60th Carnival of nuclear bloggers

The 60th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Atomic Power Review.  This is the  first time this blog is participating in the carnival.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it. Contrary to what the anti-nuclear crowd would like you to believe, the wheels have not come off the renaissance.

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

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.

# # #

Some good news and a bit of bartender psychology.

Help comes from positive news for getting nuclear energy out of its defensive corner

Recently, in a meeting room full of nuclear energy professionals, the spirit of doom and gloom from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear crisis was so apparent that even the bartender serving beverages from his portable bar had noticed it.

One nuclear professional who had gone up to get something to drink was counseled by the bartender: The group in the meeting room needed to lighten up!

Upon hearing about this bit of barroom psychology, I wondered if there might be some news globally that would help with this task, aside from another round of single malt scotch.

It turns out that there is. Writing this at breakfast time, with only caffeine to boost the brain cells, I find it an enjoyable task.

Here’s a round-up of brighter news about the nuclear renaissance.  Read the full text at ANS Nuclear Cafe online now.

# # #

Tying the AP1000 up in knots at the NRC

New U.S. reactor projects could languish if anti-nuclear groups succeed in pushing ’ Fukushima “Concerns” to stall the AP1000 Certification

This is my updated coverage in Fuel Cycle Week for June 23, 2011, V10:N430 published by International Nuclear Associates, Washington, DC

The four nuclear reactors most likely to be built in the U.S. and completed before 2020 in Georgia and South Carolina may never make it to the starting line if a coalition of anti-nuclear groups is able to tie up the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s design certification process in knots.

Southern’s Vogtle site and Scana’s V.C. Summer Station are each referencing twin Westinghouse 1,100 MW AP1000 reactors.

Right now the design control document (DCD) needed to complete the safety review for the AP1000 is pending with the NRC, but opponents have filed a petition to “terminate” all reactor reviews insisting that the agency should do nothing until the lessons learned from Fukushima are incorporated into the process.

John Runkle, an attorney based in Durham, N.C., who represents NC WARN and other anti-nuclear groups, told FCW they have asked for a new round of revisions and public comment to incorporate “lessons learned from Fukushima.”

What Runkle’s clients want for now is to stop the safety review process until Westinghouse updates its DCD with information that responds to issues such as loss of off-site power / station blackout and improvements to emergency planning to deal with multi-accident scenarios.

As a practical matter the groups are following a well worn path which has a signpost up ahead that says, in true Twilight Zone fashion, that the safest reactor is one that is never built.

Anti-nuclear groups have seized on the leverage potentially available to them regarding the AP1000. If they succeed in stalling or stopping it, future challenges to the NRC safety review process for the other pending designs are only a matter of time.

Dueling press releases

Normally, these types of protests would bounce off the NRC like a soda can thrown against a reactor building. However, the process got a high profile on May 20 when NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko took the unusual step of publically complaining in an official agency press release that there were “additional technical issues” that needed to be resolved by the vendor.

Jaczko said the agency has “questions regarding the AP1000 shield building as well as peak accident pressures expected within the containment.” The chairman warned that any delay in addressing these issues could affect the schedule for certifying the design.

According to Runkle, the NRC has not formally responded to the petition. Also, the attorney said his groups have not had any direct contact with Chairman Jaczko for several years. Yet, while the timing of the petition filed by NC Warn and Jaczko’s press release are coincidentally close in time, there is no proof the NRC Chairman was acting due to NC Warn's petition.

The New York Times reported last March that these design issues have a long history of professional differences of opinion within the NRC. Westinghouse got its first scare from the regulators in October 2009. At that time the reactor vendor complained the NRC was moving the goal posts simultaneously demanding flexibility to roll with earthquakes and rigidity to deal with airplane crashes.

Westinghouse responded to Jacko's public complaint with its own press release June 13, which is the day it submitted revision 19 of the DCD. The reactor vendor said the information submitted provided “clarifications and minor corrections” that don’t affect safety and have “no material impact” on the AP1000 design.

Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the NRC, told FCW, “Westinghouse provided its additional AP1000 information, Rev. 19, on June 13th, and the staff continues to examine that submittal. The staff will meet with Westinghouse on the 30th; the staff could have comments at that point on when it might have a revised schedule for completing the design certification.”

UK nuclear safety regulator advances design review

On June 28 the hand held by Westinghouse was substantially strengthened by a ruling from the UK nuclear safety regulator. That agency said the “Regulatory Issue” connected with the design of the company’s AP1000® nuclear plant had been lifted. This move clears a significant obstacle on the pathway towards design acceptance by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). (Full Text HSE closure letter)

Westinghouse Managing Director for the UK, Middle East and Egypt, Mike Tynan, said in a prepared statement:

“We recognize that there remains a considerable amount of work to be done on this and other technical aspects of the AP1000 design, but the lifting of the formal 'Regulatory Issue' today means that the safety inspectors recognize the fact we have made great progress in this area -- demonstrating to them that the building structure is robust enough to withstand any credible accident and remain safe.”

Purdue simulation tests

In the run up to the June 13 submission Westinghouse rolled out a press release in collaboration with Purdue University which completed large scale tests to verify the structural integrity of the shield building. The tests were funded by the reactor vendor.

At Purdue Amit H. Varma, Ph.D., a Professor of Civil Engineering and director of a testing center for nuclear power plants, said the tests involved components that were 40 feet long and three feet wide weighing 30 tons.

A special machine exerted a million pounds of force against them using hydraulic rams.

Special sensors captured strain data, which were used in computational models to evaluate the entire design. Scenarios were then run in the models to simulate the effects of tornados, aircraft impacts, and earthquakes.

Varma said the computational models demonstrated the performance of the AP1000 shield design when subjected to beyond design basis earthquakes. The results were incorporated into the Westinghouse DCD revisions submitted to U.S. regulators earlier this month.

Confidence building needed

The Purdue analysis is a major confidence builder for Westinghouse. Scott Shaw, a spokesman for Westinghouse, told FCW the changes to the DCD "are minor and do not change the design."

"We do not anticipate at this time any change to the NRC schedule to grant design certification amendment to the AP1000 later this year."

The final safety evaluation report, which leads to licensing reactors for construction and operation, is due this Fall. Schedule delays have huge dollar impacts which is why Westinghouse is pressing so hard to make Rev. 19 of the DCD the last one.

What’s at stake

There's more than just the four reactors at Vogtle and V.C. Summer riding on the outcome of the dueling press releases between Westinghouse and the NRC. There are plans for eight more AP1000 reactors – four in Florida, two in North Carolina, and two in South Carolina.

The next two AP1000s likely to be built are to be located near Miami at the Turkey Point power station operated by Florida Power & Light. Duke Energy recently said it is pushing ahead with its license application two AP1000s at the William States Lee III site in South Carolina. Complicating that project is the need for CWIP approval by the PUCs on both North and South Carolina.

Further out are plans by Progress Energy, now being merged with Duke, for two AP1000s at Levy County on Florida's west coast and two more at the Harris site in North Carolina. Plans for these reactors may change as a result of the merger of the two utilities.

The approval of the AP1000 design is turning into a high stakes outcome with much of the future of nuclear reactor construction in the U.S. over the next two decades riding on it. No other reactor vendor comes close.

Areva's EPR in Maryland needs a new investor and plans for new reactors at Comanche Peak in Texas as well as Fermi III in Michigan depend on the outcome of similar safety reviews on separate reactor designs. These are reactors designs by Mitsubishi for a 1,700 APWR and by G.E. Hitachi for a 1,500 MW ESBWR. Dominion in Virginia is making plans to pursue a license for a 1,500 MW version of the Mitsubishi reactor.

License certification is the door to construction. The costs of getting one for a new reactor can exceed $100 milllion. For utilities wanting to build new reactors, the costs of waiting increase every day.

Prior coverage on this blog

• October 2009 – Westinghouse gets a scare from the NRC

# # #

Nuclear News Update for July 5, 2011

Final UK Nuclear Proposals Back Eight Sites For Potential New-Build 

(NucNet): The UK government today published its final proposals that name eight sites across the country as suitable for the construction of new nuclear plants by 2025.

Presenting the proposals to parliament, minister of state for energy Charles Hendry said: "Industry needs as much certainty as possible to make such big investments. These plans set out our energy needs to help guide the planning process, so that if acceptable proposals come forward in appropriate places, they will not face unnecessary hold-ups."

The eight sites identified for potential nuclear new-build

– Bradwell, Essex;
- Hartlepool, Borough of Hartlepool;
- Heysham, Lancashire;
- Hinkley Point, Somerset;
- Oldbury, Gloucestershire;
- Sellafield, Cumbria;
- Sizewell, Suffolk; and
- Wylfa, Isle of Anglesey –

They are listed in the nuclear-specific national policy statement (NPS) and are all on or near existing nuclear power plants.

The NPS was among several such statements related to energy presented to parliament. A consultation period covering all energy statements closed last January. There was also a previous period of consultation running from November 2009 to February 2010. The timetable for parliamentary debate about the energy statements presented today has yet to be announced.

Mr Hendry said the UK's coalition Conservative-Liberal Democrat government was "determined to make the UK a truly attractive market for investors, to give us secure, affordable, low-carbon energy".

Mr Hendry thanked representatives of the country’s nuclear energy industry for contributing to the policy-making process, adding: "We realize public support for nuclear can be fragile, but our message is that it would be hard to find a country anywhere in the world as open to safe nuclear development as Britain is."

Luc Oursel To Replace Anne Lauvergeon At Areva

(NucNet): Luc Oursel will replace Anne Lauvergeon as chief executive officer of Areva. Ms Lauvergeon’s term ended in June.

The government will support the promotion of Mr Oursel, now a deputy CEO responsible for Areva’s international, marketing and projects areas, when the Areva supervisory board meets to choose the next CEO, the statement said.

Mr Oursel will be made responsible for implementing “a plan of improvement” in Areva’s performance and reinforcing its competitiveness.

The statement said the government, which owns 83 percent of Areva, wanted to renew the management team while taking advantage of the “industrial experience and knowledge of the nuclear business” that Mr Oursel has acquired in his four years at Areva.

The state had showed its support for Areva by injecting 300 million euro
(EUR) (428 million US dollars) of extra capital into the company in December 2010, the statement said. The capital increase also included the injection of EUR 600 million from the Kuwait Investment Authority, giving it a 4.8 percent stake in Areva.

In an Areva press release today Ms Lauvergeon said she would not be making any statement “for the time being”. She said she was “extremely touched” by messages of support she has received since the decision was announced and asked everyone at Areva to continue working towards the development of the group.

The executive transition is of particular interest in the U.K. as Areva is slated to build several of that nation’s new nuclear reactors.

Global Uranium Production Increased 6% In 2010, Says EU Report

(NucNet): Global uranium production in 2010 increased by six percent to over 53,000 tonnes of uranium (tU) with Kazakhstan once again accounting for the bulk of this rise in output, with a 27 percent year-on-year increase, the Euratom Supply Agency (ESA) annual report says.

The report says “less spectacular” increases or no change in output were recorded in Russia, Uzbekistan and the US. By contrast, production decreased in Australia and Canada.

Uranium is now mined in 20 countries, seven of which account for 90 percent of world production (Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger, Russia and Uzbekistan).

The report says natural uranium supplies to the EU continued to come from diversified sources. Uranium originating from Russia, Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia and Niger made up more than 80 percent of total deliveries.

Although the EU has no significant uranium resources on its territory, several EU companies are active in uranium mining in other parts of the world. As in previous years, uranium originating in the EU met around three percent of the EU’s needs.

In 2010, 96 percent of total deliveries of natural uranium to EU utilities were covered by long-term contracts and only four percent were purchased under spot contracts. Long-term supplies remain the main source for securing the demand in the EU, said the ESA, which is responsible for the “regular and equitable” supply of nuclear fuels for EU users.

Amano Proposals Include ‘Random’ Global Safety Reviews

(NucNet): International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director-general Yukiya Amano on June 20 put forward a range of concrete proposals for improving safety in the nuclear energy industry, including a comprehensive review of safety standards, increased assessment of national regulatory frameworks and a system of global safety reviews based on "random selection".

Mr Amano told the opening of the Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety in Vienna that safety standards for the industry, particularly those relating to multiple severe hazards such as tsunamis and earthquakes, need to be strengthened and applied universally.

He said he had asked the agency’s Commission on Safety Standards to review safety standards for the nuclear industry and to report within 12 months with recommendations for strengthening them.

He said in the light of the Fukushima-Daiichi accident in Japan in March
2011 nuclear plant safety must be "systematically and regularly" reviewed.
These assessments should be carried out nationally by member states, but additional review by the IAEA is essential to add credibility and transparency and make the process more effective.

He called for "thorough and transparent" national risk assessments to be made of all nuclear power plants in the world. These assessments should focus on safety margins against extreme natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis and floods.

"This could be done within 12 to 18 months," he said. "If problems are found, appropriate action should be taken."

He said following discussions with some member states, the IAEA has started developing a common risk assessment methodology for all countries to use.

Mr Amano also told the meeting he is proposing that countries with nuclear power should agree to systematic, periodic peer reviews by the IAEA. He said national assessments are the starting points, but they should be followed by IAEA international expert peer reviews.

IAEA review of every one of the world's 440 operating nuclear reactors in just a few years is not a realistic proposition. Mr Amano said he is therefore proposing a system of global safety reviews based on random selection.

"For example, with some reinforcement of its present capabilities, the agency could conduct an international safety review of one nuclear power plant in 10 throughout the world over, say, a three year period.

"The knowledge that any plant could be subject to review would give operators an additional incentive to implement the highest safety standards."

Other proposals include more assessment of regulatory frameworks, the strengthening of global emergency preparedness and response systems, and an expansion of the IAEA's role in making information available on nuclear accidents.

Mr Amano said he wants the agency's information-sharing function expanded to include providing analysis and possible scenarios on how a crisis might develop and the associated radiological impact.

Mr Amano also said that in order to meet "sharply increased requirements"
for assistance in all areas of nuclear safety – such as regular peer reviews – new and innovative ways of funding must be considered.

# # #