LAST week, we wrote about the limitations of “renewable” and did some basic comparisons between nuclear power sources and other power sources.  This week, I would like to present some of the issues surrounding the SAFETY of the new generation of nuclear plants.  This is probably the issue with the most concern to everyone in the CNMI.  Is it safe?
Just like all of you, I, too, have been bombarded with nuclear safety issues almost since I was born.  After all, it was only a short time later that the atom was introduced to the world in a most horrendous way.  And ever since that, for sixty years (THREE generations), we have all been taught that nuclear power, whether it be a bomb or a power plant, was dangerous; radiation will kill you; fall-out will kill you; it must be contained behind monstrous enclosures of thick shielding materials; it must be controlled by an army of technicians tending to row upon row of control buttons, levers, cranks and knobs all the while reading instructions aloud to one another from a thousand page long manual developed by yet another army of geniuses, all with IQ’s over 180.
Well, things change, and the field of nuclear engineering and power production is one of the best examples.  In the mid 90’s, President Clinton issued a moratorium on all nuclear building in the U.S. until a complete revolution in the technology could change the way it works – in other words, until it could be considered safe and economical.  In 2001, the U. S. Department of Energy issued a report to congress on a “new” development that could revolutionize nuclear power production.  In 2002, the DOE challenged manufacturers to develop and deploy this new system by 2010.  Fifteen years ago, the nuclear energy sector was completely dead.  Two years ago, there was not a single nuclear plant (in the U.S.) on anybody’s table.  Today, there are fifteen companies with 32 Generation III+ and IV plants nearly ready to go and worldwide interest is now at an all-time high.  Why?  Because, for the first time, they really are safe, inexpensive compared to other power sources and environmentally friendly!
It is now ready for first deployment.  So what are the differences?  First, the reactionable material itself.  It is PASSIVE.  That means it does not require any control; the reaction is not a “chain” reaction and therefore, is incapable of progressing to an out-of-control situation.  This is not governed by manual or mechanical control mechanisms or human input.  It is governed by the laws of physics itself due to the materials used and the configuration of those materials.
Second, there is none of the typical beta or gamma radiation that previously required huge containment structures and thick shielding.  The “reaction” is the relatively simple migration of neutrons from a source material in close proximity to an absorber material.  These little guys (the relatively safe neutrons) just can’t go anywhere else besides between the two materials – that’s nature’s own law.  And THAT produces heat.  But the heat thus produced is self limited to a particular level, again by the laws of physics and the make-up of the two materials.  How much heat?  About 550 degrees centigrade, which just happens to be an ideal temperature to convert water to steam to turn a turbine generator!
So, OK, now we’ve got the two biggies out of the way (control and containment); what about the other stuff?  These new power sources are SMALL.  Used to be the standard U.S. nuclear plant was a minimum of 1,000 megawatts; now these new plants range from only 10 megawatts up to about 300 megawatts.  The new plants are MODULAR.  That is, all of the components are prefabricated at a factory and shipped to the installation site and then assembled sort of like tinker toys on steroids.  This makes for a much shorter construction period.  Toshiba estimates 16 months for its 4s design, Purple Mountain estimates a construction period of about 1 year for its “Hyperion Hydride” design. 
However, there is still the Nuclear Regulatory Commission site specific certification to be overcome.  That used to take about 10 years and you couldn’t turn a shovel of dirt until it was done.  Well, that is changing too.  NRC is now pre-certifying the module designs at the factory.  This means they can be mass produced, which leads to much lower cost per unit and eliminates that aspect of on-site reactor construction, fueling and certification.  The NRC has recently reduced its certification period significantly and has also introduced a procedure whereby construction AND certification can proceed simultaneously, again shortening the required time for completion to a more reasonable three to five years.  The industry and the government are now putting into place procedures to shorten it even more – to less than three years from start to operation, which makes it highly comparable to that required for other types of power production.
