Skip to main content

Ways Forward – Japan, Yucca Mountain, The Industry

The Japanese government has released its report on the Fukushima accident, with the start of a timeline of events, a categorization and presentation of lessons learned, and, I thought, a proposed transformation of its regulatory structure to something far more rigorous (and a lot more like that in this country.) But there’s a lot to absorb here. Take a read and we’ll return to it in the days ahead.

The report will be presented at IAEA’s Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety on June 20.

---

The US House Science Committee in a report on Wednesday blasted the Obama administration for terminating the long-planned Yucca Mountain national nuclear-waste repository with no scientific or technical justification.

The criticism is the latest to come from the Republican-led House, and is largely a reiteration of complaints heard from a House energy oversight committee last week.

That’s from Platts and they’re right – Congress has had a lot to say about Yucca Mountain lately. Here’s a bit from the executive summary to give you a sense of it:

The results of this review are striking. Despite numerous suggestions by political officials—including President Obama—that Yucca Mountain is unsafe for storing nuclear waste, the
Committee could not identify a single document to support such a claim. To the contrary, the Committee found great agreement among the scientific and technical experts responsible for
reviewing the suitability of Yucca Mountain—considered by many to be ―the most studied piece of land on Earth‖—that nuclear waste can be safely stored at the site for tens of thousands of years in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements.

You can find the whole report here.

---

And the industry has unveiled its own response to events at Fukushima:

Three U.S. power-industry groups will set up a panel to run their own nuclear-nuclear-safety review as federal regulators probe Japan’s reactor crisis.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the Electric Power Research Institute and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations will unveil their plan today in Washington. About a dozen officials from the groups will serve on the “Fukushima steering committee,” said Tony Pietrangelo, the energy institute’s senior vice president and chief nuclear officer.

That happened a little earlier today. Here is a document, called The Way Forward, explaining this in more detail here. The plan outlines seven strategic goals and six guiding principles. Here are the first two of the goals:

1. The nuclear workforce remains focused on safety and operational excellence at all plants, particularly in light of the increased work that the response to the Fukushima event will represent.
2. Timelines for emergency response capability to ensure continued core cooling, containment integrity and spent fuel storage pool cooling are synchronized to preclude fuel damage following station blackout.

And the principles:

1. Ensure equipment and guidance, enhanced as appropriate, result in improvements in response effectiveness.
2. Address guidance, equipment and training to ensure long-term viability of safety improvements.
3. Develop response strategies that are performance-based, risk-informed and account for unique site characteristics.
4. Maintain a strong interface with federal regulators to ensure regulatory actions are consistent with safety significance and that compliance can be achieved in an efficient manner.
5. Coordinate with federal, state and local government and their emergency response organizations on industry actions to improve overall emergency response effectiveness.
6. Communicate aggressively the forthright approach the U.S. industry is taking to implement the lessons from the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

Read the whole thing. We’ll have more on this later.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…