89th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Week's Carnival

Cool Hand Nuke - NRC vote for Southern reactors "imminent" Fertel

A vote will take place soon by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to award combined construction and operating licenses for twin Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the utility's Vogtle site in George.

That's according to Marvin Fertel, the CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)  Fertel says he expects the action approving the licenses to take place "within days."

In addition to Southern, Scana, a South Carolina utility, is also seeling licenses for twin AP1000s at its V.C Summer Station. According to Fertel, the announcement on Southern's reactors is only a matter of time.  He said the vote on Scana's application will take place later this winter.

Nuclear Diner - Cheryl Rofer

• Make Your Smartphone into a Radiation Detector

The Helmholtz Research Center in Munich tested it on several sources and it seems to work though calibration is a question.

• Interpreting Iran's Claims About Their Fuel Element

Summarizes a discussion on the Nuclear Diner Forum on that fuel element, which seems most likely to be a plate for the Tehran Research Reactor. The available information is not clear. However, Iran has been known to inflate its claims about its technical progress.

Pop Atomic Studios - Susie Hobbs Baker (Link courtesy of Nuclear Street; Cam Abernethy)

The daughter of a nuclear engineer, Suzanne Hobbs Baker was initially afraid of radiation when she first learned about in biology class at 15 years old. So she and her dad spent the day at the Oconee nuclear plant in South Carolina, learning about safety systems, taking dose readings and discovering more about how nuclear power works.

Today, Hobbs Baker is a visual artist who leads PopAtomic Studios and uses her medium to address fears and misconceptions about nuclear energy. In this TEDx Talk, she elaborates on her work and the organization’s outreach, as well as the ways visual art can illustrate concepts in physics that can be difficult for non-scientists to grasp using equations alone.

Atomic Power Review - Will Davis

Nuclear icebreaker Lenin -
Image: Atomic Power Review

As a special feature for National Nuclear Science Week, Will Davis has two posts covering a little discussed job nuclear energy does really well - icebreaking.

• National Nuclear Science Week
• Russian Nuclear Icebreaker

The first post is a general history with links to great photo galleries and related sites; the second is an APR exclusive technical look at the powerplant of the first nuclear icebreaker, the LENIN.

Talk Nuclear - Laura Allardyce, Canadian Nuclear Association

Our top three reasons why we think the licenses for Cameco’s facilities in Port Hope and Blind River, Ontario should be renewed by the regulator, the CNSC.

Yes Vermont Yankee - Meredith Angwin

Federal Judge Murtha ruled against the State and for Entergy in the Vermont Yankee lawsuit. This was a major court victory for nuclear energy. Near the day of the ruling, Yes Vermont Yankee blogger Meredith Angwin had some scheduled surgery. Angwin thanks several guest bloggers, and spotlights three fine guest posts on the blog:

• District Court Upholds the Rule of Law by George Angwin
• Beyond the Federal Court Decision by Howard Shaffer
• The State and the Control-H Defense by Cavan Stone

Next Big Future - Brian Wang

• Accelerator driven nuclear reactor in Europe

Conceptual drawing - Myrrha
Image: Belgian Nuclear Research Centre

A first-of-a-kind reactor system has been set up in Belgium by coupling a subcritical assembly with a particle accelerator. The equipment, known as Guinevere, is a demonstration model that supports the project for a larger version that will be called Myrrha (Multipurpose Hybrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications).

MYRRHA, a flexible fast spectrum research reactor (50-100 MWth) is conceived as an accelerator driven system (ADS), able to operate in sub-critical and critical modes. It contains a proton accelerator of 600 MeV, a spallation target and a multiplying core with MOX fuel, cooled by liquid lead-bismuth (Pb-Bi). MYRRHA will be operational at full power around 2023.

• DOE funding for small modular reactors

The DOE is funding up to two small modular reactors by 2022 and has grants for $452 million over the next 5 years. There is also an overview of the small modular reactors that are under development.

Idaho Samizdat - Dan Yurman

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

Critics of the effort, and there are many, weigh in about the agency's process and the perception it is trying the make policy instead of implementing it.

Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus

Gail Marcus responds to a reader who is a student of nuclear engineering and is seeking a summer internship.  She tells him about the WISE program, with which she has been involved, and other science policy internships, mainly in Washington, DC.  She also invites readers who know of other opportunities to share them through the blog comments for the benefit of this student and others.

ANS Nuclear Cafe - Paul Bowersox

The Department of Defense is shifting to clean energy sources that reduce greenhouse gases.  Can Small Modular Reactor system lifecycle costs compete with existing installation electricity costs?  William J. Barattino at the ANS Nuclear Cafe summarizes his initial assessment of the market size of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) on U.S. Army installations - and the results are encouraging.

The Neutron Economy - Steve Skutnik

• Cultural Bias & nuclear energy

Steve reviews cultural bias and ignorance about science and technology with regard to nuclear energy.

•  Why the Vermont Yankee Case Matters

Beyond the direct implications for Entergy and Vermont Yankee itself, Entergy's recent victory in federal court has implications for both nuclear and energy projects writ large.

•  What to Expect from Japan's Nuclear Fleet and 2011 in Context - by Alan Rominger

Digging into the historical electricity generation statistics, Alan Rominger looks  at how prior key events have impacted Japan's nuclear generation capacity, including the post-Fukushima regulatory backlash toward reactors in Japan's fleet unaffected by the recent Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. With this in mind, he extrapolates outward to give a peek at what Japan's energy mix may look like for the near term.

i-Nuclear - David Stellfox

The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority remains in talks with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy to build its Prism fast reactors at Sellafield as a means of managing and disposing of the UK’s 84-tonne stockpile of civil plutonium, an NDA spokesman said January 24.

NDA spokesman Bill Hamilton described reports in today’s Guardian newspaper that the NDA had rejected GE-Hitachi’s proposals as “completely without foundation.”

“Discussions are ongoing,” Hamilton told i-NUCLEAR.  He said the NDA was prepared to provide financial support to develop the proposals if ongoing discussions demonstrate promise.

NEI Nuclear Notes

The Blue Ribbon Commission issues its final report. Enumerating shortcomings of the nation’s used fuel management program, a federal government panel this week recommended eight steps to improve it.

Among them, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future said in a report issued today, is that levies on nuclear energy that American consumers have been paying for years should be fully available to a new organization created to manage the federal government’s used nuclear fuel program.

The commission also recommended development of at least one consolidated storage facility for used nuclear fuel.

Congressional hearings on a new used fuel management organization should begin “as soon as possible,” the commission said.

Atomic Insights - Rod Adams

This blog post tells the real story about nuclear plant liability insurance.

# # #

BRC releases final report on spent fuel

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

Spent fuel in wet storage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three crucial elements

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

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

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

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

Geologic repository still needed

Spent fuel canister for dry storage
Image: World Nuclear News

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

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

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

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

Policy leadership needed too

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

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

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

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

# # #

TVA's count down to MOX fuel

The utility is assessing options to use it

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

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

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

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

# # #

NRC’s Waste Confidence Update

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failure is not an option

Lake Barrett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Wasting an opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

Plan for Sellafield rejected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blue Ribbon Commission to punt

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not satisfied with kicking cans

Dry cask storage. Image: U.S. NRC

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

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

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

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


# # # 

Safety first in Idaho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Words worth reading in the senior management suite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup milestone

The Arco desert looking southwest from MFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Water rights granted for Utah's Blue Castle project

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

Map of Utah's Green River region

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

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

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

Time line to revenue service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water rights fight not over

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

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

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

Jones defended the process to make the decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outlook for the project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

A win for Vermont Yankee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Covert bombing kills Iranian nuclear scientist

It is the latest in a series of deadly attacks

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

87th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The 87th carnival is up at ANS Nuclear Cafe

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Books about Nuclear Energy - 2012 List

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

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

Nuclear energy is the
stuff stars are made of

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

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

Comments and suggestions for additional listings are welcome.

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

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

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

* * *

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

# # #

New reactor deals for the new year

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

Map of Jordan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Khalid Tougan, JAEC Director

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

Energy security v. energy costs

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

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

Nuclear cooperation agreements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indian billionaire takes stake in Terrapower

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

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

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

CEZ downsizes Temelin bid

Daniel Benes CEZ CEO

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

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

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

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

# # #

U.S. Nuclear manufacturers lukewarm on AP1000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arduous road to success

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

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

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

Turn-Around for Jackzo

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

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

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

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

Implications of Design Approval

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

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

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

Nuclear Fabricators Cautious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update January 9, 2012

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

# # #