Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read Time: 5 min]

Last week FIVE PEOPLE were KILLED due to a GAS EXPLOSION in Allentown, Pennsylvania.  In DISGUST of hearing how once again a VIOLENT GAS EXPLOSION has TAKEN NUMEROUS LIVES, I thought it appropriate to provide some detailed information regarding the amount of lives lost in severe accidents with respect to energy source.  It is also important to ask WHY these ACCIDENTS CONTINUE TO OCCUR.

Recently, the Nuclear Energy Agency, of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), published a report [1] that compares nuclear accident risks with those from other energy sources.  The OECD is a forum where the governments of 32 democracies work together to address the economic, social, and environmental challenges of globalization.  The OECD attempts to compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice, and work to coordinate domestic and international policies [1].

The report compares the severe accident data from a wide range of energy sources.  Severe accident is defined in the report as an accident with five or more immediate fatalities.  The data, ranging from 1969 to 2000, was provided by the Paul Scherrer Institute [2].  The results considered full energy chains because for fossil fuel chains, the accidents at plants are minor compared to the other stages of the energy chain.  In general and as applicable, an energy chain comprises exploration, extraction, transport, storage, power and/or heat generation, transmission, local distribution, waste treatment and disposal.

Summary of Severe Accidents (≥ 5 Fatalities) from 1969-2000 [1,2]

More than 2,500 people are killed every year in energy-related severe accidents (≥ 5 fatalities).  One hydro power incident that occurred in China was responsible for 29,924 deaths.  Single oil related accidents in the Philippines and Afghanistan caused 4,386 and 2,700 prompt fatalities respectively [1].

The one nuclear severe accident that has occurred is the Chernobyl (Ukraine) accident.  There were 31 immediate fatalities following this accident, with latent deaths estimated to be between a total of 9,000 and 33,000 over the next 70 years based on current radiation dose risk coefficients [1].  By way of comparison, the OECD reports that outdoor air pollution due to fine particles (≤ 10 microns) is estimated to have caused approximately 960,000 premature deaths in 2000 alone.  Of this pollution, approximately 30 % arises from energy sources [1].

Production of electricity by means of NUCLEAR ENERGY DOES NOT PRODUCE CARBON EMISSIONS.

As we can all agree, the death of a human being due to generating electricity is unacceptable; however, it is necessary to understand that improper design of a containment structure, disregard for safety procedures, and human error lead to the disaster that occurred at Chernobyl.

Existing NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS and the recently proposed units utilize a “DEFENSE-IN-DEPTH” approach to NUCLEAR SAFETY.  This means that there are MULTIPLE SAFETY MEASURES that are provided to PREVENT such an accident from occurring due to mechanical or human error.  Also, in the extremely unlikely event such an accident does occur, the PUBLIC IS PROTECTED by the reactor containment structure that is conservatively designed to withstand accident conditions.

Not one person has died as a direct result of the nuclear fission process utilized to generate electricity at commercial nuclear reactors in the US.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) monitors key indicators that support an INCREASE in SAFETY and RELIABILITY at NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS in the US.   Please see previous article, “Myth: As Nuclear Power Plants Age, They Become More Risky,” which provides trends that support increased safety at US nuclear reactors.  Another important statistic is the capacity factor of a plant.  This is the ratio of actual electricity generated to the amount of electricity the plant is capable of producing.  The capacity factory for US nuclear power plants collectively in the 1970s was near 50%.  Currently the average capacity factor for US nuclear power plants is above 90% [3].  This increase in generation output is the result of an INDUSTRY FOCUSED on SAFETY and RELIABILITY.

The protection of the public, workers, and the environment from radiation has been the primary objective of operators and regulatory authorities since the start of the civilian nuclear power industry.  It is the responsibility of all individuals working in the NUCLEAR industry, INCLUDING MYSELF, to perform all tasks to the HIGHEST STANDARDS and to stand firm when nuclear safety is being challenged.  The SAFE operation of NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS is by far the most significant factor in the SUCCESS and GROWTH OF AN INDUSTRY that is poised to SHAPE our CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE.

ACCIDENTS continue to occur around the world, including the 2009 HYDRO PLANT DISASTER in Russia that claimed the lives of 76 individuals, the BP OIL SPILL in the Gulf of Mexico last year, and GAS EXPLOSIONS such as the one last week.

The time is now to ask why these accidents continue to occur and why we are not taking advantage of NUCLEAR POWER; a CLEAN, PROVEN, BASE-LOAD ENERGY TECHNOLOGY that this country was the first to develop and benefit from.

The safety and operational history of the nuclear power industry should not only be commended, it should also be a major contributor in the current decisions and legislation to address the future energy demands of this nation.  Addressing the ENERGY NEEDS of society in a way that is both SAFE and RELIABLE is of the utmost importance to ensure a solid clean energy future; rather than doing it at the expense of human lives.

[1]          Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Report, 2010

[2]         Paul Scherrer Institute Data Report

[3]         Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) - Capacity Factor

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Myth: As Nuclear Power Plants Age, They Become More “Risky”

A generality that the 104 commercial U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) commonly fall victim to is that as things age, they are at a greater risk for potential failure.  The more miles on your car, the more time you usually spend at the repair shop.  The longer you live in your house, the more trips you have to make to the nearby home improvement store.  Although this is common with most things that we encounter in our everyday lives, this is not the case for NPPs.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initiated the Industry Trends Program (ITP) to monitor trends of industry performance indicators to ensure safety at NPPs is maintained.  If any adverse trends are detected in the performance indicators, the NRC will evaluate the issue and take appropriate regulatory action to address it.  Each year these performance indicators are reviewed by the NRC as part of the Agency Action Review Meeting (AARM).  Any statistically significant adverse trends are included in the NRC’s Performance and Accountability report to Congress.

“No statistically significant adverse trends have been identified through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2008, based on the ITP indicators and the Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) program.” – NRC website, Industry Trends page

Full details of the trends monitored by the NRC as part of the ITP can be found in the current ITP report, SECY-09-0048.  Definitions and descriptions for performance indicators can be found in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0313, Appendix A.  Below you can find several of the Fiscal Year 2008 Long-Term Industry Trends Results from the most recent ITP report along with a brief description of the indicator.

Significant Events

Definition: Significant Events are defined as —

1. A Yellow or Red Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) finding or performance indicator
2. An event with a Conditional Core Damage Probability (CCDP) or increase in core damage probability (ΔCDP) of 1×10-5 or higher
3. An Abnormal Occurrence as defined by Management Directive 8.1, “Abnormal Occurrence Reporting Procedure”
4. An event rated two or higher on the International Nuclear Event Scale

Forced Outage Rate (FOR)

Definition: The forced outage rate is the number of forced outage hours divided by the sum of unit service hours and forced outage hours.

Safety System Actuations (SSA)

Definition: Safety system actuations are manual or automatic actuations of the logic or equipment of either certain Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) or, in response to an actual low voltage on a vital bus, the Emergency AC Power System.

Automatic Scrams While Critical

Definition: The number of unplanned automatic scrams that occurred while the affected reactor was critical.  A Scram is an emergency shutdown of a nuclear reactor.

Opponents to the industry trending rationale may state that NPPs are subject to negative aging effects, such as equipment failures.  My response to this claim is that you are exactly correct.  Every plant does experience some form of equipment aging or failure, but being realistic, nothing is made to last forever.  Equipment aging begins as soon as a piece of equipment is operated for the first time.  The important issue is how the utilities manage the aging effects and also how they identify and mitigate the risks associated with the operation of their plants.  NPPs are designed to sustain equipment aging and failures through redundancy and dedicated systems that are capable of and dedicated to maintaining public safety.

Along with the ITP, there are also measures to evaluate the ability of NPPs to maintain safety on an individual basis.  INPO routinely sends teams to evaluate plant operations, processes and personnel.  INPO then assigns a score to the plant based on observations during the assessment.  Negative ratings from the assessment generally warrant more demanding requirements to maintain safety by the NRC and can even lead to a NPP being shut down.

The information presented in the annual ITP report confirms that the safety of operating nuclear power plants is being maintained.  The decreasing trends can be attributed to the dedication of the individuals in the commercial nuclear power industry to deliver safe and reliable power to the public, as well as:

• Regulatory guidance (NRC)
• Industry organization involvement (INPO, EPRI, etc.)
• Improved processes and procedures
• Evaluation and incorporation of operating experience and lessons learned
• Advances in technology / Plant modifications
• Predictive and preventive maintenance capabilities
• Economic benefit to maintain a plant

Another intriguing subject that comes up when discussing the safety of NPPs is the potential for a plant to become a terrorist target.  Mike Bullard will be addressing this issue in two weeks.  Next Wednesday, Jonny Abendano will take on the myth that nuclear energy emits greenhouse gases.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

See, sometimes people don’t think bigger is better.

Neither does the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).  TVA has agreed to assist Babcock & Wilcox of Lynchburg, Va. in gaining certification of a “mini” nuclear power plant. TVA has signed a non-binding agreement to evaluate a possible site for building a small modular reactor near Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

The nuclear reactors would be approximately one tenth (≥125 MW) the size of a normal size nuclear power plant (1000 - 1600 MW). The nuclear reactions would be contained in an enclosure that is stored underground.

It is roughly estimated that a 125 MW reactor would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 Million, whereas recent estimates for the new generation nuclear plants that are being reviewed by the NRC show a cost of construction around $10 Billion.

The article mentions that one issue the companies may face in obtaining a design certification is that the NRC is currently busy with licensing requests from utilities for new designs of standard size nuclear plants. A license application for a “mini” reactor has not yet been submitted to the NRC, but could be in as little as two years, states Chris Mowry (President and Chief Executive of B&W Modular Nuclear Energy LLC). Once an application is submitted to the NRC, a review could potentially take several years.

Here is a link to the original article.

Here is a link to another recent article that discusses the possibility of this “mini” reactor: