Skip to main content

Test Reactor Fuel Not Vulnerable

By Eric McErlain
If there's one thing I've learned about nuclear technology in the 17 months I've worked at NEI, it's this: Nuclear energy isn't rocket science.

Unfortunately, it's harder.

Which is why my head spun around so quickly at the conclusions drawn by the ABC News report, "Loose Nukes on Main Street," and in particular, the story on last Thursday's edition of Primetime Live titled, "Radioactive Roadtrip".

Despite the fact that I've worked here full-time for better than a year, I still have to make sure to doublecheck my facts to get everything right. So when I saw that ABC News and its interns were making some startling conclusions about how easy it would be to steal nuclear materials from one of the research reactors, I knew the report was in trouble from the word go.

If you want the truth about nuclear energy, you need to talk to real professionals. Here's an e-mail I received earlier today from John Lyngdal, a retired senior reactor operator (SRO) who used to work at both Oregon State University (OSU) and Reed College:
I'm a "retired" SRO who years ago pulled rods at the Reed College reactor and also had experiments performed at the Oregon State University, so it was some interest to me of how this piece of pseudo-journalism would portray these facilities... I chatted with another operator who was onsite when a shipment of HEU fuel arrived. The fuel was transported by an armed military(?) convoy to the OSU site, the spent elements were transferred to the storage racks, and the new fuel added to the core. A core excess measurement was performed followed by a power calibration with armed guards on watch. They didn't leave until the core had operated at 900 MW for over an hour at which point the fuel was considered self-protected by the intense radiation generated by the fission products...

Having moved fuel rods in and out of the core of the Reed facility, I find the ABC report even more incredulous... One thing I do remember is that there was a mark on the fuel movement tool that was assigned a spotter, that would call out if it approached the surface of the pool. This was of course backed up by the RAM located at the edge of the pool. To make a long story short, we were told that an irradiated fuel element had a radiation field sufficient to place the fuel handler into convulsions(before they finally succumbed to the radiation exposure effects) before it breached the surface of the pool. Beyond this, the idea of a SCUBA equipped terrorist diving to the core to steal the fuel might seem plausible to the public, but not to a person versed in the effects of exposure to a radiation 100-200K rad/hr radiation field.
Something to think about.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more