Tackling TEPCO's water problem

The utility has 15 million gallons of radioactive liquid created by efforts to cool its crippled nuclear reactors

TEPCO is a bearer of a water problem that sets daunting challenges ahead of its ambitious plan to decommission the Fukushima reactor site. In many ways, getting the millions of gallons of radioactive water out of buildings at the site is a path to getting the decommissioning program in place and working against a predictable schedule.

The basic rule in responding to emergencies involving environmental cleanup is that you can never do just one thing without something else coming up. In the case of TEPCO's three crippled reactors at Fukushima, pouring hundreds of tons a day of water on the leaking units to cool the hot nuclear fuel inside them has resulted in creating a huge volume of radioactive water.

Left uncontrolled the water is seeping into the ground and running off into the sea. Evaporation leaves a residual trail of radioactive debris which will be hard to clean up. The Bloomberg wire service reported June 2 that TEPCO may see radioactive water overflowing the storage it has on-site by early this week resulting in flows of the contamination into the sea. TEPCO has to get control of the water before it makes the situation at Fukushima even worse.

Estimates of the amount of radioactive water that has accumulated since March 11 range from 15-to-28 million gallons. The rate of accumulation of new radioactive water is estimated to be 300-to-500 tons per day or 72,000-to-120,000 gallons per day. In a month the amount of new radioactive water would be to 2.1 million to 3.6 million gallons.

For the purposes of analysis, this blog will use the 15 million gallon figure for the volume that exists so far and an accumulation rate of 300 tons per day.

Water is the biggest challenge at Fukushima

In fact, according to a Washington Post report for June 3, uncontrolled radioactive water is the biggest worry at Fukushima.

Lake Barrett, the project manager for cleanup of the heavily damaged Three Mile Island Reactor, told the newspaper continued use of outside water to cool the crippled Fukushima reactors is just making a bigger mess.

Fixing the reactor recirculation systems is taking time and workers are limited in how much time they can spend in certain areas of the plant because of the presence of the radioactive water.

TEPCO has two challenges.

• First, it must collect the radioactive water from turbine buildings, basements, and other places, and put it in containers to hold it until a treatment system can start operation.
• Second, the radioactivity must be removed from the water and then safely removed to another location for permanent disposal. Then the cleaned water can be made available to be used to cool the reactors.

In the balance of this blog post I will try to describe the issue ahead using numbers published in the news media. Some of these numbers may turn out to be overtaken by new estimates. TEPCO has been revising information about the scope of the contamination as it discovers new problems. The basic issues of meeting the two challenges noted above remain constant.

Get control of the water

According to the Daily Yomiuri and the Associated Press, last week TEPCO started to transport tanks, each with a storage capacity of 120 tons and measuring 15.1 meters long and 3.7 meters in diameter, to Fukushima Prefecture from a tank manufacturer in Kanuma, Tochigi Prefecture. (photo left: TEPCO)

TEPCO plans to deliver a total of 370 tanks -- 170 units with a storage capacity of 120 tons and 200 units with a capacity of 100 tons. The operation is expected to continue until mid-August, according to the utility. So how much water will the tanks hold?

A gallon of water weighs 8.35 pounds. So how much water can TEPCO put in the tanks? It turns out TEPCO will be able to put about half of the 15 million gallons of uncontrolled radioactive water in the tanks. See Table below. If metric measurements are used, then the total is slightly higher.

TEPCO Storage of
Radioactive Water
		Total
Nmbr of	Capacity	Tons
Tanks	Tons	Storage	Gallons
100	100	10,000	2,400,000
170	120	20,400	4,890,000
270		30,400	7,290,000
NOTES
One gallon weighs 8.35 lbs
One ton (2,000 lbs) equals 240 gallons

Store once treat once

The next step is to develop a treatment system to process the water to get the radioactivity out of it. It turns out Areva, the French state-owned nuclear giant, has such a process which it uses at the La Hague fuel reprocessing plant. Areva is building a similar facility at Fukushima which it expects to start up on June 15.

There are significant challenges facing the Areva project. In a spent fuel reprocessing plant, the nuclear chemistry numbers are well known, predictable, and controlled in small batches and in an established industrial environment. At Fukushima, no one is quite sure what is in the water, and the working conditions are anything but ideal.

Capture the flag

Areva plans to use a coprecipitation process to remove radioactivity like isotopes of cesium and iodine and other radionnuclides that are coming from the water leaking out of the reactor containment buildings. As the water flows down into turbine buildings and other underground vaults, it mixes with seawater used to cool the reactors in the first days of the crisis, mud, industrial debris, etc. This makes for a very different water chemistry than a spent fuel plant. The salt content of the seawater alone may require new thinking about how to make the process work.

Conprecipitation works by a method that could be called "capture the flag." You put in chemicals that will bind to the material you want to remove. At the same time you want the resulting mass to become insoluble which will then precipitate out either by gravity or centrifuge process. Then you can wrap the unwanted and now insoluble material in some other substance, pump it into leakproof containers, and then get rid of it that way.

Areva's plan is to treat contaminated water from reactor cooling systems by adding chemicals that bind to radioactive isotopes and then settle out. In its press statement last April, Areva did not specify the exact technical method it plans to use at Fukushima. There are numerous methods in the technical literature.

According to several media reports, the process it uses at La Hague uses a specific mix of chemicals which capture the radionuclides which are removed from the water as a highly radioactive chemical sludge.

The sludge is mixed with bitumen petroleum product similar to asphalt. That mixture is poured into 55 gal drums, which are sealed and then buried in a special landfill for radioactive materials.

Water quality or mixed nuts?

The efficiency of coprecipitation of radioactive materials from water depends on what you want to remove and how much of it you can expect to remove given the input chemicals and the amount of radioactivity in the water at the start of the process.

What this means for Areva is that given the difficult mixed nuts quality of the water chemistry at Fukushima, it is unclear how much radioactivity will be removed by the plant. Some is better than none.

Nuclear expert Lake Barrett told the Washington Post that at Fukushima, "you have massive volumes and a very heterogeneous chemistry."

Areva spokesperson Patricia Marie told the newspaper, "Honestly, it is hard to say how it will work."

Video of Areva plant equipment at Fukushima

Some progress is better than none at all

For its part Areva says that is bringing the water treatment process to Japan based on a request from TEPCO. Developed by AREVA and used in the Marcoule and La Hague facilities, the conprecipitation process uses chemical reagents to separate and recover the radioactive elements. AREVA also called on the skills of Veolia Water a multi-national civil engineering firm specializing in water treatment technologies and building facilities that use them.

Areva said in its statement . . .

“The contaminated water must be treated rapidly as it is preventing Tepco from repairing the power plant’s power supply and cooling systems. The unit will sharply reduce the radioactivity levels of the treated water, which could be reused in the power plant’s cooling systems.”

The treatment unit, which will be provided by Veolia Water, can process 50,000 liters (13,200 gallons) of water per hour, Areva Chief Executive Officer Anne Lauvergeon said at an April briefing in Tokyo.

How much how soon?

With an estimated 15 million gallons of water needing treatment, the timeline for optimal performance will be about two months. However, water treatment processes, especially those with a mixed effluent of unknown concentrations of contaminants, don't work a the optimum level right out of the box.

It could take some time for Areva to adjust the system to do its job efficiently. Also, there are the likelihoods of equipment breakdowns and the difficulties that will be encountered if the plant leaks radioactive water itself.

Stocks and flows

TEPCO's on site storage of radioactive water once its its new canisters arrive will be about 7.3 million gallons which means the other 7.6 million gallons will be uncontrolled and the volume will grow with each new day of external cooling until the recirculation systems are restored to service if in fact that is even technically possible.

In terms of stocks and flows, Areva’s plant will have to be reliable for some period of time. TEPCO is reportedly pouring up to 100 tons a day of water (24,000 gallons) on each of the three unstable reactors. With start-up of the new facility scheduled for June 15, and a 50 day or more backlog of water already needing treatment, in another two months, there will be another three-to-six million gallons of water needing treatment. Rainwater and snow melt will add volume what's coming off the reactors.

Measures of real progress

The water treatment plant is a stop gap action. For real progress to be made, TEPCO must find a way to achieve recirculation of cooling water inside the reactors and contain the leaks. (Reactor recirulation diagram: Nuclear Street)

Removing as much of the initial volume through storage and treatment is a good first step because it will allow plant workers to enter areas that are closed to them now due to the high levels of radioactivity in the water.

Areva will have some steep technical challenges to meet to achieve these results. TEPCO and the Japanese government are betting the ranch that the French nuclear giant can do it.

The other choice is almost unfathomable, and that is to run a pipe from the Fukushima shoreline to the continental shelf and pump the radioactive water into the abyss of the Pacific trench.

This solution seems unlikely as local fishermen and environmental groups are reporting radioactive contamination of fish as much as 12 miles offshore from Fukushima. Adding more radioactive water to the sea for dilution at deep levels might make technical sense, as a last resort. It may not fly in the supercharged political environment that is threatening to claim the political leadership of Japanese PM Naoto Kan.

# # #

TVA seeks green light to build Bellefonte

The utility plans to invest $4-5 billion to complete the reactor

One of the most dramatic resurrections of a stalled nuclear reactor construction project is unfolding in Hollywood, Ala. There the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is getting ready to formally ask its board of directors this August to approve completion of the 1,260 MW PWR plant which halted in the late 1980s.

TVA CEO Tom Kilgore told the news media June 3 Bellefonte Unit 1 could be delivering power to the grid by 2018-2020.

A diverse set of anti-nuclear groups oppose the action citing the damage to four nuclear reactors in Japan. Instead of completing the plant, they want more energy efficiency, solar, wind, and other renewable energy power programs.

TVA started work on two new nuclear reactors at Bellefonte in the mid-70s, but stopped work on both units by the late 1980s as the utility realized the plants would not be needed to meet electricity demand. In 2008 TVA began to look at the question of whether it would be cheaper to complete one or both reactors at Bellefonte rather than build two brand new units.

Read the full story exclusively at CoolHandNuke online now

# # #

Notes to Readers – June 2011

A few things need to be said from time to time

Guest blog posts

Recently, this blog ran a guest blog post with the byline of a single contributor.  It turns  out the byline was a public relations point of contact for a white paper.  This blog is not a platform for marketing white papers for technologies, products, or services. 

In the future I will be more diligent about making sure a guest contribution is validated in terms of who wrote it and why.

Guest blog posts are welcome.  Just make sure it’s you and nobody else when it comes to the byline.

Comments welcome

Also, as to comment policy, I want to restate a few things.  Comments are welcome so long as they are civil, relevant, and not anonymous.  You know who I am.  I expect the same from readers if you chose to comment here.   If you don’t have a Blogger ID, or Google Gmail address, you can get a free Open ID that will validate to your current personal, school, or work address.

Generally, I let comments stand on their own and don’t reply unless I think there is a difference that needs to be aired or a clarification that requires a response.  I’ve had my say with the blog post. I see the comments as a chance for readers to have theirs.

Finally, I value technical corrections.  If you see an error, tell me about it.   The nuclear energy field has lots of exceptions so catching errors is a part of continuous learning about the business. 

I will be happy to give credit for corrections if you include your name and email address in the comment.  I will not try to figure out who you are if you don’t do this.  See the note above about identifying yourself.

Why have a blog about nuclear energy?

The purpose of this blog is to have a “voice” in the dialog about nuclear energy, the global  nuclear renaissance, and to be able to shape public views. This blog does not merely report the news. It attempts to answer the "so what" question when it comes to nuclear energy developments.

This blog is called 'Idaho Samizdat" because I spent 20 years working at the Idaho National Laboratory and have the dust of the Arco desert on my shoes. 

The Idaho lab is the home of the birth of the nation's commercial nuclear power industry.   The "samizdat" part comes from the fact it is a Russian word that means "self-published," which is a great name for a blog.

No one pays me to publish this blog.  This blog carries advertising which provides just a bit more than lunch money in terms of revenue. So yes, it’s a business. That said please support the advertisers by checking out what they have to offer.

Contact Me

This is the link to my personal home page including email, phone, etc. If you have a question, or an idea for a blog post, drop me a line. Also, you can connect with me on Linkedin.  I’m on Twitter at @djysrv  Thanks.

# # #

Germany’s Nuclear Energy Panic Attack

Steep Rise in Energy Costs Likely If All 17 Reactors Are Closed

This blog post is an update of my coverage published in Fuel Cycle Week V10:N426 May 26, 2011, by International Nuclear Associates, Washington, DC.

Shortly after the extent of the damage to reactors at Fukushima became apparent, German Chancellor Angela Merkel (right) announced she was reversing her policy of keeping the nation’s oldest reactors open beyond 2022. A deal put in place by her predecessor called for the eventual closure of all 17 reactors by that date.

She immediately closed the nation's eight oldest reactors initially for a 90-day review and then made the closure permanent. They represent 8,300 MW of power. The reactors being kept open represent 12,000 MW.

At a May 30 news conference, Ms. Merkel said her government was "reconsidering nuclear energy following the unimaginable disaster at Fukushima."

The reactors provide 23% of the nation's electricity supply. Merkel said the gap would be closed with investments in renewable technologies, energy efficiency, and power purchase agreements (fossil) with neighboring countries.

The government's ability to fund and build the wind towers and transmission lines faces several challenges. Merkel has imposed a tax on nuclear fuel, but closing eight of the nation's 17 reactors will cut the revenue in half. Also, German citizen groups oppose the wind farms, and the transmission lines, as visual eyesores.

Germany's utilities have long-term purchase agreements with Russia for natural gas tied to the price of oil. This makes this fossil resource volatile in terms of market movements and the Russians have a history of using their natural gas supplies for political leverage.

Merkel's decision to close the reactors is a restatement of an agreement inked in 2002 by a coalition government of Social Democrats and the Green Party. As Merkel was making her announcement, neighboring Switzerland said it would phase out its nuclear reactors after 2030.

There is no middle ground in the nuclear debate in Germany. Anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany runs high with polls showing as much as 70% of the population says "no thank you" to nuclear power. Huge demonstrations have supported election setbacks for Merkel's conservative coalition in recent regional elections.

Some sentiment among Green Party members calls for a reduction in Germany's industrial economy and a return to a life style of "off the grid" villages in natural ecosystems. It turns the concept of sustainability on its head.

A drive off a cliff

What's interesting about Merkel's U-turn is that it took place so quickly and without much consultation with her Conservative Party supporters. Merkel’s choice to close the reactors is a bid to stay in power and avoid losing her slim lead in parliament. The decision is so sudden that it has been compared to the movie “Thelma & Louise” where in the final scene two women, in flight from the law, choose to drive off a cliff rather than be captured.

In September 2009 Merkel swung for the fences and bet her election chances on keeping the reactors open. Her conservative coalition won by a slim margin. Business groups that represent the export driven manufacturing sector of Germany’s economy have called such actions “irresponsible” and a form of energy suicide.

Huge costs for closing the reactors

There are huge costs for closing the reactors. According to German business lobby BDI, the permanent closure of the reactors could raise electricity costs by 30% by 2020, or a wholesale price rise of 70 euros ($102) per megawatt hour . BDI said the “tax” of increased energy costs would reduce the competitiveness of German exports.

The 17 reactors represent 11% of all energy used in Germany. Since the reactors generate electricity, the sectors most affected will be heavy industrial machinery, commercial lighting, air conditioning, and home residential use.

The energy research institute r2b estimated in the study for BDI that if Germany shuts down all 17 reactors by the end of this decade, the cost for the average German household would be an increase of $200/year. The research group also predicted steep cost increases for electricity for the commercial sector.

The reason is the 17 reactors have long since been depreciated and, while they are cash cows for their owners, also sell their electricity at bargain rates. The replacement fossil and wind power will not be a bargain.

The 30% rise on electricity costs would result in additional payments to utilities for replacement fossil, wind, and solar power, and replacement nuclear power from other nations, of $46.4 billion of which $33.7 billion would be paid by commercial manufacturing and other industrial/business users. BDI also noted that Germany would fall short of being able to meeting its commitments to reduce CO2 emissions by generating an additional 282 million metric tons of it or 28% more than if the reactors stayed open.

When asked if they would accept these increases for the cost of electricity, fewer than 10% said they would accept an increase of more than $130/year which is well below the $200 figure bandied about by BDI.

Yet, Germany’s utilities and the business groups that belong to BDI also see the closure of the reactors as inevitable based on the fact that Germany, and its neighbor Austria, are home to the planet’s strongest political opposition to nuclear energy. A poll published by the Allensbach Institute in mid-April indicates 31% of respondents want all reactors closed within the next five years and another 37% want the same outcome by the end of this decade. The only question now is whether they are willing to pay for their ideological passion.

What About the Fuel Rod Tax?

Another cost of closing the reactors will be the need to spend an estimated $13 billion to build 2,240 miles of new transmission lines to integrate the variable power from wind and solar projects into the national grid. The estimate, which comes from German think tank DENA, is equal to total spending in Germany for electricity in 2008 according to utility RWE.

Finding the money to build the lines may be a problem. In exchange for allowing German reactors to operate beyond the original phase out conditions, in October 2010 Merkel imposed a special tax on the country’s four power firms to pay $3.3 billion a year into a new fund to finance generation of electricity by renewable energy technologies.

The fund could fail to launch if the first eight reactors, now in a 90-day shutdown, are removed permanently from the grid. RWE has already indicated it will sue the German government to end the tax since the reactors are being closed by fiat.

Even if the tax fund collects revenue from the nine reactors that might stay open, political opposition to new transmission lines is almost as ferocious as feelings about the reactors themselves.

Winding Up to Oppose Wind

In an April 11 report German news wire Spiegel Online reported that Germany’s opposition to wind power is well organized. The website windkraftgegner.de (wind power opponents), lists more than 70 protest campaigns.

According to some of them, the German government plans to replace its nuclear reactors with thousands of wind turbines and thousands of kilometers of high-voltage “monster masts” in a move that “will deface vast swathes of territory.” According to Der Spiegel, it seems that Germans, though determined to end nuclear energy, are gearing up to protest against its replacement.

Precipitous Loss of a Sector of Energy Supply

Nuclear energy provides approximately 23% of Germany’s electricity but coal provides 42% followed by natural gas at 14% with hydro, solar, and wind at 16% and all other 5%. According to the World Bank, in 2008 per capita electricity use in Germany was 7,150 kWh. On a scale compared to other nations, this is actually quite low. The average in the U.S. is nearly twice that number.

Yet there is substantial political pressure which appears to be driving Germany right over a cliff into a delusional chasm. Germany’s largest utilities, including RWE and E.ON, have repeatedly said a precipitous closure of the nation’s nuclear reactors will lead to electricity shortages and shift the nation from being a net exporter to a net importer of energy.

In fact, according to the International Energy Agency, Germany made the switch to being a net importer of energy in 2010. It is the second biggest importer of natural gas globally after Japan, and in the top ten for imports of oil and coal. The only reason Germany is a net exporter of electricity is its current fleet of reactors which rank the nation fifth on a global scale.Once they're closed that status will also end.

Ethics Commission weighs in

German Chancellor Merkel may have added an accelerant to the process of increasing the nation’s dependence on energy imports by appointing a so-called Ethics Commission headed by former conservative environmental minister Klaus Topfer. The 22 member commission, rather than buttressing Merkel’s position as expected, went the other direction. With a smattering of church and university leaders, and little business representation, the commission crafted an improbable vision of “off-the-grid” life in post nuclear Germany.

According to a leaked version of the 28-page report made available to the International Herald Tribune May 12, the 22-member panel said the withdrawal from nuclear power “could offer enormous technical, economic, and social opportunities.” It seems that magical thinking has taken root in Germany.

The apparent contradictions of closing the 17 nuclear reactors, while seeking to meet climate change goals, were glossed over by the commission which said it was “unacceptable” to fail to combat climate change. In a remarkable example of turning a blind eye to reality, the commission also said it did not advocate rationing electricity in the event of shortages. Instead, the commission called for huge reductions in the use of energy as a way of taking the loss of the reactors into account.

According to the European Nuclear Society, Germany’s 17 reactors represent 11% of total energy used in all economic sectors in 2009. It follows that the Ethics Commission call for a major reductions in energy use in the nation goes far beyond the reactors and seeks to address more fundamental issues of sustainability far beyond anything previously contemplated by a western industrialized nation.

Ministry Tries Rear Guard Action

These alarming recommendations, and their potential consequences, are not lost on the current environmental minister Norbert Roettgen. In a report from a reactor safety commission chartered after the Fukushima accident, Roettgen argued against a sudden retreat from nuclear energy. He said the decision to close the reactors should be based on a “thorough assessment.” The environmental minister said the nation’s eight oldest reactors are safe and should not be removed from the grid. However, the panel also noted the reactors don’t have the protection of newer units against airplane crashes.

Roettgen, who belongs to Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, has been a mercurial figure in the reactor debate, defending the safety of the fleet while calling for closure of all 17 units by 2022.

It is unclear whether common sense about energy security has any hope of taking root in Germany despite Roetten’s defense. The end result is that the Green Party and the Social Democrats may force the nation into a terribly bad choice. While they briefly hold power, once the lights go out, and the electric bills soar into the stratosphere, the only question will be how fast the closed reactors can be re-started.

German Stupidity Is Czech Opportunity

CEZ, Government Plan Three New Reactors at Temelin

Czech utility CEZ will move ahead with the sometime fitful Temelin project. Prime Minister Petr Necas said the government will drive the country’s nuclear energy development plans that include construction of up to three new reactors at the Temelin site and possibly two more at a new location.

The contracts to build the five reactors, worth an estimated $25 billion in new construction activity, are being vigorously pursued by France’s AREVA, Russia’s Atomstroyexport, and Japan’s Toshiba (Westinghouse).

Release of technical documentation to support bids has been delayed several times, but CEZ CEO Martin Roman said May 10 the bid process will be re-started with the release of the documents next October. A decision by the state-controlled utility to select a winner would be expected in 2013. The new reactors could be running and selling electricity to Germany by the time that nation’s 17 units close in 2022.

The rise of the Temelin project as Germany prepares to close its reactor seems to be another example of nuclear colonialism. The way it works is that a nation bans the construction of new reactors, but cheerfully buys power from them when they located across the border.

For instance, in the U.S. anti-nuclear fervor has banned new reactor construction in California for more than three decades, but throughout this period the state’s consumers have bought power from the Palo Verde site in Arizona.

Cities like Los Angeles are expected to negotiate power purchase agreements with a new reactor complex planned to be built in Utah. It replaces a 900 MW coal fired plant that the City of Los Angeles pulled out of over concerns about greenhouse gases.

The co-chairman of Germany’s Ethics Commission for Atomic Energy, Matthias Kleiner, seems to understand this. He warned in a radio interview via Welt Online April 4, “It would not win anything, if we turn off our nuclear power plants faster, but for nuclear import electricity from abroad.”

U.K.: Full Steam Ahead -

British Maintain Push for New Reactors, Meet Climate Goals

A key government official has issued a report that sets aside fears of a nuclear accident like the one at Fukushima occurring in the U.K. As a result, Mike Weightman, chief inspector of nuclear installations, has given a green light to construction of new reactors in that nation.

Energy secretary Chis Huhne told wire services, “We want to see new nuclear as part of a low carbon energy mix . . . the Chief Nuclear Inspector’s report reassures me we can.”

At the same time, Huhne released new carbon reduction targets for the U.K. which put it far ahead of other European Union countries. He committed the government to cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2027. In a concession to industry, he added what he called a “rip cord” that would review the targets in 2014 if they proved too onerous to meet in terms of the cost of compliance.

Carbon taxes are intended to promote energy efficiency and also force market shifts from fossil to non carbon emitting energy sources including nuclear.

Weightman, who is also leading the IAEA safety review of the Fukushima accident, told the U.K. government that safeguards being used by the current fleet of reactors should prevent even remote risks. He said neither a 9.0 Richter scale earthquake nor a tsunami are credible for the U.K.

In all the report makes more than two-dozen recommendations which consider issues such as local flooding and loss of external electrical power. None of the existing fleet of U.K. reactors are BWR designs like those at Fukushima. All the current reactors in the U.K. are PWRs or gas cooled units. Both of the new reactors in design review are PWRs. They are the 1,100 MW Westinghouse AP1000 and AREVA’s giant 1,600 MW EPR.

The U.K. has identified 12 reactors at seven sites where it will build approximately 18 GWe of new nuclear powered electric generating capacity.

# # #

Questions about news media fundamentals and Fukushima

The nuclear industry needs to understand that confidence building following the crisis in Japan is a global challenge

The IAEA preliminary report on the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power station in Japan is just the first of what will turn out to be a series of reviews of what went wrong and what needs to be done in the future.  IAEA Team Leader Mike Weightman said in a statement, "You can make nuclear plants safe against natural events, but you have to understand these events."

It is clear that Germany does not understand that the real tragedy in Japan is the death of over 25,000 people from the combination of the earthquake and tsunami.  Yet, only four people have died at the Fukushima reactor site, and none from exposure to radiation. 

For more on this point see an excellent editorial in the Washington Post.

“Instead of providing a model for greening a post-industrial economy, Germany’s overreaching greens are showing the rest of the world just how difficult it is to contemplate big cuts in carbon emissions without keeping nuclear power on the table.

Panicked overreaction isn’t the right response to the partial meltdowns in Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex. Instead, countries aiming to provide their citizens with reliable, low-carbon electricity should ask how to minimize inevitable, if small, risks — making their nuclear facilities safer, more reliable and more efficient.”

In the U.S. anti-nuclear groups are seeking to capitalize on Germany's precipitous decision to permanently close it seven oldest reactors and the rest by 2022.  And they are getting lots of help from the mainstream news media (MSM) despite editorials like the one cited here.

Gaps between perception and reality

Some serious thinking is needed to account for the gaps between what is reported in the mainstream news media (MSM) and what we as nuclear professionals know to be the facts.

1. Are there common root causes of frequent gaps between what the MSM reports and what we know to be the technical truth of a situation?

2. What accounts for the thin rolodexes of MSM in terms of who they go to for comments on nuclear incidents?  Why is it the UCS and other anti-nuclear groups like Beyond Nuclear are on speed dial and pro-nuclear experts are not?

3. How do we as nuclear professionals develop ways to get technical nuances across to the MSM without descending into "geek speak?"  A good example is the definition of a "meltdown."  Are we talking about deformed fuel bundles, melted uranium oxide, or all of the above?

4. How do we get across the concepts of comparative risk?  For example, 25,000 people died in Japan as a result of the earthquake and tsunami, but fewer than six have died at the reactor site and none from exposure to radiation. 

5. What is it about "nuclear exceptionalism" that drives an unhealthy focus on radiation even in numbers well under the safety thresholds?  How can we get clarity in MSM reporting about the health effects of various levels of radiation exposure?  How do we better communicate the nuances of health effects, e.g., acute v. long-term effects and cancer risks?

6. Why are the concepts of energy security and carbon emissions given a brush off when it comes to nuclear energy, but promoted without question for natural gas?

7. Why has Germany essentially committed energy suicide and put itself in the grip of the Russians for energy?  The Russians will increase their supply of politically tagged gas and likely win the bid for Temelin. NATO can forget about worrying the Russians will invade Germany.  They already have it.  Why hasn't Germany's MSN or ours given this issue more attention?

8. What does Japan really have to do to get its nuclear energy program back on track? The IAEA report released June 1 is an exercise in documenting the obvious and at best a diplomatic tap dance.  Whether the global nuclear industry likes it or not, confidence building about Japan's nuclear future, with real change, is needed to bolster its standing elsewhere.

As I see it the nuclear energy field is getting pounded like a cheap cut of bottom round by the anti-nukes, especially over Fukushima, and then served up as hamburger to the MSM which thinks it is getting steak. 

If this isn't excellent marketing then I'll eat my hat.

# # #

IAEA Report on Fukushima leaves no one in doubt

It was the tsunami that killed the reactor complex

A report by an international team of nuclear energy experts has blamed Japan for failing to adequately protect the Fukushima Daiichi reactor complex from the effects of tsunami waves.

Despite a long history of horrific tidal events, it turns out TEPCO, the utility that built and operates the power station, stood up a five meter wall. The wave that roared ashore on March 11 was more than three times that height.

The preliminary report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), led by UK nuclear safety expert Mike Weightman, and composed of 18 experts from 12 nations, said, “The tsunami hazard for several sites was under-estimated.”

Additionally, the IAEA team said nuclear utilities should consider building disaster proof emergency response centers to avoid the loss of communications that plagued TEPCO’s uneven response to the crisis.

Preliminary findings

In a draft report summary delivered to Japanese authorities June 1, the team published a set of preliminary conclusions and identified lessons learned in three broad areas:

1. External hazards,

2. Severe accident management, and

3. Emergency preparedness.

The final report will be delivered to the Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety at IAEA headquarters in Vienna in two weeks. The expert team made several preliminary findings and lessons learned, including:

• Japan's long-term response, including the evacuation of the area around stricken reactors, which displaced 80,000 people, has been impressive and well organized. A suitable and timely follow-up program on public and worker exposures and health monitoring would be beneficial;
• The tsunami hazard for several sites was underestimated. Nuclear plant designers and operators should appropriately evaluate and protect against the risks of all natural hazards, and should periodically update those assessments and assessment methodologies;
• Nuclear regulatory systems should address extreme events adequately, including their periodic review, and should ensure that regulatory independence and clarity of roles are preserved;
• The Japanese accident demonstrates the value of hardened on-site Emergency Response Centers with adequate provisions for handling all necessary emergency roles, including communications.
• The IAEA team praised the “exemplary work” of plant staff working under difficult and dangerous conditions.

Regulators cited for “cozy” relationship with TEPCO

The IAEA team was not happy with the role of Japan’s Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (JNISA). It is not independent, the team said, because it is housed in Japan’s trade ministry making it both a promoter and regulator of the country’s nuclear energy industry.

Stephen Lincoln, an Australian energy expert, told the Bloomberg wire service June 1, the relationship between JNISA and TEPCO was “cozy and complacent.”

Also, the IAEA said TEPCO’s roadmap and schedule for bringing the reactor complex under control was unrealistic. It wrote that the plan needed to be modified and would benefit from the expertise of other nations.

TEPCO’s failure to communicate

The IAEA report is being released following a series of new information releases by TEPCO that damage to reactor units 1-4 was much more serious much earlier than previously reported by the utility.

Significant damage occurred to the fuel inside the reactor pressure vessels within the first four days following the loss of electricity to cool the reactors. TEPCO now believes that almost all of the fuel in reactor unit 1 has crumbled to the bottom of the pressure vessel. The utility said similar damage, though perhaps to a lesser degree, also likely occurred in units 2 & 3.

Additionally it became more clear how serious the miscommunications were between the government and the utility with both sides trading charges and blame for faulty instructions about how to respond to the crisis.

Chaotic conditions and a lack of information about the status of the reactors contributed to subsequent problems including creation of huge uncontrolled volumes of radioactive water which continue to hamper recovery work.

A Reuters report quoted nuclear safety expert Kim Kearfott of the University of Michigan, as saying, “There are aspects of the planning for safety at the Fukushima plant which are, in retrospect, very stupid and show a lack of imagination.”

She added, “the nuclear industry can do better than this.”

In a separate development, Japanese Prime Minister Naotoa Kan survived a no confidence vote in Parliament, but is expected to eventually resign taking the blame for the government’s missteps in handling the crisis.

As for TEPCO, its stock has been hammered by the crisis and its bonds reduced to junk status. It is expected that the government may place the company in a limited form of receivership in order to use taxpayer funds to pay for cleanup and for compensation.

# # #