In a recent presentation by Leonie Industries on Saipan, their proposal was to convert a little less than 30 percent of Saipan’s power needs to a combination of wind, solar and biomass and projected a minimum three year period to reach that level.  One can readily see that “time” is becoming favorably comparable amongst the various types of power sources. 
Let’s get back to safety for just a minute and recall those highlighted words above: SMALL, PASSIVE and MODULAR.  That pretty much sums it up – and they are called “PMR’s” (passive, modular reactors).  In the second paragraph above, I described what used to be the personnel component of a nuclear power station.  What is the personnel component today?  The Hyperion reactor for example, an offspring of the now well respected TRIGA system is in the process of being certified for UNATTENDED OPERATION.  Now that’s important – it just shows how much faith the government, not to mention the scientific community, has in the safety aspects of such a reactor.  There are no moving parts inside and no operator assisted controls or mechanisms on this reactor.
Some of the security tests performed on these reactor types have included shaking them apart with giant simulated earthquakes and crashing fully loaded jet aircraft directly into them.  The results were, in every case, the same: the rector was not damaged and simply shut itself down automatically because the materials inside could no longer react with one another when their micro-environment was disturbed in any way.
According to Clay Sell, the U.S. deputy secretary of energy, “No serious person can look at the challenge of greenhouse gasses and climate change and not come to the conclusion that nuclear power has to play a significant and growing role in meeting that challenge worldwide.”  Further: “…it (nuclear) is the only practical option for producing huge amounts of electricity with no carbon emissions.”  Mr. Sell went on to emphasize, “There has never been a radiation related death in the commercial nuclear sector in the United States – EVER.”  And according to Andrew Kadak, professor of nuclear technology at MIT, “This type of reactor is very unique in the sense that there’s no way to melt this down.” (April 8, 2007 – CBS Sixty Minutes)
And here is some more safety related figures to ponder from the Uranium Information Centre, Ltd. in Melbourne, Australia:  “In 12,000 cumulative reactor years of commercial operation in 32 countries, there have only been two major accidents at nuclear power plants – Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.”  At Three Mile Island, not a single bit of radiation escaped the containment building and not a single person was made sick, exposed to, or died from radiation.  Additionally, comparing several types of power plants over the last 40 years: “over 6,400 workers have died in the coal fired sector, 1,200 in the natural gas sector, 4,000 in the hydro-electric sector and a total of 31 in the nuclear sector – all of them at Chernobyl.”
And here’s yet another safety related concern: The standard required emergency planning zone (commonly referred to as the “EPZ”) around a U.S. operating nuclear power plant is 10 MILES – in all directions.  For the new Generation III+ and IV power plants, this EPZ has been reduced to 800 meters and is being considered for a further reduction to only the land immediately surrounding (about 1/2 acre) the building housing the reactor (Burns & Roe, 2006).
And yet another: Insurance requirements under mandate by the Price-Anderson Act and the NRC are normally a minimum of $1.06 BILLION in property damage coverage with an annual premium of over $100 MILLION and an NRC indemnity liability coverage of over half a billion..  Today, for the small, passive, modular generation III+ an IV plants, those requirements have already been reduced to less than $100 million in property coverage with an annual premium of less than $180 thousand.  The public liability coverage remains at half a billion, but the annual premium for a Tinian facility would be only about $900!  All required insurance translates, for a Tinian based plant, to only about 2 mils per kwh produced (a “mil” is one tenth of a penny).
Other information from the U.S. Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U. S. GNEP Office, and 15 manufacturers as well as many independent scientific “think tanks” researching the new stuff have concluded that the SMALL, PASSIVE, MODULAR reactors now being trotted out are so safe and clean that no one has been able to cite a single disadvantage or safety concern – at all.  All of these references are readily available on the internet – just Google them.
Well, that’s enough for now regarding safety issues.  However, if anyone would like to bring up a specific issue or question, please do so and I’ll find the answer for you – from an expert source.  Meanwhile, my next letter will address other concerns such as nuclear waste and storage and, finally, the bottom line: what the price of electricity may be in your home for the next 25 years.
 
DR. THOMAS D. ARKLE JR.
San Jose, Tinian