On July 15, 2010, North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) won the competition to host the International Youth in Nuclear Congress meeting in 2012. 

“NA-YGN is proud to host our international colleagues in what could be the largest ever gathering of young professionals in nuclear.  We are overwhelmed with excitement to welcome IYNC and return the same hospitality we have been shown over the past decade” says NA-YGN President, Elizabeth McAndrew-Benavides.

Founded in April 2000, the International Youth Nuclear Congress is a global non-profit organization that seeks to connect students and young professionals engaged in all areas of nuclear science and technology.  IYNC meets at a biennial conference in various international locations.  Previous Congresses have met in Slovakia (2000), South Korea (2002), Canada (2004), Sweden (2006), Switzerland (2008) and South Africa (2010). 

July 12^th-16^th, IYNC met in Cape Town South Africa with over 200 participants from over 20 different countries.  The agenda included an address from South Africa’s Department of Energy Minister, Ms. Dipuo Peters, and included technical paper presentations from over 30 academics.  The IYNC Board of Directors met on July 15 and considered three proposals for the 2012 host country, North America, United Kingdom and Japan. 

NA-YGN’s proposal included a strategic planning themed conference to be held in conjunction with NA-YGN’s annual professional development conference.  IYNC 2012 will be held August 2012 in Charlotte, NC. 

For more information about NA-YGN, please visit www.na-ygn.org/ or contact Morgan Davis, Public Information Chair, pi@na-ygn.org.

For more information about IYNC, please visit http://www.iync.org/.

How was the Cape Town International Youth in Nuclear Conference (IYNC) meeting?  

To quote Kansas State student and attendee Sam Brinton– “Amazing.”

Nothing compares to breaking free from the northern hemisphere for the first time to attend your first global youth in nuclear conference. South Africa was a wonderful host for this international meeting which focused on building international collaboration and understanding for young professionals and students in nuclear science and technology.

Many of the North American delegates arrived to Cape Town on Sunday, July 11th. That’s right World Cup fans… We were in South Africa for the World Cup finals. What could be a better way to begin a week long international journey, than by joining together with global visitors to watch the final game from the massively populated “fan centers” that were placed in Cape Town for everyone who didn’t actually have tickets for the final game. For those of us who were less than diligent with keeping up with the World Cup, the Vuvuzela horns stole the show.

After the excitement died down from the World Cup, the North American delegates were able to bond with the rest of the international delegates during a day of team building. The team building consisted of a series of IYNC games developed to make diverse teams compete on a physical, intellectual and on a teamwork levels. Teams competed in six competitions that included a very competitive 3 step jump, a wicked variation of jacks that used marbles, a nuclear themed knowledge game, learning and executing the uniquely South African Diski dance, blowing the Vuvuzela, team jump roping, and puzzle solving.

Little did the North American delegates know that the Diski Dance would not only become a center point of cultural awareness for the entire conference, but our own Communication Chair and USA Representative to IYNC, Misha Swanson would become an expert. Representing the North American bid to host the 2012 conference, Misha performed a dance-off of the Diski dance against the Japanese and UK bid leads during the opening reception.

Wednesday nights’ cultural event was dinner at a South African winery. Attendees were stuffed full of traditional African cuisine including Springbok Antelope, Ox and Ostrich. The evening’s cultural awareness included an introduction to Zulu cultural. Attendees were all adorned with traditional Zulu face painting and were introduced to traditional Zulu dancing. Once the educational portion of the evening was complete, North American delegates led the Diski dance kick-off to the night of dancing.  Craig Albers (Fluor), Rick Molenhouse (Exelon) and Sam Brinton (Kansas State) all danced like mad men along with European Young Generation Chairman, Edouard Hourcade.

For me, Thursday was the big day… Technical presentations and workshops continued during the day, but I was waiting for the IYNC board meeting. During the board meeting, I helped to co-present the North American bid to host the 2012 IYNC conference in Charlotte North Carolina. I can honestly say I am glad I didn’t have to decide between the three bids. The Japanese’s suggested conference theme of “Young professionals dedicating themselves to a lifetime of non-proliferation and technical tours of the memorial at Hiroshima” and the UK’s fantastic cultural prospects of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London were tough pitches to follow.  In the end, Charlotte’s unique bid feature of embedding a professional development track of strategic planning into the normally technical IYNC schedule won the board’s favor. Once the decision was official, the North American delegation proceeded to stay-up into the wee hours of the night face book posting, emailing and skyping with colleagues all through North America to  tell them the news.

I do not want to leave out the most important aspect of our free time in Cape Town. What most of us North American’s did with our free time was shop, shop, shop.  And what did we shop for, we were shopping for Vuvuzelas. I’m pretty sure the North American delegates can open a Vuvuzela store with the number of those horns we brought back with us. These horns make a lot of noise and go perfectly with the Diski dance and the conference theme song of Waka Waka by Shakira.

The Charlotte planning team will have to work hard to make the international delegates feel as warm and welcomed as the South Africans did this year.  The conference truly was “Amazing” and I cannot wait to attend the 2012 joint IYNC/NA-YGN conference in Charlotte.

I wanted to share this article from Bradley Blakeman, professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown, on the United States’ need for more nuclear energy.  Blakeman hits all of the key points–nuclear power is clean, safe, reliable, and cheap.

Duke Energy's Oconee Nuclear Power Units 1, 2, and 3

Nukes, Baby, Nukes

By Bradley Blakeman

Published June 23, 2010 | Foxnews.com

Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.

With regard to our energy independence, the BP oil disaster should be a call to action. Everyone knows we are dependent on fossil fuels coming from foreign sources yet; no one to date has the will to do anything serious and credible about it.

Nuclear energy is the Holy Grail of clean, safe and affordable energy that America can produce and exploit without detriment to the environment.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting Glen L. Mc Cullough, Jr., the former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Glen wrote a terrific paper entitled, “Five Smart Energy Steps for America.” This is what Glen said with regard to nuclear power:

“Build advanced nuclear energy plants. Nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the nation’s electricity but comprises 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity with no nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury or particulate emissions. Nuclear plants are online 91 percent of the time making nuclear the most reliable source of electricity. Nuclear energy is affordable with an average cost of around 1.9 cents per kWh.”

Nuclear energy is safe. The U.S. Bureau of Labor reports that it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than in a bank. Nuclear energy is also sustainable: ample uranium supplies exist and the U.S. should begin to recycle used fuel, which can power our nuclear plants for centuries.

But we must close the fuel cycle — the U.S. Department of Energy should comply with the Nuclear Energy Act of 1982 and utilize the more than $24 billion paid by ratepayers to build a secure, national repository like Yucca Mountain.

Nuclear energy can be an economic boon. According to one of the largest U.S. electric utility companies, building 1,000 megawatts of advanced nuclear energy provides more than twice the amount of jobs than wind and six times more jobs than solar. What’s more nuclear power plant employees earn high average salaries — yet another reason 74 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy.

America today has approximately 100 operating nuclear power plants. For the past 30 years America all but put a complete halt to construction of new nuclear power plants in spite of the fact that the U.S. was the pioneer of this technology. Today the U.S. Navy operates over 150 nuclear powered ships and submarines.  The Department of Defense has relied heavily on nuclear power while the private sector has been shut down by government regulation and environmental objection.

France is about the size of Texas and primarily relies on nuclear power for its electricity needs. In addition, France is the world’s largest exporter of electric power.

So, not only is France providing adequately for its own needs but it is also selling excess to other nations in Europe. France has become an example for the rest of the world for providing clean and affordable energy.

Nuclear power plants do not pollute the air or produce greenhouse gases.

Today, thanks to technology, spent radioactive fuel can be reprocessed to recover fissile and fertile materials thereby providing fresh fuel for plants. Sadly, in America today there exists no civilian reprocessing plants in operation, although three have been built at great expense.

The world is passing by the very country that invented clean and safe nuclear power.

If our country is serious about becoming energy independent and free from foreign sources of fossil fuel then we need to get serious and build within the next 15 years 200 nuclear power plants throughout our nation.

We should also demand that Yucca Mountain be opened for storage as well as reprocessing. The average time for the permitting and construction of a nuclear power plant is between 8-10 years. The average life span of a nuclear power plant is 30+ years. Think of the jobs that could be created and the costs that could be amortized over long periods of time to make nuclear power affordable. It is a win win.

America needs a “moon shot” on energy and nuclear power is not “pie in the sky.” If other countries can rely on nuclear power as a main source of their electricity needs then America should as well.

Forget “drill, baby, drill” we need “nukes, baby, nukes.”

Clean Energy Insight - New Nuclear Plant Fact Sheet 2010

Myth: Nuclear Energy Relies on Government Subsidies

The myth that the nuclear energy industry receives a massive amount of taxpayer subsidies is alive and well in internet chatrooms, blogging websites, and even certain “think tanks.”  One of the goals of Clean Energy Insight is to provide easy access to facts about nuclear energy.  So we are starting a “Wednesday Facts Series” that will address perpetuated nuclear industry myths that aim to harm the nuclear industry for the benefit of certain special interests.

Loan Guarantees

The issue of massive nuclear industry subsidies has been preserved with a number of issues.  The first and most recent is that the Loan Guarantees considered in recent “Stimulus” legislation are actually taxpayer subsidies.  Loan Guarantees are not subsidies.  They are loan guarantees. It’s that simple.

Price-Anderson Act

Second, the Price-Anderson Act has also been attacked as a government subsidy program for the Nuclear industry.  The fact is that the Price-Anderson Act provides liability insurance protection to the nuclear industry at no cost to the public whatsoever.  The purpose of the Act was to remove economic barriers and actually stimulate a competitive private Nuclear industry while providing public compensation in the event of a Nuclear incident.  To date, the Price-Anderson Act hasn’t cost taxpayers one dime.  Here is a detailed fact sheet from the NEI about the history and nature of the Price-Anderson Act.

Traditional Subsidies

The “Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development” or “Bezdek Report” was completed in September 2008 by Management Information Services Inc.  The attached graph comes from the Bezdek Report and shows a summary of federal incentives for various energy industries.

Disbursements are another word for federal grants or traditional subsidies.  This is the culprit in question today.  As you can see, federal subsidies going to the Nuclear industry total $-14 Billion.  This means that the nuclear industry actually pays more to the federal government than it is given.  This can be explained by the Nuclear Waste Fund (Yucca Mountain) payments to the government from the Nuclear industry.  The Nuclear industry actually subsidizes the federal government!

The only gripe that some may have about this data and Nuclear power is the large amount of Research and Development funds that were apparently handed to the commercial Nuclear industry.  This is not the case.  Most, if not all, of these monies were given to federal government research facilities like the Oak Ridge National Laboratory during the early days of Nuclear power research (notice that the statistics cover 1950-2006).

I hope this article served to raise awareness about the facts surrounding the myths about Nuclear industry subsidies.  Next Wednesday, Tyler Moses will address the myth that people have a “not in my backyard” mentality when it comes to Nuclear power plants.

In case you are interested, here are brief explanations of the other incentive categories:

Tax Policy includes federal tax credits, exemptions, deductions, etc. as incentives for investment.

Regulation includes federal mandates and government-funded controls on certain energy industries.  An example is the Oil industry’s exemption from price controls in certain cases.

Research and Development includes federal funding for scientific research and development.

Market Activity involves direct federal government involvement in the marketplace.

Government Services refers to all services provided by the government with “direct charge.”

Do you want to make a difference in the energy debate?

Do you want your voice to be heard all over the world?

Do you want to ensure that clean, safe, and reliable energy is being used?

Contribute to a pro-nuclear website that is doing all of the above.

Join us.

Email us at cleanenergyinsight@na-ygn.org to apply to be a regular contributor.

A North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) website.

What do I say if an opponent says that Nuclear Energy Is Not Safe?

• Nuclear Energy is safer than any other form of energy available.
• No member of the general public has ever been killed or injured in 40 years of commercial Nuclear Energy generation in the United States
• The OSHA Accident Rate for the Nuclear Power Industry is lower than the accident rate for the Finance, Education, and Artist industries 

Table 1

What do I say to opponents who claim that nuclear power plants could explode like a nuclear bomb?

• A nuclear reactor can never explode like a nuclear bomb. The fuel (Uranium) in reactors is only enriched to about 3%, a nuclear bombs fuel is enriched to over 95%.
• The MOX fuel program is currently down-blending Russian Nuclear weapons grade uranium to produce a lot of fuel for the nuclear power industry. This is helping to deplete the number of nuclear warheads around the world.

What do I say if an opponent says that as nuclear plants get older they become more risky to operate?

• Safety and Reliability of Nuclear Power Plants has improved over time. Plants have increased their electrical output to over 806.5 Billion kWh. Unplanned shutdowns have decreased tremendously, see Table 2 below.

Table 2

Table 3

What do I say if an opponent says that Nuclear Plants Cause Cancer?

• Nuclear Plant workers have a lower mortality than average Americans. 35% lower for all cancers and 66% lower for all non-cancer deaths (NEI)
• Americans receive more radiation from natural sources than from Nuclear Plants (NEI)
  • Average Resident Receives 360 millirems per year
  • Average Nuclear Plant worker receives 160 millirems per year
• Pilots receive many times more radiation than the average nuclear plant worker. The higher in elevation you are the more radiation you receive.

What do I say if an opponent says that all radiation is negative, no matter the level?

• Everyone receives radiation on earth. The sun, rocks, dirt, anything on the earth emits radiation. It is known as background radiation.
• Radiation is highly used in the medical field for cancer research, cancer treaments, X-rays, etc.
• The granite walls of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. emit so much radiation from the contained uranium, that it could never be licensed as a Nuclear Power Reactor Site (PBS) and if it were a Nuclear Power Plant, it would be decommissioned.
• Dispersions from coal combustion result in effective radiation dose 100 times greater than nuclear energy production.

What do I say to opponents who claim that Nuclear Energy is too costly?

• Nuclear Energy is competitive with other forms of baseload power generation. (Table 5, Table 6)

Table 5 : Baseload Power Costs

Table 6

Courtesy - Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2009

What do I say to opponents who claim that Nuclear Power Generation is not reliable?

• In 2004 Nuclear Power Plants in the United States operated at an average of 90.5% capacity.
• The increases in capacity factor at 103 nuclear power plants across the country have been equivalent to the addition of 26 new 1,000MW power plants.
• Nuclear power plants are available 24/7 day and night and release no greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It accounts for about 75% of all non-greenhouse emitting energy generation.

U.S. Capacity Factors by Fuel Type (2007)

What do I say to opponents who claim that there is not enough uranium to support building new Nuclear Plants?

• There is enough Uranium today to last hundreds of years.
• 96% of today’s spent fuel can be recycled. The United States is the only country that does not recycle the spent fuel.
• Advanced breeder reactors could increase fuel inventories by 50 times.
• Thorium which is found in large supplies within the United States could be converted to U-233 and used to fuel reactors.
• Fuel costs are roughly 2% of the total cost of a MWhr in currently operated plants.
• Current MOX Fuel technology can turn nuclear weapons into nuclear fuel for your home.

What do I say to opponents who claim that Nuclear Power Plants are terrorist targets?

• Nuclear Power Plants have the highest security of any American industry
• Well armed, trained security forces
• New, strong physical security barriers
  • Continuous Link to the Department of Homeland Security
  • Established response procedures and contingency plans
  • See this link from the NRC for more information on security measures - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-spotlight/overview.html
• The containment dome is conservatively designed to withstand impact from a commercial jet and still stand, along with continuing to protect and contain the reactor.
• Containment structure is 4-5 feet of concrete, 1.5 in thick steel liner, and has a negative pressure.

What do I say to opponents who claim that Americans are not in favor of Nuclear Power?

• Support for Nuclear Energy is WIDESPREAD and GROWING! (Table 7)

“Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States?”

Table 7

Clean Energy Insight has tried to follow the issue of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, VA for about a year now.  Mike Bloom and I (Co-Creators of this website) both grew up in the area and are hoping that safe uranium mining can offer a much-needed economic boost.  As the debate continues, local newspapers like the Chatham Star-Tribune, the Danville Register and Bee, and the Martinsville Bulletin have published great op-eds regarding the issue that are all worthy of a read.

Recently, the head of the prestigious Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, H.L. Dodds wrote an informative letter-to-the-editor of the Star-Tribune regarding some of the misinformation on the issue being spread by anti-uranium mining activists. 

Dodds does a tremendous service to the people of the Piedmont region by offering an open and honest dismissal of some of the scare tactics that local anti-uranium mining activists have pushed on them.

Despite the intellectually dishonest anti-uranium mining campaigns, Piedmont residents are looking forward to the completion of the recently commissioned National Academy of Sciences study on the safety of the uranium mining plans as covered by groups like the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance.

Enjoy the letter from an industry expert.  (For more information on uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia, see - http://www.virginiauranium.com/)

Putting uranium mining ‘misinformation’ to rest

By H.L. DODDS
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:56 PM EDT

As someone who has devoted my professional career to the scientific and academic pursuit of nuclear energy, I am disconcerted by the misinformation being spread by opponents of uranium mining in Virginia to stoke unwarranted fears among residents.

As Virginia examines whether to allow uranium mining, I believe it is important that citizens and policymakers have the best information available to make their decision. This is why I feel compelled to respond and put some of this misinformation to rest.

Contrary to the false assertions of some mining opponents, there is no institution better suited than the National Academy of Sciences to assess the human health and environmental impact of uranium mining in Virginia.

Residents of the state - from the Southside region to Hampton Roads - should have full trust and confidence in the National Academy as the nation’s most prestigious and respected body for scientific and technical research.

For more than a century, the National Academy has maintained an unimpeachable record for impartiality and independence from influence.

Virginia residents should also rest assured that uranium mining and milling is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States.

The industry, which has made great strides in the past few decades to improve protection of the environment, human health and worker safety, is overseen by a veritable alphabet soup of regulatory bodies - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, to name a few.

These agencies are vigilant in enforcing their strict standards for radiation protection, air and water contamination, tailings management and worker safety.

For example, the maximum level of radiation exposure allowed by these regulators in areas surrounding uranium mines is equivalent to a small fraction - less than 10 percent - of the natural background radiation we all receive each year from our environment, homes and routine medical procedures.

A single abdominal x-ray would expose someone to five times the amount of radiation allowed by the EPA and NRC for uranium mining operations.

As the U.S. Secretary of Energy and Nobel laureate Stephen Chu stated unequivocally in Pittsylvania County several months ago, modern uranium mining can be done safely and in an environmentally responsible way.

There is a large body of evidence and numerous studies which have found no link between uranium mining and the incidence of cancer and other illnesses in surrounding populations.

Several studies of uranium mining and milling communities in Texas, New Mexico and Colorado conducted by John D. Boice Jr., scientific director of the National Epidemiological Institute, found virtually no difference between cancer mortality rates in mining areas versus non-mining areas.

Opponents of mining have consistently and recklessly raised anxiety among local farmers and residents by perpetuating myths about mining activities contaminating local groundwater and agriculture with harmful levels of radiation.

These myths are based on a fundamental lack of understanding of basic science and should be put to rest once and for all.

Contrary to their assertions, it would be virtually impossible for radon gas - a byproduct of uranium - to travel distances far enough and in quantities large enough to contaminate the vegetation, air and water of areas surrounding mining activities.

The elementary physics of radon gas prevent this from happening. Because radon gas is seven times heavier than air, it impossible for it to escape more than a few feet above ground and certainly to travel distances further than a few hundred feet.

This is why radon is usually found in the basements of homes because it is too heavy to climb the stairs to the first floor.

Cherry-picking and misappropriating pieces of scientific studies to prove dubious claims is a favorite pastime of anti-nuclear advocates.

So, recent attempts to misrepresent and conflate the results of an ecological study of coal mining in West Virginia with uranium mining in Virginia should come as no surprise.

The most elementary grasp of the methods, geology, geographic location, environmental footprint and scale of the two vastly different kinds of mining would prevent any responsible person from making such a spurious comparison.

The people of Virginia - particularly those living in Southside and Hampton Roads - deserve much better.

Finally, although I now live in Tennessee, I lived in the Hampton Roads area in the 1960s while working for NASA. The area is a wonderful place to live and will continue to be so with modern day uranium mining.

H. L. Dodds is IBM professor and head of the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tenn.

Myth:  Nuclear Power Plants Cause Cancer

Few words in the English language invoke feelings of unrest and controversy as the word “nuclear”.  Historically, the word has been associated with feelings of uncertainty, fear or danger, and understandably so, as nuclear technology made its debut in the mainstream media by way of its use in weapons of mass destruction.  But as the general public becomes more aware and educated on the subject, many are finding that nuclear has nothing more than a bad rap.

As an illustration, let me pose this question:  When you think of gasoline, does your mind initially wander to Napalm?  Or better yet, does the use of fertilizer lead to thoughts of home made bombs?  There are a slew of atrocious myths circulating about nuclear power which are perceived as fact by many for this very reason.  One common misconception is that nuclear power plants emit substantial levels of radiation leading many to believe that operating nuclear power plants are surrounded by disfigured wildlife or that nearby residents are at a higher risk of contracting cancer or growing a third arm.
The truth is that the highly regulated nuclear industry takes the safety of the general public as its primary initiative through many stringently enforced radiological safeguards.  Among the physical barriers incorporated into the design of the plants, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enforces a number of requirements and expectations on the industry.
Take, for example, the policy statement issued by the NRC in 1986 which established safety goals and expectations with respect to an acceptable level of risk to public health and safety from the operation of nuclear power plants. According to the policy statement, the following goal was implemented as follows:

“ . . . the risk of cancer fatalities to the population near a nuclear power plant should not exceed 0.1% of the sum of cancer fatality risks from all other causes.”

As reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 180.7 cancers (i.e. malignant neoplasms) related deaths occurred per 100,000 people in 2006.  Taking this value into account with the NRC’s expectations discussed above, for a population of 100,000 people living near a nuclear power plant the risk of cancer fatalities should not exceed 0.001 x (180.7 / 100,000) = 0.000181% – still concerned?

One might argue that NO cancer related deaths should be tolerated – agreed!  Studies show that this is in fact the case and that plants exceed the NRC’s expectations (discussed further below).

The reality is, however, that we live in a radioactive world – this has been true since the beginning of time – and everyone is exposed to varying levels of radiation on a daily basis.  Take for example bananas and brazil nuts, which naturally contain higher levels of radiation than other foods.  Similarly, brick and stone homes have higher natural radiation levels than homes made of other building materials such as wood. Heck, our nation’s Capitol, which is largely constructed of granite, contains higher levels of natural radiation than most homes.  JunkScience.com once measured the radiation emanating from granite statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and discovered that a person standing in statuary hall near the Senate Chamber would absorb 5 times more radiation than would be absorbed by standing at the fence line of a nuclear power plant.

The chart below provides a comparison for doses from everyday radiation sources relative to living near a nuclear power plant, which exposes residents to an average annual dose of less than 0.001 rem.  In comparison, Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20) dictates that the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from a licensed operating plant is not to exceed 0.1 rem in a year.

For additional consideration, the pie chart presented is from the NRC’s website and provides a percentage breakdown between natural background radiation and artificial sources.  I believe the numbers speak for themselves.

The NRC similarly limits the amount of radiation that a nuclear plant worker can receive in one year.  Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), establishes the does limits for radiation workers. Although the limits vary, depending on the affected part of the body, the annual total effective dose equivalent for the whole body is 5 rem, although many plants go even further to restrict employees to 2 rem per year.  In contrast, the Federal Aviation Administrations recommended occupational exposure limit for ionizing radiation is a 5-year average effective dose of 20 mSv (2 rem) per year, with no more than 50 mSv (5 rem) in a

single year (nearly the same standard).

Regulations imposed on nuclear power plants ensure that both the surrounding population and the workers within plants are exposed to only low levels of radiation.  The fact of the matter is that the biological effects due to low levels of radiation exposure are so small that they may not even be detectable.  The exact effect, however, depends on the specific type and intensity of the radiation exposure.

In order to truly wrap your mind around the risks associated with radiation exposure, it is useful to evaluate those risks relative to the risks associated with everyday life.  For example, a 3-millirem exposure imposes the same chance of death — 1 in a million — as each of the following common life experiences:

• Spending 2 days in New York City (because of the air quality)
• Riding 1 mile on a motorcycle or 300 miles in a car (because of the risk of collision)
• Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter (because of aflotoxin) or 10 charbroiled steaks
• Smoking 1 cigarette

Dr. Bernard L. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh has extrapolated this approach in his book “The Nuclear Energy Option”.  In Chapter 8 of the book, Understanding Risk, Dr. Cohen instructs that the most logical procedure for minimizing risks is to quantify all risks and then choose those that are smaller in preference to those that are larger.  He then goes on to provide a framework for that process and applies it to the risks in generating electric power.  Chapter 8 presents various everyday activities or occurrences and their associated risks.  These risks are quantified then in terms of the loss of life expectancy (LLE); which is the average amount by which one’s life is shortened by the risk under consideration.  The figure below shows some of the activities or occurrences investigated.  It is clearly shown that living near a nuclear power plant ranks at the bottom.

Further substantiating his findings, Dr. Cohens work is also published by the NRC in Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.29.  RG 8.29 offers further indication that:

“. . . the health risks from occupational radiation exposure are smaller than the risks associated with many other events or activities we encounter and accept in normal day-to-day activity.”

As mentioned earlier, countless studies have shown that populations in close proximity to a nuclear power plant receive negligible levels of radiation exposure relative to general population and are no more susceptible to cancer than the average person.

It is impractical to discuss every study ever conducted by any organization or individual regarding this matter.  Instead I have listed a few additional determinations or studies from non-bias organizations concluding such.

• The American Cancer Society blatantly backs this notion on their website with the following statement:

“Ionizing radiation emissions from nuclear plants are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for communities near the plants. Reports about cancer case clusters in such communities have raised public concern, but studies show clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do elsewhere.”

• A survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed no general increased risk of death from cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. The facilities in the survey had all begun operation before 1982. Included were 52 commercial nuclear power plants, 9 Department of Energy research and weapons plants, and 1 commercial fuel reprocessing plant. The survey examined deaths from 16 types of cancer, including leukemia. In the counties with nuclear facilities, cancer death rates before and after the startup of the facilities was compared with cancer rates in 292 similar counties without nuclear facilities.

The results of the survey, per John Boice, Sc.D.(who was chief of NCI’s Radiation Epidemiology Branch at the time of the survey), showed that “From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities”.

• In a response to ongoing public concern over the risk of people living near nuclear facilities, a publication of the Illinois Department of Public Health examined the pediatric cancer risk in relation to the proximity of nuclear power plants in Illinois.  Evaluations were conducted at both the county and ZIP code levels. Age-adjusted cancer incidence and mortality rates for children aged from 0 to 14 for years 1990 to 2002 were calculated for nuclear facility county group and nuclear facility ZIP code group, respectively, and then compared with those for the matched non-nuclear facility county group or non-nuclear facility ZIP code group.

The results of the publication The results indicate that pediatric cancer incidence and mortality rates for the nuclear facility county group and nuclear facility ZIP code group were not significantly different from those for their comparison groups. In addition, there was no evidence of increased trend in cancer incidence rate after startup of nuclear power plants.

• The accident at Three Mile Island 2, what is considered the worst nuclear related accident ever to occur in the United States, caused no injuries to workers or the public.  At least a dozen epidemiological studies conducted since 1981 have found no discernible direct health effects to the population in the vicinity of the facility. Studies of the consequences of the accident were conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Energy and the state of Pennsylvania. The average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem, according to the results of these and independent studies.  The public’s average dose from natural radiation is 100-125 millirem per year for that area.

In the decades following the accident, several studies were conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, all showing conclusive evidence that no negative health effects on the population surrounding the plant. In addition to the Pennsylvania Health Department studies, several other studies have examined the health impact of the TMI accident on the population and yielded similar results.

The key to dispelling this myth is to acknowlege that, as demonstrated:

1. Any increased risk of cancer around an operating nuclear power plant relies primarily on the adverse effects resulting from any small amount of radiation it might release.
2. No single person can go through life without experiencing some level of radiation dose on a daily basis.
3. The levels of radiation emitted at or near a nuclear power plant, and the associated level of risk, are negligible in comparison to that experienced in commonly occurring events and activities experienced by most on a day-to-day basis.

Once you are able to come to terms with these facts (and I hope that this article is of some help) it becomes painstakingly obvious that, contrary to popular belief, nuclear power plants do NOT cause cancer, and in fact pose no more threat to an individuals health than 365 Tbsps of peanut butter.

Myth Busted!

Next Wednesday, Adam Johnson will address the myth that as nuclear power plants age, they become more risky.

Things may be slowing down a bit here at Clean Energy Insight over the next month or two.  Currently, it is outage season for the nuclear power industry.  Many of our contributors will be supporting outage work on-site at nuclear power plants.

In the nuclear power industry, an “outage” does not primarily refer to a power outage or blackout.  Every Spring and Fall, when power demand is at its lowest, the nuclear industry shuts down some of their plants for maintenance and repair.

This could mean packing up and going to a nuclear power plant for the next three months, or staying at their home office and working the night shift.  We will try our best to keep you updated on nuclear news and interesting nuclear power facts.  However, all of our focus will be on our work in order to be as safe as possible and as productive as possible during these critical outages.  Plus, working on an outage can help an engineer gain priceless experience in the field and in the industry, which will make Clean Energy Insight better equipped to bring you voices of experience.  So…

What is an “Outage?”

In the nuclear power industry, an “outage” is a period of time in which a nuclear power plant shuts down (stops producing power)  in order to perform routine maintenance, replacements, and/or re-fuel the reactor.  During this time, the power utility ramps up power production at other plants, or purchases additional electricity from neighboring utilities to make up for the power production from a reactor that is scheduled for an outage.

Depending on the type of outage, it can last from one and a half to two months.  Additionally, outage staff works in 12 hour shifts in order to keep things moving and to provide 24 hour support.

A nuclear plant would be able to tout a 100% capacity factor if it weren’t for these scheduled outages.  Because of these necessary outages, nuclear power plants achieved an energy industry best capacity factor of 91.8% in 2008.

Some of the components that are replaced or maintenanced include but are not limited to: reactor heads, steam generators, pumps, motors, turbines and fuel.

Re-Fueling

Re-fueling outages average about 35 days in length, some have been done in 15-20 days, and are done every 18-24 months.  This means that a nuclear reactor doesn’t need to be re-fueled but every 18-24 months, setting nuclear power apart from other energy sources such as coal that need to be refueled on a daily basis.

Fuel Rods

Pumps and Motors

Pumps and motors must also be replaced or maintenanced during outages in order to service the plant and lengthen its service-life.

Baby Pump

Reactor coolant pump motors are the largest pump/motor assembly in a nuclear power plant.  These can be about 28 feet in height, weigh over 100,000 lbs, roll at 9,000-12,000 horsepower, and spit out 88,000 gallons of water per minute.

Reactor Coolant Pump for the Westinghouse AP-1000 Reactor

Turbines

Here’s a great video from National Geographic on the turbine replacement at Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant.

Reactor Heads

Reactor vessel closure heads must be replaced at a plant periodically as well.  These are pretty heavy components as well.  Usually around 200,000 lbs.  It’s quite a feat to be able to move an object this heavy so precisely.  Here’s a great document from Bechtel on the process they use to replace reactor heads in a safe and efficient manner. Link: Bechtel Detail Design.

Reactor Head

Reactor Head being put into place

Steam Generators

Steam generators are one of the biggest components in a nuclear power plant and can weigh around one million pounds.  Moving these things is big business.  It is also an art. The coordination and precision of this type of operation is impressive and intricate.  The only way to give it justice is to see it in person.  Although, I hope these images will help you understand the scope of this type of project.

Steam Generator

Here is a news clip from Lancaster Online showing two steam generators moving through rural Pennsylvania a couple of weeks ago on their way to Three Mile Island for the outage there slated to start October 26th.  The generators will be installed and the reactors will be back online by January 1st.

The delivery route must go through multiple levels of planning including coordination with local law enforcement and structural qualification of roads and bridges along the route since the steam generators are so heavy.  The steam generators that are currently running at Three Mile Island will be removed and placed in a building called an Original Steam Generator Storage Facility (OSGSF).  This facility is designed and rated to prevent the release of low-level radiation to the public and environment.

These aren’t the only activities that are performed during outages.  Some include modifications that will increase the life and power output of existing plants.  Others may include increasing fire protection safety measures in the plant.  There are many different modifications that a utility performs during outages that will increase quality and performance at their nuclear plants.  Hopefully, this post provides a high-level overview of a nuclear power industry outage.  For more detailed information, feel free to ask any questions in the comment section below.