Technician Online

Issue date: 2/5/08 Section: Science and Tech

Media Credit: Rob Fisher

When it comes to public perception, David Lochbaum has a simple analogy for the nuclear power industry.

It's like a shark attack.

People are more likely to drown than get eaten by a shark. Or struck by lightning.

But Lochbaum, the director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said people have read the statistics. They know how rare the possibility of a disaster actually is. But no matter how it's presented, it still scares people.

"Do all the math you want, but people have a fear of nuclear power," Lochbaum said. "Rational or not, it's there."

It's been almost 30 years since the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station and more than 10 years since the construction of the last nuclear power reactor in the U.S. During that time, according to nuclear engineering professor Paul Turinsky, the nuclear industry has picked up a thing or two.

"There was a hiatus for many, many years," Turinsky said. "What the nuclear industry learned how to do is run the existing reactors very well."

Now, fueled by increased demand for energy, concerns about global warming and a change in the regulatory structure, the nuclear industry is poised for a renaissance. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working to keep up with the upcoming expansion.

The commission needs employees, both to replace retirees and to fill new positions. That's one of the reasons NRC Chair Dale Klein visited campus late last week to speak with students and tour the one-megawatt nuclear research reactor housed in Burlington Labs.

"One of the challenges we're having at the moment is just looking at increasing the pool of students," Klein said in an interview Thursday. "When the perception was that they were not building new plants, the academic enrollment dropped off," Klein said. "Now we're in a catch-up mode for the new workforce."

"Industry in transition"
As much effort as it takes to run a nuclear power plant, it can take even more to build one.

Applicants have to go through multiple stages of design review and site approval, all regulated and monitored by the NRC.

According to Klein, the NRC is examining 32 "expressions of interest" that fall somewhere in the process -- which can sometimes take close to four years to complete. That means a lot of work for the same agency responsible for maintaining and ensuring the safety of the existing fleet.

So Klein said the NRC tried something new.

"The most important thing we can do is make sure that the existing fleet operates safely," Klein said. "So we created a division of new reactor operations, distinct from nuclear reactor regulations."

This Office of New Reactors, based in Atlanta, exclusively handles all new applications for reactor constructions.

According to Lochbaum, the formation of the office was a good move for a regulatory agency already responsible for 104 nuclear plants scattered around the country.

"That should help the agency from being distracted," Lochbaum said. "That was a very good thing they did."

But he pointed out that there has been a significant time period since the approval of some of the last nuclear construction sites. He said that could create a problem for even the old guard of the NRC, which most often trains new employees through on-the-job training.

"That's generally not the best way to do things," Lochbaum said. "It's going to be a new thing even for old people."

But as Klein pointed out, the real issue now is people.

In 2007, Klein said the NRC hired 451 new employees, which resulted in a new of 219 people after attrition.

"We're an industry in transition," Klein said. "A lot of people who got in the business in the 60s and 70s are retiring, so we have a double hit -- we have retirees, plus we have an increase in workload."

That hiring boom can mean good things for college graduates. Klein said the agency is looking to fill a net of about 600 people between now and 2009.

And it's not just nuclear engineers the NRC is looking for. Klein said there's a demand for just about every kind of engineer, from civil to electrical. It also needs people in other fields like writing, policymaking and even skilled craft, like welding.

"This is needed across the board," Klein said. "We will be in the hiring mode for the next decade at least."

Turinsky said the boom in the industry has already affected the students in the nuclear engineering program.

"Right now, it's great for our graduates," Turinsky said. "Our enrollment is basically where it was at our high."

Storing waste
With applications for new reactors still on the table, Klein said this rebirth of the nuclear industry may take a while.

"If you look at when the electrons start flowing, it should be 2014 to 2016," Klein said. "It's going to be interesting to see who builds one first."

But in the meantime, Klein said the country is still looking to make some policy decisions on what to do with nuclear waste. He said the U.S. is storing about 56,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and generating about 2,000 tons a year.

Some of that is kept on-site in dry cask storage, a system that keeps the fuel rods inside a large structure of steel and concrete.

Turinsky said this form of storage is not only safe and secure, but can be an advantage for nuclear plants.

"They have a lot of space if they can get a license," Turinsky said.

If the Union of Concerned Scientists had its say, according to Lochbaum, they would like to accelerate dry cask storage, which has advantages to the more vulnerable wet storage used at plants like Shearon Harris in the Triangle. He said the tough storage method would prevent tampering even if terrorists were to gain access to the casks themselves.

"I figure after they open the first few, you might wander outside and tell them to knock it off," Lochbaum said.

And both Lochbaum and Klein agreed that the final destination for nuclear waste is geological disposal -- essentially burying the spent fuel in designated locations.

In June 2008, the Department of Energy is expected to submit an application to the NRC for the use of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a geological storage facility for waste. By legislative mandate, the repository at Yucca can only hold 70,000 tons -- all in dry cask storage.

According to Turinsky, that means that even if the repository is approved, it will be full by 2010.

That's why he's in favor of reprocessing the spent fuel to reuse it in the reactor. He said 96 percent of the mass that comes out of the nuclear process is uranium. By recycling the fuel, he said utilities could almost completely close the fuel cycle, reducing the mass to less than 1 percent of the original fuel.

"Yucca's an interim solution," Turinsky said of burying the spent fuel. "You really don't want to do that because it's a great fuel."

He said with the rising cost of uranium ore and improvements in the process, reprocessing is becoming a more economically viable option.

"It's a very valuable material," Turinsky said. "It's almost a misnomer to call it waste."

But Lochbaum disagrees. He said UCS is opposed to reprocessing spent fuel "for just about every reason." He said the process is still more costly. And since it requires that the spent solid rods are chopped up and dissolved into a liquid form with a high level of radioactivity, it also carries a higher risk of dispersal or sabotage.

"It's very difficult to contain in that form," Lochbaum said. "It's kind of like a technology of last resort, not the first off the list."

But Lochbaum pointed out that dealing with nuclear waste "doesn't seem to be a showstopper" for the growth of the nuclear industry.

And recycling or not, Klein said storing waste at Yucca Mountain or elsewhere will be the way to go.

"Whether we recycle or don't recycle, we still need a geological repository for the permanent solution," Klein said. "Our long-term path will be geological disposal and it will be a policy decision about whether we will recycle or not."

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools