko are serious and constitute abuse of power if true. Jaczko showed no remorse and admitted no wrongdoing, which makes it only clearer that his attitude is one of complete rigidity. Further, it was practically proven during the questioning that Jaczko thinks he is better suited to judge on safety issues than the other members. These however aren't the most troubling issues.

After the Fukushima Daiichi accident, Jaczko assumed emergency executive power over the NRC - a fact that some Commissioners claim not to have known about until some time after he did so. This essentially removes the commission vote format and makes the Chairman essentially President/Chairman/CEO of the NRC. The problem with this is that the operating regulations state pretty clearly that this is to be done only when the emergency taking place is at a facility that the NRC regulates. NRC doesn't regulate anything in Japan; NISA does. So why did Jaczko assume power? It's a good question, and so good that the legal counsel for the NRC couldn't answer it directly in the afternoon Oversight Committee hearing. Frankly, this writer thought that the counsel's answer was garbage and probably legally unsupportable given the letter of the rule covering executive control of the NRC.

Because there may be some wiggle room or ambiguity, several House members have decided to float around a bill to limit the NRC Chairman's position to just that - and not autocratic overlord. We can only hope, given an increasing amount of data on what might be an agenda for Jaczko, that this bill or else a rewriting of the 1980 act that directs the NRC's management scheme will be enacted.

OTHER NEWS AND NOTES.

Atomic Power Review is proud to have been added to the link list at AREVA North America's fine blog, found by clicking here. We've naturally reciprocated the link. Since this site is a manufacturer (reactor vendor and a lot more, actually) site the blog posts vary widely in their scope but they can't be beaten for direct, accurate information "straight from the horse's mouth" as it were.

Another interesting site I myself just found this week is Nuclear Australia. I will be contacting the owner for link exchange. This blog doesn't update as frequently as some, but the posts are very interesting- the most recent as of now concerning coal plants' radiation emission is noteworthy.

In relation to the aforementioned AP1000 plant.. Westinghouse has, just this week, opened a new part of their website devoted to demonstrating the AP1000's capabilities in the face of a Station Blackout, or SBO event. This new visually stimulating presentation can be found by clicking here. Were anyone to have questions about whether or not real thought has been put into long-term SBO conditions, these presentations answer them.

Finally, a note on video: The full House Oversight Committee hearing with Chairman Jaczko and the other four NRC Commissioners is listed as a 'favorite' at the APR YouTube Channel.

5:50 PM Eastern Saturday December 17, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW © Will Davis

House Oversight Committee / NRC hearing, Dec. 14

2011-12-14T14:51:00.006-05:00

Today's hearings by the House Oversight Committee in regards to the complaints registered against NRC Chairman Jaczko by the other four NRC Commissioners have ended... although there is a two week period before the record is published which allows some interviewees to receive further questions and give answers.

Here are my first take observations, having watched the session:

-Chairman Jaczko does not believe he has done anything wrong, or at least will never admit to it. This is of course quite impossible given the complaints by all four NRC Commissioners, and complaints by NRC senior staff. Jaczko's continued but worn thin defense is his passion for safety - but belligerence masquerading as passion certainly seems to be the thrust of the questioning regarding his behavior at least so far as the Oversight Committee is concerned.

-Given the complete lack of credible responses by the Chairman, this author is inclined to believe all of the allegations put forward by the Commissioners. Jaczko has only apologized for causing a distraction - not for his behavior.

-Committee Chairman Issa essentially proved during the session that the behavior of Chairman Jaczko as described in the complaints constitutes harassment. Harassment cases at any private sector company are immediately addressed and assigned to Human Resources, but in this case Jaczko and apparently the White House feel as if the problem can be solved inside the NRC... thus leaving the fox in charge of the hen house once again, as it were.

-Chairman Jaczko apparently, as a result of repeated and heated questioning, does in fact feel as if he is better qualified to determine anything on any safety related issues than the other Commissioners, even though he has no nuclear experience whatsoever.

-Chairman Jaczko was clearly outside his legal authority to declare emergency executive control of the NRC at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, since the accident was not at a facility regulated by or licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This facility, half way around the world, is of different sovereignty (nationality) and as such is regulated by that nation's system; no emergency existed at the time at any U.S. facility and never has as a result of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. This point was made clear by Mr. Issa.

-Most Democratic Party members of the Oversight Committee functioned essentially as expected, attempting to turn this into either a partisan politics issue or attempting to point the finger at the other four Commissioners who, it was implied, are in the employ of the nuclear industry... this, for example, is why (it was said) they attempted to hold up one or more NRC reports on Fukushima Daiichi.

Author note: The reports on Fukushima Daiichi's impact will become important to be released immediately at any time, including all the way back to the date of March 11, 2011, when forty foot tsunamis become possible in the Continental United States. Other than this eventuality, which is total flood derived derangement of plant equipment, there is (and has been) no immediate threat at any time to any US nuclear plant as a result of exactly the same circumstances which have caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.

As a result of the above fact, attempts by the four Commissioners to review and correct such reports as the NRC 21 day Fukushima Report SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. The contention of Jaczko (and his compatriot, Rep. Kucinich) is that the other members were attempting to stave off any post- Fukushima safety changes to protect the nuclear industry from cost or trouble. Later lines of questioning proved this to be a false accusation; the Commissioners have a responsibility to review and correct any materials produced, as stated by Commissioner Ostendorff.

In the final analysis, it is this writer's opinion that Jaczko should either resign (which he will not do) or be removed. Jaczko could (as posited during the hearings) become a Commissioner once again, with one of the other members appointed as Chairman. At the very least, mediation and oversight must be put in place to stop any future behavior of the sort described today. As I said earlier, if this were a private firm HR would be all over this. Who serves as HR for the NRC?

3:15 PM Eastern Wednesday December 14, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Update to core cooling information at Fukushima Daiichi

2011-12-14T08:34:00.004-05:00

I have finally (thanks to A. David Rossin and some other new friends) finally seen an illustration from TEPCO indicating the cooling flow paths being used at the Fukushima Daiichi plants; it does appear now that TEPCO is using the core spray rings instead of the top spray as they had indicated before these second flow paths were added. Below, an illustration of the GE BWR3/BWR4 reactor pressure vessel and attached and internal fixtures, marked up for this update.

The blue stars indicate the location of the normal feedwater flow path; feedwater is introduced through a nozzle in the pressure vessel and is supplied to a ring ("sparger") which directs the feedwater flow downward, all around the outside of the core barrel.

The yellow star on the left side of this illustration shows the nozzle for connection of the core spray; that on the right shows the location of the core spray ring. This is the added flow path being used at at least one or all of the plants, as indicated in a November 30 TEPCO illustration I've just seen this morning.

On the top of the illustration we see a red star by the top spray connection; TEPCO had previously indicated that this would be the second flow path, but clearly the core spray ring is more logical.

It's important to note that the feedwater sparger is OUTSIDE the core barrel and that the core spray sparger is INSIDE the core barrel. This makes the core spray far more effective in directly cooling the core ... so long as the core is mostly in its original location.

One of the things that this author is still wondering about is the recirc pump seals. If the recirc pump seals are failed and leaking, then this will provide a leak path out of the reactor vessel essentially at the height of the jet pump standpipes. This would make it hard to keep water level higher than roughly 2/3 of the normal core height by feedwater flow alone.

There are some further developments regarding TEPCO press releases that I'm just now aware of and will update on those later on today.

8:45 AM Eastern Wednesday December 14, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Fukushima Daiichi update - December 13, 2011

2011-12-13T15:29:00.002-05:00

There is little significant news coming out of Fukushima Daiichi, at least in terms of the number of reports. Two of the few reports are, however, of some note.

-Getting the least important update out of the way first -- as of December 10th, TEPCO has added core spray to No. 1 plant's cooling injection. As of that date, all three plants are operating (finally) with both the normal feedwater injection lines and their core spray lines. (This is, according to TEPCO, the top spray above the steam separators.)

-NISA has taken some serious action against TEPCO as a result of several decontamination / desalination system water leaks over the past week, issuing a Serious Warning to the utility and essentially forcing TEPCO to rewrite the standards by which it is given license to operate its water cleanup systems. This is almost like relicensing, but without a forced interim shutdown of the equipment.

-TEPCO now estimates that there is something like as much as 500 tons per day, total, of ground water at the Fukushima Daiichi site leaking INTO the turbine buildings. This is causing a faster buildup of water onsite than planned. TEPCO would like to release some low-level contaminated water to sea, but as of today Yukio Edano has said that TEPCO will have to get permission from fishermen's groups in the area before it discharges any more water. This writer wonders just how long ground water has been leaking into the buildings, and what effect overall this has had on the operation since the very beginning. Surely each aftershock after the first quake had the opportunity to further breach the buildings' basements, allowing possibly more groundwater to get in.

3:40 PM Eastern Tuesday December 13, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Radioactive Emissions Measurement at Fukushima Daiichi - new TEPCO video

2011-12-13T14:51:00.003-05:00

TEPCO has released the second video of the third series in its coverage of the recovery effort at Fukushima Daiichi.

This third series covers measurement of radiation, and radioactive material emission at the site; the newest video, rather longer than usual, contains detailed information about how TEPCO is measuring the particulate emission from the three damaged reactor plants (each situation is different). The complicated considerations and calculations are very well covered.

CLICK HERE to access the APR YouTube Channel.

2:55 PM Eastern Tuesday December 13, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

AP1000 SBO information

2011-12-13T14:03:00.003-05:00

The nuclear term SBO has begun to get into the usage of some of the general public as a result both of the Fukushima Daiichi accident and as the result of a few storms in the United States in the last two years that resulted in brief SBO conditions (but of course in the US, the diesels started, ran and kept running in every instance.) SBO stands for "Station Black Out" and refers to a total loss of all AC power being supplied to the nuclear power plant site from outside the plant.

Westinghouse has today released a very excellent presentation on its new AP1000 nuclear plant's abilities in an SBO situation. This is important as AP1000 plants are actually under construction right now not only in the United States but in other countries. Advocates of reactor safety (and aren't we all?) and those interested in the overall SBO mitigation strategy will find the link below of great interest.

WESTINGHOUSE NUCLEAR: AP1000 SBO PRESENTATION

2:10 PM Eastern Tuesday December 13, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

The situation at the NRC

2011-12-13T13:19:00.005-05:00

There are so many posts on line and articles extant at the moment about the previously hidden, but now well exposed management situation at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it would be difficult to sum them all up. Further, it would be hard to fully describe all of the events in one brief and easily read post, so I will simply sum up the events until this point.

-For some time now, there has been an atmosphere of intimidation on the part of NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, as alleged (now very publicly) by all four other NRC commissioners. (There are five commissioners, one of whom is Chairman.)

-There is also alleged a policy of withholding information from commissioners, on the part of the Chairman, for the purpose of controlling decision making.

-It is a fact that the Chairman holds the position of Chairman solely and completely as a result of political and not operational considerations; Jaczko has absolutely no nuclear plant, nuclear engineering or nuclear energy administration experience whatsoever (prior to appointment as a commissioner due to political leverage, and later politically as NRC Chairman.) The plain fact is that Jaczko was formerly associated with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and was placed in position of Chairman by President Obama after having been a commissioner.

-The above has led widely to speculation that Jaczko's appointment was made with the understanding that his sole purpose was to kill the Yucca Mountain HLW (High Level Waste) storage facility plan, which was to be located Nevada - Reid's state - and which Reid opposed. Jaczko is accused in many quarters of having shut down the review of Yucca Mountain when it in fact was the NRC's obligation to complete the review even if the findings were that the facility would be impractical or even unsafe. (The study was shut down far before any final report was launched.)

It should be kept in mind when reading the above fact that the Federal Government is and has been for many years legally obligated to provide such a long term storage facility, in order to get HLW off the sites of owner-operators (i.e. the nuclear power plant sites themselves) and has totally failed in this obligation. Jaczko's killing of the project study is thus especially troubling in light of the fact that no alternative was prepared, or even suggested.

-There is now political tug-of-war at play, as Democrats (Rep. Markey) try to demonize the four other NRC commissioners for damaging the NRC's work and thus nuclear plant safety (a ridiculous accusation, and baseless) and as the White House has issued a letter of apology written by Jaczko who states that he will reach out to the other commissioners and will keep them more in the loop as it were.

-This all comes in advance of a House Oversight hearing on this NRC management problem tomorrow at 10 AM Eastern. Surely, some or all of the response by Jaczko, the Democrats (variously) and the White House is meant to stem the onslaught of accusation and presentation of fact that would make Jaczko look bad at tomorrow's hearing.

---------------------------------------

The above basically summarizes where we are on this whole NRC "event" at half past one in the afternoon Tuesday, December 13. I will now offer some of my own personal opinions on this subject and on Jaczko in general, for whatever they are worth.

1. THE NRC NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY. Jaczko himself seemingly quashes any discussion about Yucca Mountain any time it is brought up; a good example of this was the NRC webinar in which this author took part a short time back, which was presented by the work of the ANS and moderated by my friend Dan Yurman. In that webinar Jaczko said that Yucca Mountain was a non-issue as it was dead, and that the NRC essentially served as an appellate court of sorts to decisions relating to licensing board activity. Thus, Jaczko clearly believes that the NRC is in the business, in a back door sort of way, of dictating national energy policy. The NRC's job should be simply that of a regulatory agency; it should perform licensing and oversight functions only and leave energy policy to lawmakers. Any and every effort, up to and including a clear re-writing of the NRC's charter, should be made to prevent any NRC decision from killing a nationally (federally) mandated project or review. Part of the reason the AEC was split up was that whatever project the AEC wanted, it got; this does not mean that the NRC has the option of killing any and every project it wants to kill. We have swung too far the other way.

2. NO SAFETY IMPLICATIONS HAVE OCCURRED OR WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THIS ONGOING SITUATION. In point of fact, the NRC under Jaczko has been almost completely obstructionist in terms of licensing new nuclear plants. As pointed out some time back by fellow blogger and nuclear professional Rod Adams, the NRC has never approved and licensed any plant whose design process began after formation of the NRC. In other words, all the licensed facilities were begun before the NRC was created. Thus, its rate of approval is presently zero. It would be difficult to believe that there is any safety implication, thus, in the licensing of new designs. Further, when there were some questions the NRC Chairman had about the AP1000 design and which were not apparently answered to his satisfaction he decided to go wholly public with this information, possibly damaging the market position and business potential of a major nuclear equipment manufacturer. If this had occurred by statement of a private citizen, potentially many millions of dollars worth of slander lawsuits could have been filed. Certainly, no NRC or AEC action has been so public before; they are always resolved internally. Jaczko further exacerbated matters by saying more or less that he felt he can use any and every method available, and would do so again. Seeing all this it's impossible to believe that things are "getting by" the NRC or being rubber stamped by it. In fact, it's the opposite, apparently (according to the accusations) thanks to the Chairman in no small part.

3. THE NRC CHAIRMAN MUST BE SELECTED BASED LARGELY ON EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD AND NOT SIMPLY BY POLITICAL AFFILIATION OR MANDATE. It seems clearer all the time that Jaczko's purpose at the NRC is wholly politically motivated, especially considering the sharp Democratic responses to the common complaint (from all four other commissioners) of his problems. If it were only Republican-appointed people complaining about him in the first place, we might see the complaints and rebuttals purely as political... but it's everyone. It's very easy to see that this might be alleviated to some extent if the Chairman had nuclear industry experience to back up decisions - but he does not, so we have instances where Jaczko feels the need to force post-Fukushima changes onto plants where they're clearly not required and then uses his demeanor or any other method* to shout down or suppress any opposition. The plain fact of the matter is that the direct cause of the Fukushima Daiichi accident was a forty foot high tsunami; thus, the only immediate changes we need make in the United States are to those plants possibly subject to a similar disaster. An NRC Chairman with experience would know this. I can of course go on for hours about why someone in charge has to have experience and be able to do the jobs of those he leads, but that's Business Management 101 and I won't bother to repeat any of that here.

* At the webinar, the NRC Chairman hinted that the budget might get tight in the future, and that some real decisions might have to be made about whether to develop post Fukushima alterations or proceed with licensing. This makes it sound as if the Chairman is willing to use budget constraints to leverage the changes he wants with the threat of licensing (or re-licensing) holdups.

I could go on, but if we look at what the other nuclear bloggers have written I'm in majority agreement. I thought I would write a few things I had not seen elsewhere in detail.

What we are really waiting for now is tomorrow's hearing and webcast. There is sure to be more political damage control attempted between now and then. I will decide for myself, after tomorrow's hearing, as to whether it's time for Chairman Jaczko to get out of town or not.

2:00 PM Eastern Tuesday December 13, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Carnival 82 online now... and it's a special one!

2011-12-09T17:57:00.004-05:00

It is my belief that the Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers which is presently online might just be the very first of these ever carried at a site officially connected with a nuclear operating entity... in this case, Carnival 81 is being hosted at the impressive Nuclear Clean Air Energy site. I highly recommend checking out the whole site... after reading the Carnival articles, of course. ENTERGY Nuclear and Margie Jepson have done a fine job with this site and with their first-ever hosting of the Carnival.

Click here to get to Nuclear Clean Air Energy.

6:10 PM Eastern Friday December 9, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Will's winter reading list

2011-12-08T19:19:00.005-05:00

With the winter practically upon us (we're expecting our first significant snow here in Northern Ohio tonight) it's time to finally put the golf clubs and lawn chairs away for another cold season. This means that I get to catch up on my intended reading a little faster; I thought I might give my readers a little look at what's in the queue.

Of course, I have a giant pile of Westinghouse / Syl-Cor fuel and reactor design material still to read and catalogue, but that type of thing can be fit in and around other tasks - it's something I can put down, and walk away from for a while without really losing my place. That is, so long as I stick to one section of the archive at a time. Many website articles will come from this material.

What's more interesting to everyone else probably is the short stack of books I have acquired to read. All of these are pertinent to this year's events, and I intend to not only report on each of them but relate their content to Fukushima Daiichi, and/or the NRC post-Fukushima plan .. whatever that shakes out to be. Here in no particular order are my first four:

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF NUCLEAR PLANT FACILITIES VOL. I

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1973
-This volume is a compendium of papers prepared for a special ASCE conference on the titled subject which took place December 17-18, 1973 and which was sponsored by the Nuclear Structures and Materials Committee of the ASCE. The vast majority of this volume's content focuses on seismic issues.

NUCLEAR POWER AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Samuel Glasstone / Walter H. Jordan
American Nuclear Society, 1980
-Probably one of the leading books in its field; I have flipped through, referenced and consulted this volume before but have not read it through cover to cover. There is a chapter on accidents (which includes yet another brief TMI narrative) but this volume's promise lies in its completeness of coverage of the environmental impact of all conceivable byproducts of nuclear plants.

DECONTAMINATION OF NUCLEAR REACTORS AND EQUIPMENT
edited by J. A. Ayres
Prepared under auspices of the AEC; Ronald Press, 1970
-This large (approximately 800 page) volume covers all then-known experience with decontamination of equipment involved with nuclear reactor operation, which is its stated purpose. While the information is certainly dated, this period of nuclear history is of great interest to me and it is certain that certain known reactors and events will be referenced in this volume in perhaps previously unknown ways.

WATER PRODUCTION USING NUCLEAR ENERGY
edited by Roy G. Post and Robert L. Seale
U. of Arizona Press 1966
-This book actually came from the AEC Library; it bears the identifying stamps. This book takes a look at most of the serious proposals extant at that time for the use of nuclear energy either simply for large scale water desalination, or else for dual desalination / electric generation. Considering the fact that this book was written right before the practical wholesale cancellation of all such efforts, it represents the state of the art as it left off; further, considering that many nations now may consider use of nuclear energy for desalination (perhaps in the Middle East) it may be a topic likely to be revived, even if on a smaller scale than developed in this book.

Here, then, we have four fairly large books I intend to plow through while the snow flies. There are more that I may add to the list, but this is enough for now considering all the other things on my plate- including Nuclear News, the daily NEI e-mail brief, a hundred ANS Social Media e-mails a day, hate mail from my "fans" on Atomic Power Review and probably a dozen more different sources. (That's just the required daily reading part.) I will report on these books from time to time; if we have a blizzard or two, that will certainly help my progress.

7:45 PM Eastern Thursday December 8, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Process water leakage at Fukushima Daiichi, and power lunch!

2011-12-06T16:16:00.005-05:00

I've been following this story since it first broke, waiting for some concrete details to emerge. Now that there are some, I will report.

A couple of days ago TEPCO discovered that a major system leak had occurred in the desalination plant ("evaporative condensation plant") building at the Fukushima Daiichi site. The plant had not been inspected visually by walkdown in 21 hours. TEPCO indicated that it believed as much as 45 tons of water had leaked out.

Today, I had lunch with Dan Yurman (and had a great time) who is the author of the Idaho Samizdat blog, a frequent contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe blog (which he helped to launch for ANS personally) and who I consider a friend. We talked about this, and I mentioned the 21 hours since walkdown which I thought was ridiculous. Dan has a lot of experience with this type of equipment and noted that it should be walked down every several hours because there will be leaks. The trick is to find them and fix them before this kind of thing happens. My experience is in light water power reactors, and I certainly can back up having watchstanders looking over all operating equipment continuously as being absolutely necessary. Someone dropped the ball on this, whether it's TEPCO or one of its contractors... that much is certain.

We did some calculations on the stated release figures and got a number of around 12,000 gallons that might have leaked. This water got into the process building, leaked out under the walls and then got to the outer area around the building. TEPCO today has a press release out stating that while the total amount was fairly large it believes only about 150 liters or about 40 gallons / 300 pounds of this 45 tons (we figured long tons) actually got into the water, with negligible effect.

Even with the tiny effect this would have on the environment and on the flora and fauna, TEPCO once again has egg on its face as it were. This is most unfortunate from a PR standpoint as it surely undermines some of the credibility TEPCO has been gaining in its response to the accident and its transmittal of clear information as soon as it has any information.

Cooling to the reactors was never affected. Cooling of the spent fuel pools was never affected. Access to the reactor plants and their support equipment was not affected.

Postscript: Dan and I also talked about some of the wacky anti-nuclear garbage out there on various sites. For the record, as I've said before: No one is building or trying to build any sort of core catcher under the Chernobyl No. 4 reactor, and no one would try to do so under Fukushima Daiichi. There is no China Syndrome occurring, and as I pointed out during our talk (and Dan agrees) you'd be into the water table at Fukushima if you tried to dig under the plants. This is just more nutty scare talk being furthered by people too emotional to learn fact or discern from flights of fantasy. Dan finds the whole notion of "hydrovolcanic explosion" as preposterous as I do... this being a supposed condition about to occur at Fukushima Daiichi. At least, it is if you read articles written by scaremongers who have no idea what they're talking about. What's most important though is that Dan and I had a good time (this was our second meeting) and we plan more in the future.

4:30 PM Eastern Tuesday December 6, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

UPDATE: I have been deluged with e-mails and comments regarding the ANS Nuclear Cafe blog. Dan Yurman did not set the Nuclear Cafe up single handedly; there is a large staff of persons behind the scenes who make this happen. However, Dan did have a major hand in the setup of the Nuclear Cafe and for that should be recognized. In fact, Dan has been a driving force behind the use of social media in nuclear energy and has set up more than one venue. From Dan's site, in his accomplishments:

"I am a consultant to firms in the global nuclear energy industry in the area of social media and marketing communications. I launched ANS Nuclear Cafe, the blog of the American Nuclear Society, in 2010 and the Facebook page of the Idaho National Laboratory in 2009."

Having said this, it should be noted that many people work on the ANS Nuclear Cafe blog both with bylines and behind the scenes... and it's their work and Dan's that gives us such a great venue to read.

Carnival 81 on line now

2011-12-04T18:08:00.002-05:00

Dan Yurman has posted the 81st Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers over at his fine blog, "Idaho Samizdat." APR's post on the December 2 anniversary date for nuclear energy history is included in this Carnival as are quite a number of other very fine articles worth reading.

Click here to get to Carnival 81 at Idaho Samizdat.

6:10 PM Eastern Sunday December 4, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

December 2, 2011 - An anniversary piece.

2011-12-02T18:39:00.024-05:00

Last week, faithful reader and commenter (on this and many other nuclear blogs) James Greenidge made the note to me that December 2 was an important anniversary - the anniversary of the very first criticality of the first nuclear reactor - Enrico Fermi's "atomic pile" near Chicago. At that time I decided to make a post with some details.

However, I saw earlier today that the American Nuclear Society's blog had declared today to be "Atomic Power Day" since - as it rightly points out - the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, our first commercial station, went to full power in 1957 on the same December 2 date. There's also the first electric power generation at EBR at NRTS, in December 1951. In rough addition in the atomic power timeline, I add that General Electric first announced the construction of its Vallecitos Atomic Power Laboratory in December 1955; it was later to be the first atomic station to commercially deliver useful power*. Also in December.. but December 1961.. the nuclear powered ship N.S. Savannah's reactor first achieved criticality. So we can make a really good case for nuclear energy in a number of ways for the month of December... and next month we'll have the National Nuclear Science Week.

This day is also important to Atomic Power Review, because it's the day that this blog's page views will pass the 200,000 page views mark.

Anyway... let's get to the presentation.

Much is available online about Enrico Fermi and his first "atomic pile," which really was the first nuclear reactor. Here are some technical details about that first pile.

The reactor was originally not given any sort of designation but later came to be known as CP-1 for Chicago Pile 1.

The core size was 24.5 feet by 24.5 feet square, by 19 feet high. It contained 385 tons of graphite in the form of blocks.

The fuel for the pile consisted of 12,400 lbs of uranium contained in 80,590 lbs of uranium oxide (both UO2 and U3O8.) There was no coolant employed of any sort; there was also no shielding although a one foot thick graphite reflector surrounded the core. The core had a maximum power rating of 100 to 200 watts, although at first it only operated at one half of one watt.

The reactor gave off enough radiation that the whole concept was reengineered to include shielding. The core was totally disassembled and later reassembled in another location with shielding and some considerable alteration as CP-2.

Of course, Enrico Fermi was at the lead of the men who built this first reactor and while he achieved very much more in his career, we may all today also remember most vividly the nuclear power plant which bears his name - the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, which originally included an experimental sodium cooled breeder reactor and which today houses a single GE boiling water reactor plant (although another BWR was under consideration, but stopped.) Let's take a look now at some rare illustrations from our collection here.

Above, an artist's conception of how the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant would appear when completed. This is from an APDA/PRDC publication, which is the 1955 project progress report published March 1956.

Above, Fermi-1 as completed, from the other side and with the visitor information center in the foreground. Post card in APRA collection.

The reactor vessel for this plant was unusually complicated and was said to be the most difficult vessel fabrication ever attempted (not just including nuclear reactor pressure vessels.) The vessel was fabricated at Combustion Engineering's vessel shop in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Below is an illustration of part of the vessel under construction at C-E's shop, from the 1958 Atoms For Peace / Geneva pictorial illustration book assembled by the AEC.

The complicated shape of the vessel coupled with the requirements for metallurgical stability and strength in a high radiation flux are what made this piece so difficult. Here we see the vessel installed in the reactor building at Fermi-1. This illustration is from publication APDA-124, published January 1959 by APDA to act as a detailed technical description of the entire power plant.

To give a perspective of this installation we offer the following illustration, also from the same volume.

And also from the same volume, a view of the entire atomic power station. Item: Close inspection by sharp eyed viewers may reveal the installation of a "centerline at floor level" turbine generator set, a design then still new as a product of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company. A-C was one of the many members of the APDA consortium.

Fermi-1 was as we all know a breeder reactor; without getting into technical details, I offer (also from APDA-124) the following illustration showing the core arrangement. This drawing blows up very large to allow reading of the legend. All of the illustrations on today's post are actually fairly large.

We can see the different zones in the core here at Fermi 1... an odd parallel to our next and final subject, suggested by ANS Nuclear Cafe's post today. That subject is the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. Shippingport (often called the PWR project) was unusual in many ways... two of them were the use of a seed and blanket core (highly enriched seed elements with control rods cause fission in unenriched blanket elements without control rods) and the fact that the plant was constructed mostly below grade.

Let's take a look first, briefly, at the plant arrangement. The next two illustrations are from the PWR Simplified System Schematics binder in the APRA collection.

Above, we see the reactor plant and the support buildings.. the turbine generator was actually located outside, in open air (much like San Onofre 1) and is not shown. Note that the reactor plant containment is almost totally below the grade. Below, we can see overhead and cross section views. The center chamber, mostly spherical, housed the reactor. Two identically sized chambers housed the four coolant loops with one main coolant pump and one steam generator each. The large auxiliary chamber housed the pressurizer and other primary equipment such as coolant cleanup and sampling.

Next, we look at the core from above to see the arrangement of seed elements and blanket elements. This is taken from our complete press release package which was sent out by Westinghouse / Duquesne Light at the time the plant went into full operation.

Let's now get into some very rare illustrations, acquired from the estate of the late James Vadeboncouer, who worked for both Westinghouse Atomic Power Division and later Sylvania-Corning Nuclear. Mr. Vadeboncouer was working at Westinghouse when the PWR core (Shippingport) was developed and there is much rare material in the many boxes on this core. First, let's see a cross section of one of the highly enriched seed elements. This is Westinghouse Atomic Power Div. negative number 13688.

We move over from a selection of WAPD photos to the "PWR Core 1 Core Assembly Engineering Tool Operational Manual," WAPD-NCE-5215 (July 1957) to see one of the seed elements in complete view.

This manual really was meant to cover the tools and fixtures needed to fully assemble the core prior to installation in the plant. Below is a complete view of the assembly stand developed by WAPD.

The blanket assemblies used not plates but fuel rods. Let's return to the group of photos in the folder labeled "PWR Specifications" for a couple of rare views. These are actually fully labeled so they need no explanation from me.

The support plate for this core was complicated, because the core was so highly instrumented and because it contained a FEDAL system (Failed Element Detection And Location.) Here are a couple of views to finish us off for today from this same folder which show the core support plate in the process of fabrication.

Without getting into detail, I will add as a final note that the FEDAL system contained a complex valve that sequentially ported water from a wide number of tubes in order that they could be sampled for detection of fuel element failure; this rotating valve was driven remotely by a then-standard commutator-inverter continuously unless a particular sample line were desired in which case it could of course be stopped.

That about covers our little photographic walk down the path of yesterdays in honor of "Atomic Power Day." Thanks to ANS Nuclear Cafe for declaring it and for giving me the idea to expand upon my original post idea to include Shippingport.

7:40 PM Eastern Friday December 2, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

* - General Electric essentially continued to try to one-up Westinghouse at all times following Westinghouse's success with the STR (S1W/S2W) PWR plant developed for USS Nautilus and after announcement of the PWR (Shippingport) project. So while Shippingport was the first commercial station to be planned, designed and ordered, GE beat them to the punch by a couple months (in terms of commercial sale of nuclear generated electricity) with the small experimental Vallecitos plant. GE had tried to make hay earlier with a big to-do at the S1G plant, Kesselring Site, West Milton, New York onto which it tacked a roughly 10 MW turbine generator and tried to sell power to Niagara Mohawk. This PR stunt did little in retrospect. GE redeemed itself fully however with the totally privately funded Dresden-1 plant only a couple years after Shippingport went on line.

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SCIENCE WEEK JANUARY 23-27, 2012

New TEPCO video- November 30, 2011

2011-11-30T14:49:00.004-05:00

Now available at the APR YouTube Channel is the opening of the third series of "Explanatory Videos" produced by Tokyo Electric Power Company which cover the recovery from the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

This video covers many of the basics of radiation - how it's produced, what some basic terms and measurements are, and some thumb rules. The video is actually very interesting (even if not all the captions and illustrations have been redone in English) and it would be good viewing for anyone who has basic questions on radiation or radioactivity.

Click here to get to the APR YouTube Channel.

2:51 PM Eastern Wednesday November 30, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

TEPCO reporting on vessel failure

2011-11-30T09:02:00.005-05:00

NHK has carried the distilled result of information it has obtained from TEPCO regarding the possible amount of fuel damage, and melt, and vessel failure, and fuel melt into the dry well at Fukushima Daiichi No. 1.

To summarize the report (and we should note this is all preliminary) TEPCO feels that the melted core material that exited the pressure vessel may in the worst case, or in other words if the worst postulated case exists, have eaten about 2/3 of the way into the bottom structure of the dry well.

No exit of the material from the dry well structure is supposed.

TEPCO does not feel the material could have gotten below the structure, or into the actual basement, or come in contact with the floor or the ground. The material is not in the earth below the plant. Such reports as this are circulating, leading to a widely hysterical supposition on one site of a "hydrovolcanic explosion." That is about the worst - and certainly the least intelligent - hyperbole this author has ever read. I only mention it here because TEPCO's initial analysis released to NHK today (and about which I'm sure we'll see more) is timely in relation to that story.

Readers of this blog are all too well aware of this likelihood. In fact, let's take a look at a post from way back -- below is a link to a post I made on May 14th, 2011 when details were still far from clear about the plant conditions.

Fukushima Daiichi No. 1: Core melt / exit of pressure vessel speculated by TEPCO, NISA (post from May 14, 2011)

Readers may recall, a couple of months back, repeated attempts by TEPCO to indirectly assess the conditions of the lower vessel heads at the three reactor plants. None of these was successful - no useful data was obtained. What was clear though was that the electrical equipment in the lower head area was very heavily deranged, and not just in one zone or area, it appeared. TEPCO would like very much to get a handle on the actual condition and location of core material at each plant (and each is different in this respect) but so far has been really unable to directly assess this. The new study results that NHK is quoting come from a variety of data TEPCO has accumulated which don't require direct vision or detection. This is probably the best we'll have for a while.

Sharp readers also may recall the days in which the JAIF was continuously posting updates; that organization's last given estimate of core damage at No. 1 plant was, I believe, 70%. I should add though that all the data JAIF was using to attempt to estimate core damage percentages was very rough and some of JAIF's revisions of core damage percentages were taken directly from TEPCO. (Of course, all of JAIF's news items now are from NHK -- it has stopped making its own statements or assessments, at least in public.)

When TEPCO releases the full detail of this report, I'll put those details here.

9:15 AM Eastern Wednesday November 30, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL / 9:35 AM

The NHK report indicates a melt depth of about 2.1 feet. The distance to the ground is roughly eighteen times this depth from the dry well interior floor to grade. Below is a drawing from WASH-1082 which I've marked to show the distance from the dry well floor to the grade outside, which on the particular plant shown is 39' 0". I do not presently know the exact measurement at Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 but it is likely within ten percent of this measurement... meaning that in the worst case that TEPCO is describing, by its own data, the core material may have melted only about as much as 5% of the distance to the grade.

Details of nitrogen injection at Fukushima Daiichi

2011-11-30T07:48:00.008-05:00

I have made several posts on Twitter and on the FB page for APRA as developments on the nitrogen purge have become, but it's time for a roundup here.

Since the discovery that hydrogen gas was trapped in the upper part of the reactor vessel at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2, TEPCO decided that even though the concentration was not high enough to be dangerous (2.9% was found, while hydrogen concentration must be above 4% depending on humidity to be combustible) it was high enough to consider and then implement a nitrogen purge directly to the reactor pressure vessels themselves.

In order to make sure all of our readers (and we get new ones all the time) are clear on what is going on, let's look at some illustrations we've used before on this site but which have some new captions.

Below is a view of what the reactor plants at Fukushima Daiichi look like. By that I mean BWR/3 and BWR/4 reactors, installed in Mk I containments.

Below is a view of the drywell assembly, inside of which is the reactor vessel. The drywell is the primary containment.

We know that the reactor cores have been seriously damaged; in fact, they are in all likelihood nearly completely damaged or destroyed by melting due to overheating. This can be expected to cause the fuel elements to collapse. That is the reason that I have used, and continue to prefer, the term "demolished" for the cores in these plants. So first we know that the cores are not in their expected locations, but are in all likelihood fallen to the bottoms of the pressure vessels.

However, we also know (and knew very early on) that the cooling water being injected to the reactors was getting into the reactor buildings. The best guess of course as to how it was getting out of the reactor vessels is that the core melt caused damage to the lower ends of the vessels. It seems unlikely that the entire cores have fallen out of the vessels, into the dry well area, according to TEPCO and NISA. But damage to the many various openings at the lower vessel head area is probable in part, and there may even be direct melt openings in the vessel lower heads.

The hydrogen gas we are talking about in these plants came from two sources during the accident: Hydrogen liberated by the energetic zirconium-water reaction which is expected in a serious core melt accident, and also by more normal radiolytic decomposition. Presently the generation of hydrogen, which is very slight, is only by the latter process. However, because there has been no gas flow in the upper ends of the reactor vessels, some hydrogen has probably been trapped there a long time and any new hydrogen may congregate there. To mitigate this, TEPCO has now added nitrogen feed to the reactor vessels instead of to only the primary containments (dry wells.) TEPCO has jumpered in, if you will, the nitrogen feed to the top core spray line (normally used for cooling water) to push the hydrogen through the vessels and into the drywells. Knowing that hydrogen will be flushed, TEPCO has almost doubled the nitrogen feed rate to the drywells from the previous rate.

Below, you can see the top spray line I'm talking about at the very top of the illustration. Click all illustrations on this page to enlarge them.

Below is an illustration I've made for this post. It is very large, but must be blown up to see the detail.

These are the details at the moment. Updates will appear on the APRA FB page, and/or on Twitter (see the Twitter news feed at the right of this page) until another post here is required.

8:30 AM Eastern Wednesday November 30, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Erroneous readings at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2

2011-11-27T16:19:00.004-05:00

TEPCO has reported some spikes in gas temperature readings and air conditioner (primary containment) temperature readings at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 plant. These readings show some sharp increases, or in the case of the A/C plant a "stair step" increase. Some alarm may be generated in the public (and the press) if these are not properly interpreted.

-TEPCO has begun lowering the feed rates at all three plants in order to INCREASE the temperature of the reactor cores and thus the volume of cooling water in contact with them. This is being done to increase the amount of steam extant inside the pressure vessels to ensure that hydrogen trapped there cannot burn.

-The desire to lower the chance of hydrogen burn follows the discovery that hydrogen gas was indeed trapped inside the reactor vessel of No. 2 plant, with a maximum reading of 2.9%. TEPCO is altering its nitrogen feed plan at all three plants to give direct nitrogen purge to the pressure vessels, not just the primary containments. This new nitrogen feed is to be at twice the present rate.

-Given the lowering of feed rate to increase temperature and thus steam it follows that damaged cables / wires may be further damaged by the increase in moisture. Given this fact, TEPCO is investigating to determine the failure mode of the equipment that is giving errant readings. To be clear, there are other detectors that are NOT showing the same temperature increases, but rather are showing the expected gradual increase.

This set of facts is very likely to be misinterpreted by the press and deliberately misinterpreted by the anti-nuclear crowd. That's why I'm posting this explanation about the temperature increases, which are deliberate, and the reasons for this. Keep in mind that the APR Twitter feed noted the beginning of this operation as soon as it was announced; watch the Twitter feed for further updates.

4:28 PM Eastern Sunday November 27, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Carnival 80 online now

2011-11-27T05:36:00.002-05:00

The rotating Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is up (very early this Sunday morning) over at Brian Wang's site "Next Big Future." This rotating feature travels around the nuclear blog sites and features the very best of the nuclear blogging world. I highly suggest that anyone interested in nuclear power check it out every time it appears (which is weekly) to get a wide scope of opinions on a wider scope of topics.

Click here for CARNIVAL 80.

As a final note, Atomic Power Review does in fact have a contribution this week; the article on PRA and transmittal of risk data to the public.

5:40 AM Eastern Sunday November 27, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

PRA and Public Knowledge: WASH-740/1250/1400

2011-11-25T17:39:00.007-05:00

All of us with any interest in nuclear energy have spent the better part of this year locked in a struggle with the realities of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. While many of us had known about the (remote) chances of such an occurrence prior to the March, 2011 earthquake and resulting tsunami that triggered the accident, it's likely that few placed a high enough chance of actual occurrence on such an event to cause worry. What is most unfortunate is that now, having had to watch, analyze, write about and sometimes defend actions by TEPCO, NISA and the Japanese government on and off site, the chances of any other such event are still as low as they were before the event .. and that no one will realize this fact. We might actually blame the US Government for this, in reality.

This line of thought was recently brought up in this writer's mind when the NRC published a brief historical perspective of the PRA or Probabilistic Risk Analysis technique that was used in WASH-1400, known as "The Reactor Safety Study." You can see this piece at the NRC blog by clicking here. It has long been my concern that such a document pushes away the general public because of its complexity. For background and support, I'll give a brief additional history to that found in the NRC piece.

Even in the earliest days of nuclear energy in this country (both military and commercial) it was recognized that any accident that caused harm to the general public or damage to citizens' property must be avoided at all cost and plants were designed with so much conservatism overall at the beginning that today we might be surprised. As the best example, the first commercial nuclear power plant, the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, was constructed with all of its primary components below grade in massive reinforced cylindrical or spherical (for the reactor) vessels.

I could go on for days about early plant design, but that isn't the focus. What's important is that even with the conservative designs, many still wanted some sort of study performed that could augur the real risks to the public from nuclear power plants were there to be an accident. This desire resulted in the first watershed safety study to be performed; this was an Atomic Energy Commission study titled "Theoretical Possibilities and Consequences of Major Accidents in Large Nuclear Power Plants." This study was completed in March, 1957 and received the AEC publication number WASH-740. This study has often been named as the first such of its kind, and often been cited as having been far too unrealistic in its assumption of what would actually occur if an accident took place. For example, WASH-740 indicated that if a 500 MWt reactor plant were to melt down and the containment were to fail, this might result in 3400 dead and 43000 injured. We can see clearly from the multiple reactor accident in Japan recently, the Chernobyl accident in Russia and can surmise from other accidents (this many years later, I must note) that this study was way over the top in its estimations.

Because of the increase in plant size over the years, there was pressure to re-perform the analysis taking into account the larger source terms that more powerful reactors would generate and, as a result, the study was revised in 1967.

This analysis did not appear in public, and was kept within the AEC. However, there was a clear need for a document for the public which would be more readable, more reassuring, more descriptive and more thorough than WASH-740 and another effort was begun. This effort resulted in a document frequently quoted ONLY on Atomic Power Review and little remembered today for it was never widely published and only appeared in draft forms. This document is something that I consider to be vastly superior in content to either WASH-740 or the later and more famous WASH-1400 made to stand on WASH-740's shoulders because it's written for the general person and contains a great deal of basic information about nuclear energy in general. This document was titled "The Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors (Light Water-Cooled) and Related Facilities." The publication number was WASH-1250, and I have one of few copies here.

There has been but little information made available concerning the fate of this document. However, the transcript of a speech given by Joseph M. Hendrie in 1986 (see DOE database, document BNL-36253) and which was titled "A Probabilistic Commentary: The Rise, Fall, and Rise Again, of Risk Assessment" and in part on which the recent NRC blog post may be based does mention this obscure WASH-1250 document. Unfortunately (according to Hendrie's speech) Senator Pastore, a ranking member of the JCAE did not feel that WASH-1250 was what was needed to get at actual risk to the public. Although 1250 was ready in preliminary draft form in 1972 the JCAE commissioned essentially a full revision of the WASH-740 study with new PRA techniques using fault tree analysis, as a totally separate effort, and the final draft (shown above) of WASH-1250 which was prepared in July 1973 never really saw the light of day.

This is where the problem with public assessment of nuclear power risk and benefit begins. The decision to make the sole effort essentially a "new math" exercise made almost sure that the information would be daunting to the average man on the street. In point of fact, the formal debut of WASH-1400 in 1975 was accompanied by the launch of a training course for NRC personnel titled "System Safety and Reliability Analysis" to help with understanding the analytical method; this ripened into the development and publication of NUREG-0492, the "Fault Tree Handbook," to make a text for such a course generally available.

Joe Average doesn't want to have to take an advanced math course to be able to understand what his relative risk from nuclear power is. Even then, he won't want to take the time to find out why this or that fault tree branches off at "relief valve fails to reseat / no operator action" and then assess a percentage risk in terms of reactor-years for core melt.

WASH-1250 was in my opinion the right way to go for persons outside the industry, while WASH-1400 was the right way to go for persons inside of it. I am left to wonder whether the voluminously informative 1250 was lost in the dust of the splitting up of the AEC; surely, the new, almost anti-nuclear NRC would not attempt to publish a document like 1250 because of its almost clear but always implied support for the capability of the industry, the owner-operators, the regulator and anyone else involved. WASH-1250 in fact admits a slight pro-nuclear bias, right on page ii of the prologue... "By and large, however, it is a summary and discussion of a large body of published information pertinent to nuclear safety, as interpreted by AEC staff. The reader will, therefore, understand that a certain degree of pro-nuclear power bias is probably inherent in the discussion, although staff has tried to make the presentation as simple, factual, and objective as possible."

The simple fact is that after the publication of the final draft of WASH-1250 there has been exactly one nuclear accident at any US commercial plant (which is only what this volume is intended to discuss -- nuclear plants built to US practice, inside the United States) at which no one was killed or even injured. Thus, at least in terms of integrity of this report, there is no damage in so far as no major accident has occurred at any US plant to contradict it. While the previous may seem defensive to those either undecided or anti-nuclear, it is simply meant to indicate that such a report -- which does not augur disasters and then calculate their average chance of occurrence and resulting damage, but rather which attempts to clearly explain safety in design, construction and operation -- is not inherently pro-nuclear but actually inherently, simply explanatory.

The authors of WASH-1250 clearly knew that their approach was under fire. One wonders if the quoted statement in the preface was original to the first draft; one also wonders if the following description, found on page 6-40 of WASH-1250, was included in the first version either. This section follows some discussion about risk probability which had not used any sort of fault tree analysis:

6.4.8 A Current AEC Study

"... It is a fair presumption that knowledge and techniques will be improved in proportion to the future effort devoted to such studies. In this connection, the AEC has recently undertaken a quantitative, probabilistic study to try to reach some meaningful conclusions about the risks of accidents from nuclear power plants currently in service."

The above refers of course to the launch in 1972 of what became WASH-1400 which apparently, we now realize, suppressed WASH-1250. I must add that, at the end of this section of WASH-1250 the last sentence is as follows:

"It is possible to conclude from the order of ranking currently perceived that nuclear power presents one of the smallest man-made risks (mortality) to which mankind is exposed."

One could get that assumption from any number of places, but when one reads only PRA for nuclear accidents, one gets locked into the thinking that surely one of these or another, or something not exactly predicted but nevertheless dangerous (as TMI was, exactly) is bound to happen. It might, but the death toll from nuclear accidents since WASH-1250 in the United States is still zero, so that even if something predicted by PRA does happen, or something almost predicted does happen, the risk is still incredibly small to plant operators or the public when compared with almost any other risk.

What I am really talking about here, of course, is slant. Publication of loads of PRA work to indicate risk of every conceivable failure and operator fault is actually necessary but indicative only of the negative side of things, as it were, to the average man. Such a volume as WASH-1250 was, which includes a vast amount of detail on plant construction, fuel processing, spent fuel handling, dose rates and effects, regulatory responsibility (and also many complete federal codes) might seem overly on the positive side in terms of simply stating what the industry and AEC were doing to ensure safety, should be considered necessary too since nuclear energy is a major portion of our energy generating capacity in this country. I again wonder if this report were just a bit too pro-nuclear for the new anti-nuclear NRC to allow, and regret that fact if it is true.

6:35 PM Eastern Friday November 25, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Hydrogen gas / Fukushima Daiichi

2011-11-25T05:12:00.004-05:00

TEPCO has detected a higher than previously recorded level of hydrogen gas at its Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 plant. This hydrogen, according to TEPCO, was probably located high in the reactor pressure vessel and primary containment until this time, and was flushed out when TEPCO placed its (improvised) gas handling system into operation. This new gas system changed the flowpaths for gas and is able to purge more of the previously mentioned volumes.

The highest hydrogen concentration noted thus far was 2.9%. The concentration has dropped. Roughly 4% is combustible, vapor concentration notwithstanding.

TEPCO has made a few alterations to its plans in order to mitigate the possible effect of this hydrogen; it plans to alter the nitrogen purge system feed flow path to inject nitrogen directly into the pressure vessel, instead of into the primary containment. This will take some time. In order to mitigate possible deleterious effects from hydrogen until such time as the new nitrogen feed is available, TEPCO plans to alter the feed injection rate to the No. 2 plant (this means cooling water) to make certain that there is enough steam present to make whatever hydrogen is available not flammable. Upon restart of nitrogen injection to the RPV, the nitrogen flowrate will be doubled. This procedure should flush the hydrogen and prevent any risk of burn.

Finally, TEPCO made a reference in a press handout to not beginning alternate water injection to Unit 1 until that unit, also, has direct nitrogen feed to the pressure vessel; I assume this means the addition of the core spray line to the feed line. (Number 1 plant is the only one of the three only using the feed line and not both the feed line and core spray line.)

5:30 AM Eastern Friday November 25, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Carnival No. 79

2011-11-23T08:55:00.001-05:00

Having been on vacation, I omitted to post the link to the 79th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers. As I've said before, if you want to get your finger on the pulse of what the nuclear blogosphere is writing about, looking at one of the Carnival events is the first priority.

CLICK HERE FOR CARNIVAL 79 AT ANS NUCLEAR CAFE

9:00 AM Eastern Wednesday November 23, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Radioactive water at Fukushima Daiichi - new video

2011-11-17T19:05:00.004-05:00

TEPCO has released the fourth, and final, video in its series covering the handling of contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi. This series has been of particular interest to this writer; after the gravity of the entire accident scenario had become clear (or clear enough) one of the first real races against time was that involved with finding enough storage capacity for the water that was being used to cool the three damaged reactors, since it clearly was leaking out of the reactors and not only entering the reactor buildings but the turbine buildings and even outside pipeways ("trenches" in TEPCO's parlance.) From that point on, a number of simultaneous plans were launched to secure storage and to process this water and for quite some time it seemed as if the company were only a step or less ahead of the water buildup.

Quite the opposite is now the case, and in fact, even with the early growing pains that the water cleanup systems had, TEPCO appears to have mastered the situation. I have hammered this following point to death, but it bears repeating: While many accident scenarios have been played out and simulated in the past, even to the point of core damage and melt, none has done anything to educate the industry on the realities of a major accident like Fukushima Daiichi has. TEPCO and NISA are literally writing accident handling procedure as they're inventing it, and are implementing it immediately with only brief, but clear, analysis .. because time is of the essence. It is certain that much hindsight has been used by outside critics in regards to TEPCO's handling of both the accident and its releases to the press in the writing of critical pieces, but this again is hindsight after all and it's hard to imagine a better onsite and offsite performance by any other company.

General George S. Patton wrote something to the effect that "a workable solution applied vigorously is vastly superior to a perfect solution applied too late," and TEPCO has taken this kind of thinking to heart by taking the best possible solution for each problem that it could have soon, while also looking a bit down the road. This is exactly why, having two different purification systems, TEPCO continues to work on making the earlier, more complicated one work while it operates the second, slightly better (simpler) design which arrived on site much later. (TEPCO, as shown in the video, intends to install pumps between two of the Kurion system skids to avoid having to change the pumps that fail frequently on the second skid; these pumps are adjacent to the cesium adsorption tanks which have a high rad level at their surfaces, making pump changeout workers become rad sponges. The new pumps will get around this problem, and probably be better pumps.)

All that considered, please watch this video more than once. It goes by quickly enough that the real complexity of the onsite water transfer and storage job might come off too lightly; consider the size of this site, and look at the overhead plan showing just how much area the tank system is taking up and how widespread it is. This would be a very important thing to consider, at least briefly, for any nuclear plant site --- in other words, if this kind of thing ever did happen on site, would there be enough space for tankage of a magnitude in correct proportion to the number of plants at that given site? If there are enough acres, are they level? Much in this video makes one stop and think on the second viewing.

CLICK HERE FOR APR YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

7:25 PM Eastern Thursday November 17, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Xenon at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 - Gone!

2011-11-15T17:17:00.004-05:00

TEPCO has released its latest analysis of gases sampled from the primary containment of the Unit 2 plant... and Xenon (all isotopes tested for) is not present. Below is the TEPCO table showing this very latest data.

There have been no statements so far of which this author is aware to indicate that TEPCO will not sample Unit 1 and Unit 3 containments for xenon, but this developing trend makes any such action appear not only clearly less emergent but probably less important all the time.

5:25 PM Eastern Tuesday November 15, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Carnival 78!

2011-11-15T11:04:00.003-05:00

After some hiccups in the schedule, the Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is back in action over at NEXT BIG FUTURE. Episode 78 is on line right now.

CARNIVAL OF NUCLEAR BLOGGERS No. 78

11:10 AM Eastern Tuesday November 15, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

New and interesting TEPCO video from November 2 through 11, 2011

2011-11-15T10:24:00.005-05:00

TEPCO has released another in its "Reports from Fukushima Daiichi" series and this one gives perhaps the best real perspective of the condition of the reactor buildings from ground level yet. Although the views aren't lingering ones, they're long enough to give a good impression of the physical scale of the buildings for those not familiar. See the link below to find the new video at the APR YouTube channel.

CLICK HERE FOR APR YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

Some people, particularly newer readers, may not be totally familiar with the layout on the Fukushima Daiichi site. Here is one of the first illustrations I ever did for the Fukushima reporting, which is a very large TEPCO press release photo that I have marked to show the major structures. Click to enlarge. Note how the reactor buildings are numbered in two groups, with numbers in each group moving higher as you get away from the center of the plant site.

For a scaled view of the internals of one of the reactor buildings, I show again a view I've used many times before from one of the APRA collections' reports, which is WASH-1250. Note the human figures on the refueling floor (up high) and near the downcomer pipes in the torus (low in the building.)

10:35 AM Eastern Tuesday November 15, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Desalination of water at Fukushima Daiichi

2011-11-09T15:45:00.002-05:00

Seventh in the series of TEPCO explanatory videos, the newest installment covers desalination of plant water at the Fukushima Daiichi site. Available now at the APR YouTube Channel; the new video is presently the featured video.

APR YOUTUBE CHANNEL LINK

3:47 PM Eastern Wednesday November 9, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Fukushima Daiichi - Radioactively contaminated water treatment video

2011-11-05T17:03:00.003-04:00

After the flurry of activity earlier this week surrounding the discovery of xenon at No. 2 reactor plant, Fukushima Daiichi site, and the resulting findings and solution to that situation, TEPCO returns to more normal business by releasing its second video of the second set of explanatory videos. In this installment TEPCO explains the cesium adsorption equipment, and some other on-site equipment that is handling decontamination of water from the reactor plants. Some storage issues are also discussed- particularly interesting is the long term storage for used adsorption tanks and for high activity sludge. See below for the new video, up now at the APR YouTube channel.

NEW TEPCO VIDEO - SERIES 2, VIDEO 2 - TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED WATER

As always, a link is available to the main page of the APR YouTube channel at the right of this page in the information bar.

5:10 PM Eastern Saturday November 5, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Xenon at Fukushima Daiichi No 2: Case closed?

2011-11-04T19:00:00.002-04:00

NISA and TEPCO have released fairly voluminous documents to support the theory that spontaneous fissions of isotopes such as Curium 242 and Curium 244 may have led to the Xenon detection at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2. While TEPCO's diagram does indicate that neutrons released from these spontaneous fissions can and do trigger occasional fissions in the U-235 fuel material, TEPCO and NISA also indicate (as did I from the beginning) that criticality --- a sustained fission chain reaction in Uranium fuel ---is not actually possible with the core in its present condition.

Here is some of the material released today covering the development of the xenon in the PCV and its concentration.

----------------------------------

Xe135 density comparison of spontaneous fission and actual measurement
1. Presumed radioactive density of the Xe135 by spontaneous fission
Even in a non-critical (shut down) state, a nuclear reactor usually has spontaneous
fissile nuclides in it. Well-known are Cm-242 and Cm-244, and currently in Nuclear
Reactor of Unit 2, the fission is as follows:
Cm242: 8.3E8 times/sec
Ｃｍ244: 7.4E8 times/sec (Appendix 1-1)
We don’t take into consideration the nuclear fission caused by the U-235 absorption of neutron. This is an evaluation conservative enough to show that the Xe135 detected this time was produced in a non-critical state.
Although Xe135 is also produced by Xe134 (n, γ) reaction, we don’t evaluate it due to the presumably small contribution. (Appendix 1-2)

Yield of Xe135 produced by Cm-242: 2.66% Generation speed: 2.2E7 p/sec
Yield of Xe135 produced by Cm-244: 1.22% Generation speed 9.0E6 p/sec
That follows in total: 3.1E7 p/sec

(Source：Fission product yields, http://www-nds.iaea.org/wimsd/fpyield.htm#T5）

As the present gaseous phase volume of the reactor vessel is 3,000 m3 (Appendix 2), and the amount of injected N2 is 4m3/h, it takes 214 hours to fully ventilate.
The amount of spontaneous fission is steady. On the other hand, because the amount of
the injected N2 from September to October is 14 m3/h, varying little, we think the amount of Xe135 in Nuclear Reactor is well balanced as the following formula illustrates:.

Yield of Xe135 per second ＝ λ・Ｎ＋１４・Ｎ／（３０００×３６００）
λ：Xe135 decay-constant （２．１２Ｅ－５）
Ｎ：Number of Xe135 atoms in Nuclear Reactor
３．１Ｅ７＝２．１２Ｅ－５×Ｎ＋１．３Ｅ－６×Ｎ
Ｎ＝１．４Ｅ１２ particles

Nuclide density of Xe135 in Nuclear Reactor per 1cc
λＮ／（３０００×１Ｅ６）
＝２．１２Ｅ－５ × １．４Ｅ１２／（３０００×１Ｅ６）
＝９．９Ｅ－３Ｂｑ／ｃｃ

2. Xe135 Radioactive density measured in the primary containment vessel
Xe135 Radioactive density was measured from the charcoal filter, which was installed in the gas management system, is 1.7E-5 Bq/cc.
Collection efficiency of the charcoal filter is 1566 times as determined from the ratio of the value measured in the charcoal (5.3E-1 Bq/cc) and the value measured in a vial.
Thus, the density of the Xe135 Radioactive in the primary containment vessel, obtained from the measurements, is

１．７Ｅ－５ × ８．３Ｅ２／５．３Ｅ－１
＝２．７Ｅ－２Ｂｑ／ｃｃ

3. Conclusion
The density of the Xe135 Radioactive in the primary containment vessel, obtained from
the measurements, is the same order of the Xe135 density estimated to result from the
spontaneous fission of Cm.
Therefore, Xe135 detected this time, arose from spontaneous fission of Cm.

---------------------------------

This should put to rest all of the furor that's occurred on anti-nuclear propaganda sites, pages and forums everywhere concerning supposed recriticality / restart of the core, or a continuing meltdown.

7:16 PM Eastern Friday November 4, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Xenon / Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 - Thursday afternoon update

2011-11-03T14:14:00.003-04:00

The information at present from TEPCO echoes that printed here this morning. Here is the latest TEPCO analysis:

-We found a possibility to detect short-half-life radionuclide such as Xe-
133 and Xe-135 according to our radionuclide analysis sampled on November
1 by the gas management system of the reactor containment vessel. We
continued to monitor the temperature, pressure and data from monitoring
post and there was no significant fluctuation from those data. As we
can't deny a possibility of fission reactions, we decided to start
injecting boric acid water from reactor feed water system at 2:48 am on
November 2 and stopped it at 3:47 pm on the same day. At around 7:20 pm
on the same day, Japan Atomic Energy Agency evaluated that the TEPCO's
analysis result of the short-half-life radionuclide such as Xe-133 and
Xe-135 detection was valid. We consider that they were generated by the
spontaneous fission on the grounds that the concentration of detected
short-half-like radionuclide (Xe-135) is low, that short-half-like
radionuclide (Xe-135) was detected even after the boric acid, which stops
nuclear fission chain reactions, was injected, and that the parameters of
the reactor were not significantly changed.

(Bold text above highlighted by APR for clarity.)

TEPCO representatives are making, apparently, the same statements to all media outlets but are seemingly at this point not making any differentiation between spontaneous fissions of U-235 and the two Curium isotopes mentioned this morning.

Also at Unit 2... TEPCO has noted a slight increase in hydrogen concentration in the PCV at this plant. A reading of 2.7% on October 30 compares now with a reading of 2.9% on November 3rd. Because of this, TEPCO has increased the volumetric flow rate of nitrogen injection from 21 m³/hr to 26 m³/hr.

More details when available... but for now the situation is completely stable and (as I've said before) no fission chain reaction is occurring at No. 2 plant - and neither is a continued meltdown.

2:24 PM Eastern Thursday November 3, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Xenon detection - Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 - Thursday morning update

2011-11-03T05:32:00.003-04:00

TEPCO's latest press release includes the following statement:

-We found a possibility to detect short-half-life radionuclide such as Xe-
133 and Xe-135 according to our radionuclide analysis sampled on November
1 by the gas management system of the reactor containment vessel. We
continued to monitor the temperature, pressure and data from monitoring
post and there was no significant fluctuation from those data. As we can't
deny a possibility of fission reactions, we decided to start injecting
boric acid water from reactor feed water system at 2:48 am on November 2
and stopped it at 3:47 pm on the same day. At around 7:20 pm on the same
day, Japan Atomic Energy Agency evaluated that the TEPCO's analysis
result of the short-half-life radionuclide such as Xe-133 and Xe-135
detection was valid. We consider that they were generated by the
spontaneous fission.

This press release (above) is the 10:00 AM November 3 press release.

HOWEVER, some Japanese media are carrying a TEPCO RETRACTION of some previous information, saying instead that the xenon detected in the primary containment has been formed from spontaneous fissions of curium-242 and curium-244.

Other statements have clarified any possible criticality - TEPCO stating clearly now that criticality was NOT achieved. (This author has said this many times in the last two days.) The xenon must be the result of spontaneous fission, TEPCO indicates.

There will be much clearer information available later today in all likelihood.

5:40 AM Eastern Thursday November 3, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Xenon detected at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 again

2011-11-02T08:15:00.003-04:00

DEVELOPING STORY

A second sample run at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2, a day after the first, has detected Xenon-135 but failed to detect any Xenon-133. Below is a very fresh chart from TEPCO.

This is good news in one way, in that one of the isotopes was not detected. Some Japanese outlets are still reporting that TEPCO wants NISA to assist in a re-evaluation of the samples since it believes (or believed at some point) that perhaps some error in reading may have indicated Xenon in place of another element entirely.

TEPCO's latest, very new, press release (3 PM Tokyo, November 2) gives no data at all either about the Xenon detection or the boric acid injection. It also omits the injection rate change and gives the old one. Clearly this press report is in error (probably a clerical error omitting the new entries for No. 2) and I'd expect this to be amended or replaced.

TEPCO will be checking the other two plants (No. 1, No. 3) with reactor cores installed for presence of Xenon.

While some outlets continue to use the term "critical" in reference to No. 2 plant and the fission event leading to the Xenon production, it is imperative to understand that no sustained nuclear chain reaction occurred. No site radiation monitoring equipment detected anything alarming or even spurious. No increase in temperature or pressure was noted. The condition of the remains of the core are just not likely at all to be able to sustain any kind of chain reaction / fission rate... considering the mixture of non-fertile and also poisonous (neutron-absorbing) materials now melted integrally in and around the fuel material.

Also... for our non-nuclear friends... the Xenon generated in fission is normally contained inside the fuel elements (be they rods, plates, or other) and decays or absorbs neutrons to move down the chain to a stable element. It remains there permanently. Only because the core materials are damaged or melted at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 is the Xenon which is produced able to get out into the water and air volume inside the plant at this time and thus be detected by the gas sampling equipment. The effects of Xenon on reactor operation are well known but normally the Xenon is NOT emitted.

At this time there are no changes in detected radioactive materials on site or off site, no alerts off site have been made, and conditions operationally on site are as they were before this recent event.

More details when available.

8:30 AM Eastern Wednesday November 2, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Xenon detected at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2 - UPDATE

2011-11-02T04:20:00.006-04:00

DEVELOPING STORY

-At this point NHK news is leading its broadcasts with the observation that the Fukushima Daiichi station is on what it calls "high alert" and a sensible analysis of the situation.

-TEPCO has released the following statement in its daily (or, sometimes, twice daily) situation report on the plant site and operations therein:

On November 1, we conducted a nuclide analysis of emitted gas sampled by
the gas management system of the reactor containment vessel. It was found
out that there was a possibility that short-half-life radionuclide (xenon
133, 135) was detected. There has been no significant variation as a
result of our continuous monitoring of the temperature and the pressure
in the reactor, and the figures of the monitoring posts. However, just to
be safe we injected boric-acid solution through reactor water injection
line from 2:48 am to 3:47 am on November 2, since it was undeniable that
fission reaction had occurred.

-TEPCO has released some preliminary data on the concentrations as presently understood. The preliminary data is below.

-As might have been expected, some news outlets are carrying a statement by TEPCO that NO major criticality incident / accident has occurred. There has been no rise in temperatures or pressure at the plant, and only a one microsievert per hour change at the closest detection station which is probably simply within the discriminatory limit of the equipment - in other words, there may be no actual change at all. No neutron flux of any level has been detected on site, according to TEPCO (in this instance, through NHK TV.)

-At 4:14 AM November 2... after the boric acid injection... TEPCO increased water injection rate to No. 2 reactor slightly, raising the feed line injection rate from 2.4 m³/hr to 3 m³/hr and increasing the core spray line injection rate from about 6.9 m³/hr to about 7.0 m³/hr. These are the most up to date figures.

-TEPCO's statements indicate (as I said in the previous post) that there are no expected increases in releases to the atmosphere as a result of this ongoing evolution as it stands now.

4:35 AM Eastern Wednesday, November 2, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

UPDATE -- 7:40 AM Wednesday.

In order to make better sense of the numbers, TEPCO has apparently given some different interpretations of the measurements of Xenon which are listed in the above illustration (from official TEPCO materials.)

TEPCO tells Japan Times that the Xenon concentration is roughly "one hundred thousandth becquerel per cubic centimeter" for both isotopes in the gas sample.

NHK is carrying a description from TEPCO that the concentration of Xenon in parts per million in the gas sample is about 12 to 14 ppm... although the description given in the NHK story is clearly garbled, likely due to lack of understanding.

All news sources in Japan are carrying statements obtained from TEPCO contacts that fission is assured to have occurred to generate this Xenon. However, many of them are talking about criticality - which is of course a self-sustaining fission chain reaction. This is not likely; a number of other mechanisms could account for a brief fissioning event in the demolished core material. Further, the deranged state of the core, almost surely with the melted control rod blades integral, makes any sustained chain reaction almost a practical impossibility. The chances of this type of event are higher with a rapid core reflood, but we've already shown the injection rates and no rapid increase in injection has occurred.

More details as they're available.
--------------------------------------------------

BREAKING: Xenon detected at Fukushima Daiichi No. 2

2011-11-01T21:07:00.006-04:00

DEVELOPING NEWS...

-TEPCO has injected borated water (boric acid suspension) into No. 2 reactor at Fukushima Daiichi after detecting Xenon-133 and Xenon-135 in the primary containment of the plant.

-The borated water injection lasted one hour, from 3 AM to 4 AM on Wednesday November 2, 2011.

-According to information released to NHK Japan, TEPCO cannot rule out (and this is my rewording of their release) some measurable fission rate in the demolished core structure.

-A look at the indication by TEPCO to NHK and a quick perusal of graphical data to the present shows no rise in PCV pressure or any of the measured temperatures at the plant. However, as I've noted many times, the state of derangement of the lower pressure vessel head... and the amount of fuel material exit from the pressure vessel... cannot be guaranteed or even accurately estimated. Thus, lower vessel head temperature may not be indicative of the temperature of the entire (demolished) core mass.

-TEPCO states that the Xenon concentration in the samples from the gas handling system is "low."

-NHK indicates a statement from NISA that there is little or no chance that temperature has risen enough to cause further melting ... which seems obvious at this point. (For those not familiar, it would be difficult for the mass to achieve sustained criticality at this point; what we might be looking at is very limited increase in fissions per unit time, leading to generation of these Xenon gases which are fission products.)

Xenon background:

Xenon is produced in a reactor as a product of fission; when the U-235 nucleus splits, the resulting pieces or "fission fragments" can be a number of different elements.

Xe-135 is produced directly from fission in a very small amount (~.2 to .3% of fission products) but is produced indirectly in larger amount from Tellurium 135 since the Te-135 decays in less than two minutes to I-135 which then decays with a half life of 6.7 hours to Xe-135. This Xenon, unless it absorbs a neutron (which it has a very high propensity to do - it is an impressive neutron absorber or "poison") will then decay with a half life of 9.13 hrs to Cesium 135.

It seems obvious then, considering the Xe-135 alone, that this finding indicates that there are fissions occurring. Fissions are indeed normal even in a shut down reactor, of course; they occur naturally.

TEPCO has injected borated water because boron is a significant neutron absorber; it is thus a "poison" and will absorb neutrons before they can be absorbed by U-235 and cause fission. Clearly TEPCO has considered that an increase in fissions per unit time may have occurred, or perhaps even a recriticality in a limited volume of the core material.. having stated explicitly that it cannot be ruled out.

Having said all this, the net probable effect on the total operational aspects of the plant itself, on safety, and on environmental release is probably ZERO. This is assuming a number of things; we will certainly be awaiting a press release or sitrep update from TEPCO in the later hours tonight.

DEVELOPING NEWS 9:32 PM EASTERN TUESDAY NOVEMBER 1 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Update 1 - 9:45 PM Eastern - Both NHK and Kyodo News are now carrying news flashes on this story.

EDIT: November 3rd... Boric acid injection took place from 2:48 AM to 3;47 AM on November 1st.

Reactor restart at Genkai (Japan)

2011-11-01T15:52:00.003-04:00

NHK is carrying the news that Kyushu Electric Power Company has restarted Genkai No. 4 reactor, Kyushu, Japan. This is the first return to the grid for any nuclear reactor in Japan since the shutdowns following the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, and the shutdowns following the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

3:55 PM Eastern Tuesday November 1, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Carnival No. 76 up now...

2011-10-30T05:33:00.002-04:00

The 76th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is now up over at Brian Wang's NEXT BIG FUTURE. The best pro-nuclear bloggers in the world provide content for this weekly event. Check it out now at the following link:

76th CARNIVAL AT NEXT BIG FUTURE

5:41 AM Eastern Sunday October 30, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Fukushima Daiichi update: October 28, 2011

2011-10-28T14:58:00.004-04:00

A number of updates from Fukushima Daiichi...

-TEPCO has announced that as of today, the final additions to the enclosure structure at No. 1 reactor building have been made (air circulation and filtration equipment) and that the inspection of the structure and systems by NISA is completed satisfactorily. The structure itself has been completed for a while, but this might be considered as the official commissioning of the entire structure and ventilation system.

-TEPCO has also announced that it will drastically increase the amount of water being injected to No. 1 reactor in order to cut down on evaporation inside the structure. It appears that the high humidity environment is hampering the ability to work inside, so TEPCO will increase the feed rate through the feed line (normal feedwater injection line) upward from 4 cubic meters per hour to 7.5 cubic meters per hour over four days. When the conditions of the plant are ascertained at that point TEPCO will further increase water flow. This will also reduce drastically any gaseous emissions to the enclosure from the damaged reactor.

-TEPCO has discovered a nearly or else completely sheared axle shaft casing on the overhead crane at the common spent fuel building at Fukushima Daiichi. The cause is yet unknown, and no hazard is posed at this time.

-TEPCO is almost ready to place the gas handling system (improvised arrangement) at No. 2 reactor plant (to handle gases in the primary containment) into operation. This system will filter out radioactive airborne contaminants. Similar systems will be employed eventually at all three reactors.

-Finally, airborne releases from Fukushima Daiichi continue to decline .. contrary to many reports on anti-nuclear sites .. as shown by these two panels from a report issued by the Japanese Prime Minister's office.

3:15 PM Eastern Friday October 28, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Report from Fukushima Daiichi - #2

2011-10-27T16:59:00.004-04:00

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has released a second installment of its video series "Report from Fukushima Daiichi." This is one of three general types of video that TEPCO has been producing since the accident (the other two being the continuing coherent series on accident recovery actions, and a gaggle of unrelated videos which happen to be specific to whatever problem is being dealt with at the moment, which we might call situational videos.) This type of video is meant to give an overall view of conditions and operations at the site.

TEPCO has promised (as this video notes) to give as complete and open a picture as possible concerning recovery operations on site, and considering the massive efforts underway there, these videos are a bonus addition to the voluminous web and paper reporting TEPCO is performing.

The newest video is presently the featured video on the APR YouTube Channel.

Click here to get to the APR YouTube Channel.

5:04 PM Eastern Thursday October 27, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

New video at APR YouTube

2011-10-26T14:44:00.003-04:00

TEPCO has released the first in its continuing series of videos on Fukushima Daiichi which covers the contaminated water situation at the site.

Click here to see the new video at APR/YouTube.

2:45 PM Eastern Wednesday October 26, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers No. 75

2011-10-22T17:45:00.013-04:00

It's time again for the weekly Carnival, and this week APR is proud to host. There seem to be as many entries as ever this week, so I'll skip the usual long-winded prefatory matter and get right to the content.

That is, after I ask you "What is this?" and show you a picture.

You'll get the answer and perhaps a bit more after the Carnival entries. So let's get to it!

-----------

This week has seen a great deal of confrontation with anti-nuclear activists, both in comment sections of blogs and on the Facebook page of one Christie Brinkley, who is actually on the board of directors for a non-profit 501(c)3 anti-nuclear organization, RPHP. For that reason, and knowing the full weight of the action which has gone on this week, APR has decided not to present its own specifically produced content and instead defers the lead article spot to Suzanne Hobbs for her fine and brief summation of the events.

Speaking briefly of this organization, called RPHP or the Radiation and Public Health Project... Yours truly countered Joe Mangano who posted on Brinkey's side with a post among other things about the SRE core damage incident. (To be brief, Mangano called this possibly the worst core melt in US history and something which was suppressed; I posted that it was never secret, that 12 of 43 fuel elements were damaged with a total release of ~0.3% of the core inventory, and that the plant was refueled and operated following this 1959 incident. There was more.) Suzy tells us in late breaking news now that she's found that in 2008, 73% of RPHP's income went to pay Mangano. This would be $82,000 dollars. (I looked at the 2010 file and that appears to be Mangano's annual salary.) Only $2800 was spent on radiation testing -- about 2.5% of their funding. It's not surprising, then, that Mangano rallied to Brinkley's defense; he is RPHP's paid man, holding position of Secretary with the RPHP organization. Look for more data at guidestar.org. Thanks to Suzanne Hobbs for this information.

And Suzanne's entry:

Suzanne Hobbs / PopAtomic Studios

Hobbs reflects on a recent energy debate with model/actress Christie Brinkley. Unfortunately, celebrities are effectively reaching the public with false information about nuclear energy on a large scale. She concludes that celebrity anti-nuclear activism is a real issue that should be addressed by the nuclear industry.

-----------

Meredith Angwin - Yes Vermont Yankee!

Vermont Yankee is refueling now. Entergy placed its bet and went
ahead with the refueling outage despite the uncertainties of the court
case. Yes Vermont Yankee honors this decision and the people who work
the outage with two posts:

Songs for the Outage: Save a Millirem and Don't Stand So Close

Rally This Sunday In Support of Vermont Yankee

----------

Margaret Harding - 4Factor Consulting

This is a short blog, but it points to an excellent newsletter done by the International Association of Energy Economists. I have co-authored one of the articles in this newsletter, but the newsletter itself is filled with a dozen points of view about Fukushima and its impact in Japan and the world at large. Interesting reading from a non-nuclear perspective.

-----------

Dan Yurman - Idaho Samizdat

A safety evaluation review and decision are expected in November

The NRC's review of the effects of the August 23 earthquake on Dominion's North Anna power station is coming to a logical and reasonable close. The agency says the staff is writing a safety evaluation review that could result in a re-start decision letter by mid-November.

The NRC wrote in its "FAQ" about the earthquake . . . "ground motion experienced by plant structures . . . may have exceeded design [but] does not appear to appreciably encroach on built-in seismic design margin of safety related structures and components."

The bottom line is that the plant responded well to the event with no apparent damage to safety significant systems nor to other systems and buildings generally.

Dominion VP Eugene Grecheck told this blog in an exclusive interview immediately following the NRC’s Oct 21 meeting that "the utility is pleased we don't have to re-analyze the entire plant."

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell confirmed to this blog Oct 21 that following a public meeting in Mineral, VA, on November 1 to review the agency's findings, that staff will write the safety review and prepare the decision letter. If all goes well, it seems reasonable to think North Anna could be back in the business of providing power to its customers by Thanksgiving.

APR NOTE: Be sure to scope out Dan's new layout!

-----------

Brian Wang - Next Big Future

Amory Lovins wrong before, wrong now and pushing a plan for American Poverty

How wrong and misleading can someone be and yet remain an influential
technical expert ?

-----------

Paul Bowersox has sent us two very good contributions this week.

The first contribution is on the prestigious ANS Nuclear Cafe.

"Samples from NRC Webcasts (First of a Series)"

In recent months the commissioners and staffers at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have held several public sessions of substantial importance -- senior editor E. Michael Blake highlights some discussions that didn't receive detailed coverage in the American Nuclear Society's Nuclear News magazine

Paul also submits "this very good one from Clean Energy Insight:"

"Mothers in Nuclear Share Their Stories"

There are many intelligent, caring and dedicated mothers in the nuclear industry. In order to share their experience about the nuclear world, NA-YGN has managed to capture the perspectives of four of these women. Their stories are humorous and insightful, and provide proof that you can be a nuclear professional while having a home life at the same time. Hope you enjoy the stories.

APR Note: This is a very good read.

-----------

Steve Skutnik - The Neutron Economy

"Civilian nuclear energy programs as a "fig leaf" for proliferation: Does it matter?"

In this post, I take a critical look at the idea that weapons proliferation follows as a natural consequence of civilian fuel cycles. Likewise, I ask the question of how relevant or meaningful it is when countries intent upon weapons proliferation attempt to use civilian programs as a "fig leaf" to cover up illicit activities.

----------

Gail Marcus: Nuke Power Talk

Gail Marcus writes about the growing confrontations over oil and gas resources today in two different parts of the world. These disputes are troubling reminders that disputes over resources have often led to warfare in the past, and that a transition away from such resources is needed to help reduce the risks of war in the future.

----------

That does it for this week's Carnival entries. I think this is as many as APR has had any time it's hosted this event - I really appreciate the time and effort everyone put toward this this week.

Now to describe that odd looking thing you saw earlier. This is the pre-assembled body of one of the three primary sodium pumps manufactured for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Behind it is the cylinder or casing inside which it will be mounted, in a vertical position. This shot appeared in the ATOMS FOR PEACE / USA 1958 photo presentation book; the picture was taken on the shop floor of the Byron Jackson Division of Borg-Warner Corporation.

Above, an illustration of one of these pumps assembled and mounted in the plant. This illustration is from "Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant," publication APDA-124 published by Atomic Power Development Associates, Inc. in January 1959. Click the picture to enlarge; the dimensions of this pump are marked and it might be larger than you would think. This pump was driven by a 1060 BHP electric motor and was rated initially at 11,800 gallons per minute of liquid sodium at 1000F. Total dynamic head of the pump as designed was 310 ft. Later publications give a rating of 13,000 gallons per minute.

Above, another view of one of the pumps and its casing or "pump tank" from APDA-124. The outer diameter of the pump tank is five and a half feet.

This is not the largest sodium pump for reactor service ever designed. Byron Jackson, in response to continuing fast breeder plant designs (which we know continued through cancellation of the Clinch River project in 1983) designed ever larger pumps until reaching probably the zenith with the machine shown below in an advertisement.

This is a full page ad taken out by Byron Jackson Division of Borg-Warner Corporation in the Exhibitor Program for ATOMFAIR '68. The ad can be clicked to enlarge; note that this very large unit was designed for 60,000 gallons per minute pumping capacity of liquid sodium. The ad copy makes interesting reading.

That's it for Carnival 75!