Normal and Abnormal Occurrences

Vietnam has become something like a cheerleader for nuclear energy, having committed itself to a plant there. But it wants everyone to share in the fun:

Vietnam has called on South East Asian nations to build nuclear power stations to meet rising energy demands.

The proposal came at an energy policy meeting held by the Asean group of countries in Dalat, Vietnam.

“Asean” countries are those that belong to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. You can see the list of members here.

No word on how the other countries responded, but there is this:

Some nations are looking to hydropower, building huge dams along the Mekong river. But these have angered local communities who complain that water flows and fish stocks have been affected.

It’s always something, isn’t it? It may be that there needs to be more thought given as to how to effectively integrate these energy sources to suit the people they mean to serve, but these nations are moving in the right direction. Moving forward with nuclear and hydro plants allows them to further industrialize without increasing their carbon footprint.

---

Every year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission releases a report of “abnormal occurrences” that happen at licensed facilities.

What is an abnormal occurrence?

An accident or event is considered an abnormal occurrence if it involves a major reduction in the degree of protection of public health and safety. Abnormal occurrences can include, but are not necessarily limited to, moderate exposure to or release of radioactive material licensed by the NRC or a state agency; major degradation of safety-related equipment; or major deficiencies in design, construction, use of or management controls for facilities or radioactive material licensed by the NRC.

So – a lot of territory in the abnormal sphere. Earlier this week, New York Time columnist Bob Herbert dinged the revival of nuclear energy in this country over safety concerns. Here’s a little of what he said:

We have to be concerned about the very real possibility of a worst-case scenario erupting at one of the many aging nuclear plants already operating (in some cases with safety records that would make your hair stand on end), and at any of the new ones that so many people are calling for.

Which, of course, is what the NRC busies itself doing. (And I still reject the use of “worst-case scenario” when it isn’t defined – but let’s leave that aside.) But Herbert just didn’t do his homework. If he had, he might have run across this report.

For FY 2009, there were no abnormal occurrences at the 104 NRC-licensed nuclear power reactors.

That’s pretty good.

Three of the nine abnormal occurrences in medical facilities involved NRC licensees, while the rest involved Agreement State licensees. (Thirty-seven states have entered into agreements with the NRC to regulate radioactive materials.)

This is a very small number when you consider all the diagnostic and therapeutic uses of radiation.

But nuclear power plants? it’s hard to imagine any industry matching this record. Makes your hair stand on end, doesn’t it?

You can find the whole report here.

The Asean nations. Click for bigger image.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog