nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Federal utility fined $900K for nuclear violations, coverup

Federal utility fined $900K for nuclear violations, coverup, Star Tribune, By TRAVIS LOLLER Associated Press, NOVEMBER 13, 2020
Federal regulators have fined the nation’s largest public utility more than $900,000 for violating procedures during the startup of a Tennessee nuclear reactor and subsequently misleading investigators. Two managers and a plant operator who worked at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Barr Nuclear Plant in Spring City were also issued violations by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Howard Hall, director of the University of Tennessee’s Institute for Nuclear Security, said the notice of violation to TVA points to “a systemic problem in management.”

“As someone who has worked in this field essentially my entire life, I would have been appalled to receive such a letter,” Hall said.

In a notice dated Nov. 6, regulators noted a “substantial safety culture issue” at Watts Bar at the time of the incident. They also found that “TVA senior management and staff failed to communicate with candor, clarity, and integrity during several interactions with the NRC during the course of the inspection and investigation.”

According to NRC documents, on Nov. 11, 2015, a shift manager at Watts Bar directed the control room to begin heating up a reactor even though the plant’s usual pressurizer system, which keeps the reactor water from turning to steam, was out of service. When trying to heat up with an alternate system, the pressurizer rapidly began to fill with water. Staff then had to “take actions outside of proper operating procedures” to bring the water level down.

The incident wasn’t recorded in the plant’s logbook and managers later misled NRC investigators about what had happened. ……… https://www.startribune.com/federal-utility-fined-900k-for-nuclear-violations-coverup/573069392/

November 16, 2020 Posted by | incidents, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Hunterston nuclear reactor allowed to restart, despite increasing cracks in the graphite core.

No to Nuclear Power, November 2020, On 27th August, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) announced it was giving EDF permission to restart Reactor 3 at Hunterston B for a limited period – generating up to a total of 16.425 Terawatt days, approximately six months’ operation. (1) Then on 24 September ONR gave EDF permission for Reactor 4 to return to service for a similar limited period. By the end of September both reactors were operating. (2)
 Following the Reactor 3 announcement, EDF said it is hoping to run both reactors at the site for two last six-month periods each and then begin decommissioning them “no later than 7 January 2022”. The reactors were previously scheduled to be shut down in March 2023.
  ONR has yet to give permission for either reactor to operate for a second six months, and this will require new safety cases.
The NFLA and campaigners have condemned the moves to restart Hunterston, warning that public health is being put at risk. They are calling for the plant to be permanently closed down now. “The safest thing to do is to close Hunterston B and start accelerated decommissioning of its reactors,” said the group’s Scottish convener, Glasgow SNP councillor Feargal Dalton. “We totally disagree with EDF that decommissioning should start in 2022. It should happen now for the sake of public safety.” He added: “The fact it has taken two years and much resource from EDF to provide sufficient information to the ONR to allow a restart to take place is indicative of the level of risk over the structural integrity of these reactors.” (3)
  Reactor three has an estimated 377 cracks in its graphite core and has been shut down since 9 March 2018. It will only be allowed to operate for six months before it will have to close down again so that its core can be checked for new cracks. Then EDF will need new permission to operate it for a further, final six months. Reactor four at Hunterston has an estimated 209 cracks in its core, and was shut down on 2 October 2018. It was allowed to restart for four months in 2019.
According to the Daily Business website, EDF employs approximately 580 workers (and around 200 contractors). About 125 will lose their jobs in January 2022 with others retained until 2025 for the    de-fuelling process. (4) After that, there will be the massive task on dismantling the two reactors safely.
Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland said “Whether it was clever press strategy or fluke, EDF managed to use the closure announcement to bury the news that their damaged reactor is starting up again. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.” (5)
  West Kilbride Tory councillor Todd Ferguson called for Hunterston to be shut immediately. He said Hunterston should not be a ‘guinea pig’ for the UK nuclear industry testing how long power stations can last. “There comes a time when the reactors should remain offline for good. The North Ayrshire Conservative Group believe the time to look at this is now.” (6)
The NFLA Scotland Forum have joined with Friends of the Earth Scotland, WWF Scotland, CND Scotland and the Nuclear Consulting Group to raise serious concerns over the decision of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) to allow these reactors to restart. It is important to note that the majority of the Scottish population live downwind of Hunterston B and the consequences of an accident will be catastrophic. In terms of the energy generation issues by closing Hunterston B, it needs to be noted that EDF Energy has recently been asked by the National Grid to reduce output at Sizewell B in Suffolk due to a lack of energy demand, providing it with £50 million in order to do this. With the reducing cost and increasing levels of renewable energy coming on stream there is absolutely no need to restart Hunterston B. Restarting for 6 or 12 months is creating an unnecessary risk to the people of Scotland. If accelerated decommissioning of the site was to take place, many jobs can be diverted into such activity for some time to come. In addition, whilst there is fuel in the reactor, it is a criticality risk and has to be almost fully staffed until it is defueled in 2025. (7 )
The latest technical documents (8) put online by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) show:
1. EDF has predicted that the number of cracks in reactor three’s graphite core will increase from the current 570 to 781 after six months operation, and to 943 after 12 months operation. 943 cracks would bring the reactor close to EDF’s new “damage tolerance level” of 1,331 cracks, and exceeds its “intermediate damage tolerance assessment” of 905 cracks.
2. EDR has scrapped its “operational allowance” for cracks, which in 2018 was 350. It now says that the safety limit is its “Currently Established Damage Tolerance Level” of 1,331. So, the acceptable number of cracks has nearly quadrupled in two years.
3. EDF has done new analysis of “in-event cracking” to assess the damage that a one-in tenthousand-year earthquake could do if it occurred in the next six months. This predicts that “overloads” would cause an additional 500 cracks.

  The ONR report also contains some interesting remarks on EDF assessments. It says for example that the company’s estimates of the likelihood of fragments of debris broken off graphite blocks “migrating to safety significant locations” are “inherently subjective”. It also suggests that EDF’s safety case methodology is “approaching its limit of viability”.   The ONR report also contains some interesting remarks on EDF assessments. It says for example that the company’s estimates of the likelihood of fragments of debris broken off graphite blocks “migrating to safety significant locations” are “inherently subjective”. It also suggests that EDF’s safety case methodology is “approaching its limit of viability”.

 Despite all this of course, ONR bought EDF’s argument that it should be allowed to operate for another six months. But maybe getting ONR’s permission for a second six months’ operation – as EDF want – is not certain.
Jobs Nicola Sturgeon has promised to look into job fears surrounding Hunterston’s closure. Calls have been made for the Scottish Government and North Ayrshire Council to create a plan for the workforce. Nicola Sturgeon said the government is committed to creating new employment locally. Conservative MSP Jamie Greene says the impact of the decommissioning will be huge and insists local people will need extra support. Kenneth Gibson, the SNP MSP for the area, says work needs to be done quickly to support jobs and that officials must look towards a green future. He said: “The decision should encourage the Scottish and UK Governments to work in partnership with the council to deliver the economic transition of the area with a greater sense of urgency. Whilst defuelling will mean no immediate job losses, investment locally in green, clean energy is now the priority.” (9)
• EDF Energy has announced that it intends to submit new safety cases to ONR to re-open Reactors 3 and 4 at Hinkley Point B – Hunterston’s sister reactors. It currently expects reactor 4 to return to service on 26 February 2021 and reactor 3 on 12 March 2021. The Stop Hinkley Campaign is calling for both reactors to remain closed. Stop Hinkley spokesperson Roy Pumfrey said: “Nuclear engineer, the late John Large said more than a decade ago that it was gambling with public safety to allow reactors with cracks in their core to keep operating. Every minute these reactors operate that gamble become riskier. We call upon the UK Government to intervene and request the ONR to re-consider their unwise decisions at Hunterston B and to refuse to accept EDF’s safety cases for Hinkley Point B. It is EDF in Paris, France which will benefit from the restart of these reactors, but it is those of us who live in Somerset and middle England who are being exposed to these involuntary risks” (10)  http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SafeEnergy_No88.pdf

November 12, 2020 Posted by | safety, UK | 1 Comment

.U.S. nuclear security administrator resigns – lost the confidence of Donald Trump?

November 12, 2020 Posted by | politics, safety, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Belarus shuts down its newly inaugurated nuclear power plant to replace equipment

November 10, 2020 Posted by | Belarus, politics, safety | Leave a comment

Sudden resignation of head of USA’s National Nuclear Security Administration

Head of nuclear weapons agency unexpectedly resigns, Yahoo News, Aafron Mehta,Deense News•November 7, 2020  WASHINGTON — Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, has resigned her position effectively immediately, Defense News has learned.

Gordon-Hagerty, who became the first woman to lead the NNSA in February 2018, sent her letter of resignation to the White House Friday, according to a pair of senior NNSA officials, speaking to Defense News on background.

The NNSA is a semi-autonomous office located within the Department of Energy. While the Defense Department manages the delivery systems of the nuclear force — ships, planes and missiles — NNSA has oversight over the development, maintenance and disposal of nuclear warheads. While the agency falls under the purview of DoE, much of its budget is set by the Nuclear Weapons Council, which is largely controlled by Defense Department officials.

Per the sources, the resignation was driven by almost a year of clashes between Gordon-Hagerty’s office and Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette. That fight first seeped into public earlier this year, when Brouillette sought to cut NNSA’s budget request. Defense officials, backed by supporters from Congress, went to the White House and forced the issue in NNSA’s favor.

Tensions never truly receded and continued to play out in Congress during the fiscal 2021 budget season. Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., led pro-defense lawmakers in an effort to give the Pentagon more official control over NNSA; House lawmakers created several pieces of legislation that would give the Energy department more control.

The issue seemed to come to a head when the Department of Energy Organization and Management Improvement Act, passed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Sept. 9, changed language that made the NNSA a quasi-independent entity, in essence folding the agency more fully under DOE’s control. The move was seen by NNSA officials as an attempt by Brouillette to outright destroy the agency……….  https://news.yahoo.com/head-nuclear-weapons-agency-unexpectedly-184158751.html

November 7, 2020 Posted by | safety, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Japanese nuclear regulator’s website hit by possible cyberattack

Japanese nuclear regulator’s website hit by possible cyberattack, Japan Times, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/11/04/national/nuclear-regulator-website-cyberattack,  KYODO, Nov 4, 2020

The Nuclear Regulation Authority said Tuesday its official website became inaccessible possibly due to cyberattacks.

The incident comes a week after the regulatory body’s intranet had an unauthorized access from outside.

According to the NRA, the government’s cybersecurity institute notified it of the website disruption on Tuesday afternoon. There was no abnormality when the NRA updated the website Monday evening, it said.

The website remained inaccessible for hours, but the problem was resolved by around 8:30 p.m., the NRA said.

In August, a fake website resembling that of the NRA was discovered by an official of the regulator.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | incidents, Japan, secrets,lies and civil liberties, technology | Leave a comment

Due to shutdowns, Japan has only one nuclear reactor working

Japan left with only one nuclear reactor working due to shutdown, Asahi Shimbun, By HIROKI HASHIMOTO/ Staff Writer, November 4, 2020

  ”……….. This is the first time since May 2017 that all nuclear reactors operated by Kansai Electric remain suspended.

Electric power companies are required to construct an anti-terrorism facility at their nuclear power plants under stringent new safety regulations imposed after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima plant.

But Kansai Electric failed to meet the deadline at the Takahama nuclear power plant in Takahama, Fukui Prefecture, forcing it to take its No. 3 and No. 4 reactors offline.

In addition, pipes need to be replaced at its Oi nuclear power plant’s No. 3 reactor.

Kansai Electric submitted repair plans to the government and expects to finish the work in January so it can restart the reactor in February at the earliest.

In January this year, the Hiroshima High Court granted a provisional disposition order to stop Shikoku Electric’s Ikata nuclear power plant’s No. 3 reactor in Ikata, Ehime Prefecture, which means it is unlikely to come back online until next March at the earliest.

Kyushu Electric’s Sendai nuclear power plant’s No. 1 and No. 2 reactors in Satsuma-Sendai, Kagoshima Prefecture, were also suspended after construction of an anti-terrorism facility fell behind schedule.

The Genkai nuclear power plant’s No. 3 reactor is undergoing regular inspections, so only the No. 4 reactor is still operating.

This situation is expected to continue until Dec. 22 when Kansai Electric plans to restart the No. 3 reactor at its Takahama nuclear power plant.  http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13900336

November 5, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Japan, safety | Leave a comment

Anxieties, memories of Chernobyl, as Belarus launches new nuclear power station

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Belarus, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The very real risks of radiation accidents on Earth, from nuclear reactors in space

October 29, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, safety, space travel | Leave a comment

Safety of SanOnofre nuclear waste storage is disputed

Dust-UPS Continue Over Radioactive Waste Storage at San Onofre https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/dust-ups-continue-over-radioactive-waste-storage-at-san-onofre/   The most recent dispute centers on the green light the California Coastal Commission gave Edison on July 16 to remove the cooling pools where spent fuel rods were submerged for several years to begin cooling down. October 25, 2020 by EarthTalk  By Sarah Mosko

The decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) has been riddled with controversies since it was shuttered in 2013, undermining public confidence in Southern California Edison’s management of highly radioactive nuclear waste which will be stored on-site for the foreseeable future.

In 2018 for example, a whistleblower exposed how a 54-ton canister loaded with radioactive waste nearly plummeted 18 feet because of a design flaw and human error, prompting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to cite Edison with the most serious violation ever imposed on a spent fuel licensee.

The most recent dispute centers on the green light the California Coastal Commission gave Edison on July 16 to remove the cooling pools where spent fuel rods were submerged for several years to begin cooling down. Edison argued the pools aren’t needed anymore because the rods have all been transferred into dry storage canisters.

Each of SONGS’s 123 canisters holds roughly the same amount of Cesium-137 as released during the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

At issue is this: If a canister were to begin degrading, creating risk of radiation release, returning it to the cooling pools is the only means whereby the contents could be repackaged into a new canister. Nonetheless, Edison convinced the Coastal Commission that an untested, unapproved nickel “cold spray” overlay technology could be applied to patch degrading canisters, making the cooling pools unnecessary.

NRC spokesperson David McIntyre confirmed that NRC has neither evaluated nor approved any method for fixing a canister. The only sure solution is to replace the canister. Many nuclear safety advocates in Orange and San Diego counties are outraged, believing Edison, the Coastal Commission, and NRC are gambling public safety on unproven repair methodology piggy-backed on already inferior dry storage canisters that need to last far longer than originally intended.

This situation is only partly due to the federal government’s failure to construct a mandated permanent national repository for storing the country’s highly radioactive nuclear waste, leaving U.S. nuclear plants saddled with storing spent fuel on-site indefinitely.

Objections to eliminating the pools revolve around this specter of stranded radioactive waste remaining on-site for the foreseeable future, with no means to repackage it, together with concerns about the canisters Edison chose and SONGS’s beachfront location.

Inferior Storage Canisters

SONGS uses two models of thin-walled (5/8 inch thick), welded shut, stainless steel canisters (Holtec and Areva). They are warranted only for manufacturing defects and for just 10-25 years. Thick-walled casks (10-19 inch) with bolted lids, as survived the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, are standard throughout most of the world.

Nuclear safety advocates point to evidence thin-walled canisters are vulnerable to cracking yet can’t be inspected for tiny cracks which can grow through the canister wall. They are critical of NRC for ignoring established safety codes for nuclear pressure vessels used for storage and transport of nuclear waste (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME N3) when they approved SONGS’s canisters which can’t be inspected by proven methodology (liquid penetrant).

Instead, Edison applied a robotic camera in 2019 to eight Holtec canisters to characterize the extent of canister scraping/gouging incurred during downloading into their holes in the in-ground concrete storage pad. Because of the small clearance between a canister and the guide ring at the mouth of the hole, canisters are routinely scraped/gouged, potentially initiating cracking.

Edison admitted their improvised camera technique doesn’t qualify as a formal inspection, yet the NRC accepted Edison’s conclusion that damage to the canisters during downloading poses no current credible threat.

Thin-walled canisters also fail to block gamma or neutron radiation so require additional individual thick concrete containers for storage and thick metal containers for transport. The unsealed steel lined concrete containers require air vents for convection cooling.

Marine Environment

SONGS is situated within 50 miles of 8 million people, sandwiched between the ocean and the I5 Freeway, and accessible to terrorist attack from either side. A mysterious two-night swarm of drones over the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona last September highlights vulnerability to malfeasance.

SONGS sits 108 feet from shore in a known earthquake zone, creating risks of flooding from sea level rise and shaking and tsunamis from earthquakes. The in-ground pad holding the Holtec canisters already sits just 18 inches above the water table.

October 26, 2020 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Alarm about dangerous transit of radioactive material through Fort Worth.

Nuclear Waste Heading to Cowtown?   Activists are sounding the alarm about potentially dangerous transit of radioactive material through Fort Worth.  Fort Worth Weekly, By Edward Brown October 21, 2020 Like most large U.S. cities, Fort Worth is intersected by multiple rail lines that were first laid well over a century ago. Trains do much of the heavy lifting in this country, and that work sometimes requires carrying hazardous materials that (if released through an accident or leak) could contaminate the surrounding environment with potentially costly and deadly results.

One such fiery derailment occurred last year in Fort Worth when tankers carrying ethanol derailed during heavy rainfall and created a fire that incinerated three horses holed up in a nearby barn. The potential transportation of highly radioactive waste through Fort Worth as part of a proposal by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has alarmed local environmental and civic activists who fear that the transit of radioactive materials through Cowtown isn’t worth the risk.

According to the NRC, the proposal would allow transportation of spent nuclear fuel, which is highly radioactive and potentially deadly, from East Coast nuclear power plants to Andrews County, which is located in West Texas near Odessa. The commission recently closed the public comment portion of the proposal, and a document released by the NRC said a final decision would be released by May of next year.

To draw attention to the potential transportation of nuclear waste through Fort Worth, several environmental and civic activists recently held a press conference at Rogers Roundhouse, located north of Fort Worth Zoo and near Davidson Yard, where 50 miles of tracks handle about 1,800 cars a day. ……

Susybelle Gosslee with the League of Women Voters of Texas, a nonpartisan civic organization, said Fort Worth has nothing to gain and everything to lose by allowing radioactive waste to pass near hospitals, schools, families, and children. …….

“There are some times when waste has to be moved 25 miles away but not 2,000 miles away,”…..https://www.fwweekly.com/2020/10/21/nuclear-waste-heading-to-cowtown/

October 22, 2020 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Royal Navy officer in charge of submarine’s nuclear weapons, sent back to UK, alleged to be drunk on duty

Royal Navy officer in charge of sub’s nuclear weapons sent back to UK for ‘clocking on after night of drinking’   Lieutenant Commander Len Louw was carrying a bag of barbecue grilled chicken when he arrived for work. Sky News ,By Lucia Binding, news reporter, Monday 19 October 2020 ……….
A Royal Navy officer who allegedly turned up to work after a night of drinking has been sent back to the UK from a submarine in the US.

Lieutenant Commander Len Louw was declared unfit for duty when he arrived at HMS Vigilant to take charge of nuclear missiles last month………..
Lieutenant Commander Louw was responsible for all weapons and sensors on the vessel.  ……https://news.sky.com/story/royal-navy-officer-in-charge-of-subs-nuclear-weapons-sent-back-to-uk-for-clocking-on-after-night-of-drinking-12108234

October 20, 2020 Posted by | incidents, UK | Leave a comment

The biggest radioactive spill in US history

The biggest radioactive spill in US history https://www.vox.com/21514587/navajo-nation-new-mexico-radioactive-uranium-spill      How the US poisoned Navajo Nation. By Ranjani Chakraborty and Melissa Hirsch  Oct 13, 2020, (Excellent photography) For decades, Navajo Nation was a primary source for the United States’ uranium stockpile during the nuclear arms race. It was home to more than 700 uranium mines, which provided jobs to Navajo residents. But the mining industry came with impending peril. Cases of lung cancer and other diseases began cropping up in a community that had previously had few of them. Land, air, and water was poisoned. And on July 16, 1979, the mining led to the biggest radioactive spill in US history.

Watch the video above to hear from residents in Church Rock, New Mexico, who’ve lived with the effects of the spill. More than 40 years later, the site still hasn’t been properly cleaned up, and residents continue to face illnesses, tainted water, and the loss of livestock. Today, with the Environmental Protection Agency’s new plan for cleanup, they’re worried it could wipe out their entire community.

If you want to learn more about mining in Navajo Nation, check out Doug Brugge, Esther Yazzie-Lewis, and Timothy Benally’s book on the subject. Or the feature documentary The Return of Navajo Boy by Groundswell Educational Films.

October 19, 2020 Posted by | incidents, indigenous issues, USA | Leave a comment

Cybersecurity concerns about India’s nuclear reactors

SCALING UP THE CYBERSECURITY OF NUCLEAR SYSTEMS IN INDIA, CYBERSECURITY LATEST NEWS Analytics Insight,by Astha Oriel October 18, 2020  India is amongst the top five countries facing cyber threats and targeted attacks.

The world is divided to possess nuclear power. Countries like the USA and Iran, are already waging war against each other for nuclear power. Moreover, having an advanced nuclear system is important for the national security. Hence, countries are spending billions of dollars for gaining momentum in their nuclear plans.

But as nuclear power is proving to be authoritative, the nuclear system is becoming prone for cyber attacks. Over the past twenty years, five deadly cyberattacks compromised the national security in five countries. Not only affecting the internal security of any country, but cyberattacks has proven perilous for the privacy of the citizens. As new technological innovations are permeating the industry, the incidence of security breaches, and possibility of cyberattacks has heightened. That’s why scaling up cybersecurity in nuclear institutes and models, become important.

A cybersecurity breach has several implications. Due to a cyber malware, the confidential documents associated with cyber security can be leaked. It can increase the vulnerabilities of nuclear systems. With a disrupted nuclear system, the adversaries can take advantage in corrupting the communication, and preventing the flow of information. Moreover, cyber attacks are a direct threat to the integrity of any nation.

Policies associated with Cybersecurity

In India, many measures are taken to improve cyber security in the nuclear system. For example, in 2013, the department of Electronics and Information Technology created National cyber security policy, to mitigate the incidences of cyber attack. The government has announced setting up of Defence Cyber Agency, for battling cyber warfare and cyber infiltration in India’s defense Network. The Country also has a National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) in collaboration with Cyber Intelligence and Cyber Counter Intelligence to prevent cyber attacks.

Cyber Attacks in India

Many incidences of cyber breaches have challenged the national security of India. According to a report by Symantec, India is amongst the top five countries facing cyber threats and targeted attacks.

In September 2019, the cyber attack at Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant only exposed the dearth of cyber-security management in India. The attack was caused by DTRACK Virus, which was developed by a group of hackers from North Korea. It was a direct attack to the administrative framework of India, and was confirmed by ISRO. The confidentiality of large amount of data was threatened due to this attack. Moreover, it also highlighted the lack of coordination in the administrative framework of the country.

Snowden Leaks was another cyberattack, after which the need to scale up cybersecurity was recognized in the country. It is reported that in Snowden Leaks, the US National Security agency (NSA), was spying the Indian citizens. Though no concrete proof was presented, but it made the government to take the cognizance of this incident and drafted the 2013 policy, which became the pillar for public and private infrastructure…….  https://www.analyticsinsight.net/scaling-cybersecurity-nuclear-systems-india/

 

October 19, 2020 Posted by | India, safety | Leave a comment

Inadequate Emergency Planning Zones for small modular nuclear reactors

No emergency planning zones for SMRs? NRC commissioner warns against “flimsy” rule that could extend to current reactor fleet, Beyond Nuclear International By Jeff Baran,  12 Oct  20, In a 3-1 vote by NRC Commissioners on December 17, 2019, Proposed Rule: Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies (SECY-18-0103) was accepted. The Rule would eliminate the need for Emergency Planning Zones and dedicated offsite emergency planning for Small Modular Reactors. The lone dissenting vote came from NRC Commissioner Jeff Baran. These are his comments.

For the last 40 years, NRC has required emergency planning zones, or EPZs, (Emergency Planning Zones) around nuclear power plants “to assure that prompt and effective actions can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident.” Every one of the 96* operating large light-water reactors in the country has a plume exposure pathway EPZ that extends about 10 miles around the site with dedicated offsite radiological emergency plans and protective actions in place to avoid or reduce radiation dose to the public during an accident. An ingestion exposure pathway EPZ with a radius of 50 miles around each of these sites is designed to avoid or reduce dose from consuming food and water contaminated by a radiological release.

The EPZs and dedicated radiological emergency plans are meant to provide multiple layers of protection – or defense-in-depth – against potential radiological exposure. Other NRC requirements are focused on preventing or mitigating a radioactive release. The emergency planning regulations are there to provide another layer of defense in case a release occurs despite those safety requirements.

In other words, EPZs and radiological emergency planning are designed to address low-probability, high-consequence events. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assesses the adequacy of the offsite emergency plans, and NRC regulations require licensees to hold offsite emergency preparedness drills at each plant at least once every 2 years to practice implementing the plan .

Under this proposed rule, emergency planning for small modular reactors (SMRs) and non-light-water reactors would be flimsy by comparison. Instead of a 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ, these reactors would have EPZs that encompass only areas where the projected dose from “credible” accidents could exceed 1 rem. An EPZ extending only to the site boundary is explicitly permitted under this methodology.

In the case of a site-boundary EPZ, NRC would not require dedicated offsite radiological emergency planning and FEMA would have no role in evaluating the adequacy of a site’s emergency plans. In addition, the proposed rule would eliminate the requirement for an ingestion exposure pathway EPZ and no longer require a specific drill frequency for emergency planning exercises. Overall, this proposed rule represents a radical departure from more than 40 years of radiological emergency planning…………

We need to take FEMA’s warnings seriously. FEMA has a key role in determining whether the emergency planning for a nuclear power plant site is adequate. Under NRC’s regulations, a nuclear power plant license cannot be issued unless NRC makes a finding that the major features of the emergency plan meet the regulatory requirements. And NRC is supposed to base its finding on FEMA’s determinations as to whether the offsite emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented.

No new SMR or non-light-water reactor designs have yet been approved by NRC, and only one SMR design has been submitted for the staff’s review. These new designs could potentially be safer than current large light-water-reactor designs. But that does not eliminate the need for EPZs and dedicated offsite emergency planning to provide defense-in-depth in case something goes wrong…….

In addition to the issues identified by FEMA, there are several other significant problems with the proposed rule.

First, the logic of the proposed EPZ sizing methodology could be applied to the existing fleet of large light-water reactors to weaken the current level of protection. As the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards noted:

No technical basis is stated in the rule or the guidance for restricting the use of the new rule to SMRs and [other new technologies] with a limit on thermal power. The rule could apply to any reactor technology regardless of size. During our meetings, the staff acknowledged this point.

In fact, the proposed rule explicitly seeks comment on whether to apply this kind of approach to large light-water reactors. This opens the door to smaller EPZs and reduced emergency planning for the existing fleet of power reactors. If the proposed rule’s formulaic approach is adopted, a precedent will be established for applying a purely risk-based methodology to EPZ sizing. 

Second, the proposed rule does not account for the possibility of accidents affecting more than one SMR module. Even though some SMR designs contemplate several reactors at one site, the EPZ sizing methodology addresses each reactor in isolation. This ignores a key lesson of the Fukushima accident – that severe natural disasters can simultaneously threaten multiple reactors at a site. Under the draft proposed rule, a SMR is defined as a power reactor that produces less than 1,000 megawatts-thermal. The combined heat energy produced by just two SMRs of this size could be larger than that of some existing large light-water reactors in the U.S. But, under the proposed rule, each module could individually qualify for a site boundary EPZ without consideration of the other.

Third, unlike the existing regulations for large light-water reactors, the proposed rule “would not define the required frequency of drills and exercises” for emergency preparedness. As a result, SMR and non-light-water reactor licensees would not be required to conduct a full offsite emergency preparedness drill every 2 years. The NRC staff provides no basis for this weaker standard.

Finally, the proposed rule would eliminate the ingestion pathway EPZ for SMRs and non- light-water reactors . . . No FEMA evaluation of this change is provided. Nor is there any discussion of the effectiveness of ad hoc responses to previous radiological releases. Moreover, if the staff’s unbounded rationale were adopted, it could ultimately lead to ingestion pathway EPZs being dropped for the existing fleet of large light-water reactors.

For these reasons, I do not support finalizing the proposed rule in its current form. NRC needs a rule that provides regulatory certainty for potential applicants and recognizes that SMRs and non-light-water reactors will be different than traditional, large light-water reactors. It makes sense to have a graded approach that accounts for potential safety improvements in new designs. But the rule should not be purely risk-based, relying entirely on the results of a dose formula. Instead, NRC should issue a rule to establish the following emergency planning requirements for three categories of nuclear power plants………….https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/10/12/no-emergency-planning-zones-for-smrs/

 

October 13, 2020 Posted by | safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »