CHERNOBYL could NOT happen at HANFORD

CHERNOBYL

could NOT happen at

HANFORD











A former student made some comments that I referred to a number of scientific experts and received a collection of answers that deserve to be made available.

Thanks to all the scientists who responded to my question in behalf of the former student whose father died as a result of overexposure to radiation at Hanford while employed there.

Clinton Bastin asked me to share what he has written concerning safety in nuclear reactors. But first, let me share the personal aspect. A former student whose father died of radiation exposure as a result of working in a nuclear facility wrote to me in response to my rah-rah attitude toward the nuclear industry. I asked the scientists on my mailing list to comment on the differences between reactors here and the one in Chernobyl and have shared their answers with many of you. Let me add a human tidbit: In 1994 several survivors of the explosion at Chernobyl visited Richland and gave a program at one of our Kiwanis Clubs. The women of Chernobyl, whose husbands had been injured and could no longer work, were selling embroidered items to raise money, but they needed quality fabric, thread, etc...

Two friends and I were leaving for Ukraine in a matter of weeks so I ran around, begging, to the six Kiwanis clubs in the area and raised a $1,000 which I spent on fabric, thread, etc. Women gave me fabric from their closets, too. My two friends and I each packed an extra suitcase FULL of goodies. Not having any fabric around, I gave three dozen pairs of pantyhose. I took orders from friends who wanted to purchase the Ukrainian creations, especially embroidered napkins, etc., and carried home items to sell for the Ukrainians.

With suitcases properly labeled to go through customs and the Ukrainians notified of our arrival, off we flew to Kiev in July 1994. The Ukrainians met us with flowers. I managed to talk the cruise company into letting us invite them for dinner on board, complete with champagne. It was a great experience. Months later, our Ukrainian friends embroidered a special scarf for my husband's 80th birthday and mailed it to him, a rare treasure.The scientists who have been writing to me are contacts made through my being involved for the past 10 or 15 years in Department of Energy hearings, meeting, demonstrations, and fund-raisers to persuade the U. S. government to use FFTF, a local nuclear reactor, for the production of medical isotopes for research and treatment of cancer and other diseases. Surviving breast cancer twice and lung cancer once (1988-1993) with the usual barbaric slash/burn/poison (surgery, radiation, chemo) treatment is a great impetus to becoming a pro-nuclear medicine political activist!

It is an honor to receive information from world-class scientists, although I could have skipped the cancers that brought about these pen pals.My former student is one of the rewards of being a teacher. After 24 years of retirement, she is one of several who remained friends. She is understandably concerned about safety in nuclear business, having lost a father who died as a result of radiation overexposure. Before you hit the delete button, please read this one paragraph lifted from the article below: "Americans should know that well-managed nuclear power is our safest, least polluting and potentially most abundant energy source. With rapidly diminishing supplies of oil, full and efficient use of nuclear materials for energy is essential."

From Clinton Bastin: (January 4, 2007)Reproduced below is my article submitted to and (mostly) published in the April 25 article of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Most of the information in the US (and elsewhere) about this accident is wrong, because it relies on information from those in Ukraine. Operators of the plants did not understand the reactor while it was in operation, did not understand what was happening during the accident (which lasted 10 days, until enough moderator had burned to stop the nuclear reaction) and do not know what happened. Virtually all technical understanding of nuclear matters in the Soviet Union was in National Institutes, which were (and are) in St. Petersburg, Russia. I would be interested in the response to information provided to the student you wrote about the other day - and please share this with her and others.

Best wishes, Clinton Bastin

The worst-ever nuclear accident occurred 20 years ago at the Chernobyl Atomic Power Station in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine. Americans should know why a similar accident in a U.S. type nuclear power plant is not possible.If Soviet officials had listened to and properly addressed concerns of nuclear engineers from the Kurchatov (reactor design) Institute about the Chernobyl plant design, the accident would not have occurred. If officials had prevented citizens in the area from drinking milk contaminated with intensely radioactive Iodine-131 during the first three months after the accident, the 400 thyroid cancers caused by the accident would have been avoided. If plant operators had understood reactor behavior following the initial power surge, they would have recognized the danger from continuing nuclear fission and not sent firefighters and others into the intensely radioactive plume. With proper response to the accident, total human deaths would have been limited to the two workers killed in the initial explosion.The accident occurred following loss of coolant. In U.S. type nuclear reactors, when coolant is lost, the nuclear reaction shuts down. When coolant flow was lost at Chernobyl, the reactor power increased rapidly to many times normal maximum. Water in the reactor core was converted into very hot, high pressure steam, which exploded above the reactor, blowing the thousand-ton reactor lid into the air. A few seconds later, the lid fell back onto the reactor. This made a loud noise, which was believed to be but was not a second explosion.The nuclear reaction continued for nine more days, until enough graphite moderator had burned so that the nuclear reaction shut down. The heat that resulted in release of huge amounts of intensely radioactive material was from the nuclear reaction, burning of graphite, and radioactive decay of intensely radioactive fission products - which continued to be produced. Heat that resulted in melting of the reactor core at TMI was limited to that from decay of fission products, which were no longer produced after the accident started.Living matter of trees is close to the surface and very susceptible to radiation. Trees within nine kilometers of the plant were killed, but seeds from the killed trees sprouted and the forests have been replenished.The molten reactor core - nuclear fuel and graphite moderator - remained intact throughout the accident. It burned through the bottom of the reactor to the floor below, then down a flight of steps to a lower floor, where it now remains as a resinous mass in the shape of a huge human foot. There is no danger to persons on or off site from this core, provided close proximity is avoided. Reports of potential for nuclear reaction are the result of erroneous interpretations of instruments used to measure neutrons. Radiation levels in the exclusion area surrounding the damaged reactor are higher than most - but not all - areas on Earth. The small amount of radiation received by those outside of the exclusion area is harmless. Claims of thousands of deaths from this radiation are based on erroneous interpretation of conservative criteria adopted by the US Atomic Energy Commission many years ago to ensure that radiation exposures to workers are kept as low as reasonably achievable.The World Association of Nuclear Operators was formed following this accident to improve safety and performance of nuclear power plants worldwide. It was also established to ensure that lessons learned from any nuclear power plant problem are fully understood by operators at other plants. The Russian Ministry for Atomic Energy and Russian Nuclear Workers Union formed worker manager partnerships to ensure that worker concerns about safety are fully resolved. And design changes were made to Chernobyl-type nuclear power plants to eliminate conditions that made possible the accident at Chernobyl. Americans should know that well-managed nuclear power is our safest, least polluting and potentially most abundant energy source. With rapidly diminishing supplies of oil, full and efficient use of nuclear materials for energy is essential.Mr. Bastin's keynote address at the international conference on nuclear safety in Moscow on the tenth anniversary of the Chernobyl accident pointed out that this accident and the Challenger Space Shuttle accident would not have occurred if Soviet and NASA officials had listened to and properly addressed safety concerns of workers. His talk at the First National Congress of the Russian Nuclear Workers Union a year later was followed by a vote of delegates to adopt worker-manager partnerships to ensure that worker concerns about nuclear facility safety and nuclear material safeguards are properly resolved by managers. Following a visit to Chernobyl in 1996, he met with leaders of Russian Institutes in St. Petersburg who managed recovery from the accident.

THANKS GENE----- I am reassured that my long time memory on Chernobyl [Ch reactor] has some life left. rej 1-2-7Since I was the head design Physicist on N Reactor, I can tell you for certain that all of our reactors were all designed with a negative coefficient of reactivity including N reactor.I pointed out to the flaw to the Russians in a duel scientific meeting in 1956 or 1957 in Chicago, (as they were in the midst of designing the Ch class reactor) that they should not be designing their reactors with a positive coefficient of reactivity. They ignored us.You are absolutely right only that an untrained observer would view the designs as similar. Gene

----- Original Message ----- From:

To:

Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 9:17

PMSubject: One Reply to Comment RE: Comment on medical isotopes and GNEP 1-

I won't attempt to give you a formal or highly technical release on your question; but, I will tell you what I know having been deeply involved in reactor physics at the time Hanford reactors were designed and operated.The Ch reactor and N reactor no doubt had some similar general features as a reporter might observe; likely most in outward physical appearances like perhaps coolant, pressurization, perhaps moderator, etc.Looking inward at their safety design there was a vast fundamental difference in controlling their reactivity [necessary for runaway protection]. As I remember this had to deal with the temperature coefficient of reactivity. Ours were designed with built in self-protection to avoid hazardous incidents (hi-temps).

Chernobyl was not.

The incident resulted from an operator error in directing the coolant supply and because of the reactivity safety neglect it got away.My memory tells me that our US tech people gave warnings; and, the safety warning given was either too late or neglected. Gary Petersen may know more for he went as an advisor during the initial cleanup evaluation/operations?In summary the 2 should not be compared----just too different in fundamentalsThanks for your concern. rej 1-1-7

Dear Experts in Nuclear Science and other interested persons, I learned the hard way not to share e-mail addresses and to send blind copies in an attempt to protect everyone's privacy. I want to thank all the scientists who responded to my question about the similarities and differences between the reactors at Hanford and Chernobyl during an e-mail exchange with a former student. I really appreciate your time and your expertise in sharing information with us both. I have printed your replies for rereading. My former student writes: I understood that the N reactor was (is?) not shielded as was the Chernobyl reactor, which was why so much radiation was released to the atmosphere. I can't speak to the positive reactivity issue. If it is indeed a foolproof shutdown then shielding not required? , the US Dept. of Labor found that my father received acute and chronic exposure to radiation over a period of about 15 years, with a big spike in 1960-61 when he was involved with the cleanup of a very bad accident at NRTS in Idaho Falls, and that it was the primary cause of his cancer (and therefore death). I must admit I was relieved when I quit working at ComEd (probably one of the biggest nuclear electrical utilities in the country) because I didn't have to defend nuclear energy at parties anymore. I have done my share of defending it, but let us not am disingenuous about its dangers. Yes, everything has its downside, but just before I checked my E-mail I was reading Buried Suns by David Samuels in Best Am Science Writing of 2006. He describes the Sedan crater created by nuclear testing. "In less than thirteen seconds the earth was emptied of 6.5 million cubic years of sand and rock, some of which was lifted up into the atmosphere to return later as dust and rain, and the remainder of which was driven down into the earth or simply vaporized." Yeah, that was a bomb, but I can see why people might be nervous. Oh, and the waste is a gift that keeps on giving.

---------- Original Message -----------

From: Sent: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 23:53:38 EST

Subject: Fwd: Comment on medical isotopes and GNEP

I am not sure this will be anything you even want to read in view of the death of a beloved father, but I heard the safety factors at Chernobyl and Hanford were quite different and was curious what the scientists had to say. Did your father suffer from nuclear exposure of some kind or do you even care to say? ------- End of Original Message -------

Please thank all your scientist friends for taking the time to comment on Chernobyl vs. N reactor. Also please tell Mr. ++++++ that I am not one of "those people." I accept their conclusions on the design of the reactors, and can only hope that the human errors would be resolved as they described. (I am more confident of research reactors run by engineers and scientists than of energy reactors run by say, ComEd. There may not be any Homer Simpsons, but I have been involved with disciplinary issues at ComEd. Nuff said) No one commented on the shielding; can I assume I am wrong about that, too?

---------- Original Message -----------

From: Subject:

Re: Finale--FW: One Reply to Comment RE: Comment on medical isotopes and...

I have been printing the answers for myself and forwarding them to Lynne. It proves that brilliant scientists are willing to send clear and understandable information to the curious and ignorant. I appreciate your time.

Thanks for bringing a very proactive question forward from your former student that generated some needed science process thinking by some of our top members in our nuclear community.

Please don't think the silence you may have noticed from my corner means "nothing is going on"; quite the contrary. Please stand by - I think you will be pleased.

Happy New Year and My Very Best, Claude

Concerning nuclear power, waste, etc., here's a response from a friend who has a French point of view. I'd like to see the day the American public stops behaving as if we don't have a right to use up all the oil in the world.

Hi, Happy New year, and best wishes for you and your family for 2007.I read this article, but I strongly disagree.The issue is not: Is the current nuclear industry safe? yes, it is, but the issue is the waste...In the US, it's a mess; all the waste is still waiting in pools for a safe storage, and the US current solution is not really good, but rather completely obsolete.The French, today, have the best solution, but even I don't think it's a valuable and long term solution. Even if only 5% of the waste is High level (10,000 lifetimes) it's not acceptable, and more, Low level waste, about 30% (300 years lifetime) is unacceptable. 300 years, ago, the US did not exist.....It's like choosing what is the least worst solution. We do not want to leave this mess to our children.The better approach today is:1st: accelerate the development of Fusion reactor, the only one with no waste, but it's gonna take between 20 and 30 years to have an industrial solution, because countries refuse to invest enough in this area. The international program is just starting in France (ITER)2nd: teach American people to use with parsimony their energy, :: water, cars, power…3rd: use new energies like solar, in the south states, biomass, ....4th: rework all the engines of the cars, trucks, , use diesel, and tax strongly those big SUV which are useless.5th: develop the use of high speed trains and commuters, 6th: reengineer our gas or fuel power plant to make them cleaner, more efficient, 7th: stop the coal power plant. Only the Us and the countries under development use this kind of energy.8th: still many other options...Conclusion: use the current nuclear industry by extending the life of the reactors, but do not manufacture new ones, prepare the future....and stop playing the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

Sincerely, XAVIER

NB: I have a full report about energy of substitution, made by the CEA, but, it's in French.

From my student for the Blog: As the song "Rasputin" by Boney M goes, "Oh, those Russians..." It's not just the sloppiness of their reactor handling, but also their nuclear submarines. Have you ever seen the Harrison Ford movie "K9-The Widowmaker?" The crew has to clean up an accident in the sub's reactors, and the Russian Navy had given them chemical hazmat suits, not radiation suits, to save money. It made me weep.This had been an interesting and informative discussion. Makes me think the internet may be a good thing.

Dear Friends,

Clinton Bastin asked me to share what he has written concerning safety in nuclear reactors. But first, let me share the personal aspect. A former student whose father died of radiation exposure as a result of working in a nuclear facility wrote to me in response to my rah-rah attitude toward the nuclear industry. I asked the scientists on my mailing list to comment on the differences between reactors here and the one in Chernobyl and have shared their answers with many of you. Let me add a human tidbit: In 1994 several survivors of the explosion at Chernobyl visited Richland and gave a program at one of our Kiwanis Clubs. The women of Chernobyl, whose husbands had been injured and could no longer work, were selling embroidered items to raise money, but they needed quality fabric, thread, etc... Two friends and I were leaving for Ukraine in a matter of weeks so I ran around, begging, to the six Kiwanis clubs in the area and raised a $1,000 which I spent on fabric, thread, etc. Women gave me fabric from their closets, too. My two friends and I each packed an extra suitcase FULL of goodies. Not having any fabric around, I gave three dozen pairs of pantyhose. I took orders from friends who wanted to purchase the Ukrainian creations, especially embroidered napkins, etc., and carried home items to sell for the Ukrainians. With suitcases properly labeled to go through customs and the Ukrainians notified of our arrival, off we flew to Kiev in July 1994. The Ukrainians met us with flowers. I managed to talk the cruise company into letting us invite them for dinner on board, complete with champagne. It was a great experience. Months later, our Ukrainian friends embroidered a special scarf for my husband's 80th birthday and mailed it to him, a rare treasure.The scientists who have been writing to me are contacts made through my being involved for the past 10 or 15 years in Department of Energy hearings, meeting, demonstrations, and fund-raisers to persuade the U. S. government to use FFTF, a local nuclear reactor, for the production of medical isotopes for research and treatment of cancer and other diseases. Surviving breast cancer twice and lung cancer once (1988-1993) with the usual barbaric slash/burn/'poison (surgery, radiation, chemo) treatment is a great impetus to becoming a pro-nuclear medicine political activist! It is an honor to receive information from world-class scientists, although I could have skipped the cancers that brought about these pen pals.My former student is one of the rewards of being a teacher. After 24 years of retirement, she is one of several who remained friends. She is understandably concerned about safety in nuclear business, having lost a father who died as a result of radiation overexposure.

Before you hit the delete button, please read this one paragraph lifted from the article below: "Americans should know that well-managed nuclear power is our safest, least polluting and potentially most abundant energy source. With rapidly diminishing supplies of oil, full and efficient use of nuclear materials for energy is essential." From Clinton Bastin: (January 4, 2007)Reproduced below is my article submitted to and (mostly) published in the April 25 article of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Most of the information in the US (and elsewhere) about this accident is wrong, because it relies on information from those in Ukraine. Operators of the plants did not understand the reactor while it was in operation, did not understand what was happening during the accident (which lasted 10 days, until enough moderator had burned to stop the nuclear reaction) and do not know what happened. Virtually all technical understanding of nuclear matters in the Soviet Union was in National Institutes, which were (and are) in St. Petersburg, Russia. I would be interested in the response to information provided to the student you wrote about the other day - and please share this with her and others.

Best wishes, Clinton Bastin

The worst-ever nuclear accident occurred 20 years ago at the Chernobyl Atomic Power Station in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine. Americans should know why a similar accident in a U.S. type nuclear power plant is not possible.If Soviet officials had listened to and properly addressed concerns of nuclear engineers from the Kurchatov (reactor design) Institute about the Chernobyl plant design, the accident would not have occurred. If officials had prevented citizens in the area from drinking milk contaminated with intensely radioactive Iodine-131 during the first three months after the accident, the 400 thyroid cancers caused by the accident would have been avoided. If plant operators had understood reactor behavior following the initial power surge, they would have recognized the danger from continuing nuclear fission and not sent firefighters and others into the intensely radioactive plume. With proper response to the accident, total human deaths would have been limited to the two workers killed in the initial explosion.The accident occurred following loss of coolant. In U.S. type nuclear reactors, when coolant is lost, the nuclear reaction shuts down. When coolant flow was lost at Chernobyl, the reactor power increased rapidly to many times normal maximum. Water in the reactor core was converted into very hot, high pressure steam, which exploded above the reactor, blowing the thousand-ton reactor lid into the air. A few seconds later, the lid fell back onto the reactor. This made a loud noise, which was believed to be but was not a second explosion.The nuclear reaction continued for nine more days, until enough graphite moderator had burned so that the nuclear reaction shut down. The heat that resulted in release of huge amounts of intensely radioactive material was from the nuclear reaction, burning of graphite, and radioactive decay of intensely radioactive fission products - which continued to be produced. Heat that resulted in melting of the reactor core at TMI was limited to that from decay of fission products, which were no longer produced after the accident started.Living matter of trees is close to the surface and very susceptible to radiation. Trees within nine kilometers of the plant were killed, but seeds from the killed trees sprouted and the forests have been replenished.The molten reactor core - nuclear fuel and graphite moderator - remained intact throughout the accident. It burned through the bottom of the reactor to the floor below, then down a flight of steps to a lower floor, where it now remains as a resinous mass in the shape of a huge human foot. There is no danger to persons on or off site from this core, provided close proximity is avoided. Reports of potential for nuclear reaction are the result of erroneous interpretations of instruments used to measure neutrons. Radiation levels in the exclusion area surrounding the damaged reactor are higher than most - but not all - areas on Earth. The small amount of radiation received by those outside of the exclusion area is harmless. Claims of thousands of deaths from this radiation are based on erroneous interpretation of conservative criteria adopted by the US Atomic Energy Commission many years ago to ensure that radiation exposures to workers are kept as low as reasonably achievable.The World Association of Nuclear Operators was formed following this accident to improve safety and performance of nuclear power plants worldwide. It was also established to ensure that lessons learned from any nuclear power plant problem are fully understood by operators at other plants. The Russian Ministry for Atomic Energy and Russian Nuclear Workers Union formed worker manager partnerships to ensure that worker concerns about safety are fully resolved. And design changes were made to Chernobyl-type nuclear power plants to eliminate conditions that made possible the accident at Chernobyl. Americans should know that well-managed nuclear power is our safest, least polluting and potentially most abundant energy source. With rapidly diminishing supplies of oil, full and efficient use of nuclear materials for energy is essential.Mr. Bastin's keynote address at the international conference on nuclear safety in Moscow on the tenth anniversary of the Chernobyl accident pointed out that this accident and the Challenger Space Shuttle accident would not have occurred if Soviet and NASA officials had listened to and properly addressed safety concerns of workers. His talk at the First National Congress of the Russian Nuclear Workers Union a year later was followed by a vote of delegates to adopt worker-manager partnerships to ensure that worker concerns about nuclear facility safety and nuclear material safeguards are properly resolved by managers. Following a visit to Chernobyl in 1996, he met with leaders of Russian Institutes in St. Petersburg who managed recovery from the accident.

Please thank all your scientist friends for taking the time to comment on Chernobyl vs. N reactor.

Also please tell Mr. ++++++ that I am not one of "those people." I accept their conclusions on the design of the reactors, and can only hope that the human errors would be resolved as they described. (I am more confident of research reactors run by engineers and scientists than of energy reactors run by say, ComEd. There may not be any Homer Simpsons, but I have been involved with disciplinary issues at ComEd. Nuff said) No one commented on the shielding; can I assume I am wrong about that, too?

I'm up to my ears in alligators and, at this writing am in Seattle playing games with Virginia Mason, so didn't respond to your student's inquiry about the reactors, thinking that my esteemed colleagues with somewhat calmer calendars might do so. Now, seeing nothing like what I supposed the guys would send back to the student, I'm writing to say I'll rely on your assessment of whether what you get is meaningful to the student (whose level of experience I don't know). For many years (and sometimes still) following the Chernobyl disaster, I spoke frequently to nontechnical audiences about what happened there and why it can't happen here....even in N Reactor. Let me know if they let you down. I'll find an hour to put something sensible to you.

Thanks Gary for your contribution and a few words on your past experience. As I said earlier in a communiqué, I [and Carl shares this sentiment] am very proud of the way that question got answered in such a short time and so meaningful and conclusively - both technically as well as programmatically. It proves that we can work quickly and efficiently as a team. rej 1-3-7Subject: RE: One Reply to Comment RE: Comment on medical isotopes and GNEP 1-

Good morning and Ralph

For some reason I did not see the questions that asked that apparently came from a former student. I am guessing that the question was how N-Reactor and the Chornobyl (Ukrainian spelling) reactor differ.Ralph is correct. I have been at Chornobyl several times, and spent some six years working to improve the safety of the 68 Soviet-designed nuclear reactors that are located in eight former Soviet countries plus Russia. I even helped edit and publish a book written by students from Slavutych, Ukraine (the city closest to Chornobyl) and Richland, Washington about the similarities and differences of two nuclear communities, called Nuclear Legacy – Students of two Atomic Cities.If you send me the questions, I will be happy to answer them.GaryVice President, Hanford ProgramsSubject: One Reply to Comment RE: Comment on medical isotopes and GNEP 1-1-7I won't attempt to give you a formal or highly technical release on your question; but, I will tell you what I know having been deeply involved in reactor physics at the time Hanford reactors were designed and operated.The Ch reactor and N reactor no doubt had some similar general features as a reporter might observe; ;likely most in outward physical appearances like perhaps coolant, pressurization, perhaps moderator, etc. Looking inward at their safety design there was a vast fundamental difference in controlling their reactivity [necessary for runaway protection]. As I remember this had to deal with the temperature coefficient of reactivity. Ours were designed with built in self-protection to avoid hazardous incidents (hi-temps). Chernobyl was not. The incident resulted from an operator error in directing the coolant supply and because of the reactivity safety neglect it got away. My memory tells me that our US tech people gave warnings; and, the safety warning given was either too late or neglected. Gary Petersen may know more for he went as an advisor during the initial cleanup evaluation/operations? In summary the 2 should not be compared----just too different in fundamentals Thanks for your concern. rej 1-1-7Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 1:42 PMTo: Subject: Fwd: Comment on medical isotopes and GNEP Okay, you smart scientists, (and other interested persons) how do I answer this former student? Please do not use her e-mail address, but I would appreciate your responses. In my opinion nearly everyone, including scientists and especially those of us with strong political convictions, tends to overlook or disregard or minimize evidence contrary to our perceptions.

Thanks to all the scientists who responded to my question in behalf of the former student whose father died as a result of overexposure to radiation at Hanford while employed there.

THANKS GENE----- I am reassured that my long time memory on Chernobyl [Ch reactor] has some life left. rej 1-2-7

Since I was the head design Physicist on N Reactor, I can tell you for certain that all of our reactors were all designed with a negative coefficient of reactivity including N reactor.I pointed out to the flaw to the Russians in a duel scientific meeting in 1956 or 1957 in Chicago, (as they were in the midst of designing the Ch class reactor) that they should not be designing their reactors with a positive coefficient of reactivity. They ignored us.You are absolutely right only that an untrained observer would view the designs as similar.

All:I sent a reply which discussed the void coefficient (Ralph -- not thermal) which is one major fundamental difference between N and Chernobyl. This is what caused the reactor to go prompt critical. Also the administrative controls were much tighter, not to mention the operating discipline and protocols. You are never going to find even very senior engineers overruling qualified reactor operators in the control of their machine in the US. That's what happened at Chernobyl.You are right, Ralph, in that the basic physics employed in the two machines are vastly different, completely precluding a prompt criticality at N.GW

My Dear Lady....Typically, these people are not open to reasoned argument -- which may be insulting to him/her, but true nonetheless.However, just to make the effort, I will try. N reactor was NOT "just exactly" the same as the Chernobyl reactor, for a host of technical reasons. Just to touch on a few: The physics of the core were much more conservative. Chernobyl had a positive void coefficient, which meant that as water was turned to steam and opened up steam pockets in the core, it became more reactive. N reactor's void coefficient was negative -- exactly the opposite. Second, the Chernobyl reactor's control rods took upwards of 30 seconds to fully insert. The N reactor could be shut down nearly instantly by boron balls stored in bins over the reactor and released by electrically-operated gates. The balls would dump into the reactor simultaneously with the control rods' insertion in under five seconds. Third. Third is the administrative controls and total operating discipline kept upon the reactor. No bloody-minded nonsense like that engaged in by the untrained engineers at Chernobyl would ever be permitted. So the statement stands. The laws of physics and the laws of men made a physical impossibility of the N reactor ever getting out of hand as the Chernobyl reactor did. I know. I wrote the final report on the safety of the N reactor.GW

More for the blog.

I think the collection of answers from all these smart scientists would make very interesting and informative reading for anyone. I intend to go over their e-mails carefully, if my life will ever settle down. This reply certainly confirms/agrees with Clinton's comment on bad management. I'm still adapting to the difference between bad management and human error. Hmmmm.

I don't have the document reference, but Chernobyl was caused by the deliberate violation of procedures and the bypassing safety systems on a backshift by the on duty manager. The reactor design was not as stable as those designed today. Doing what they did made the problem worse. If they would not have violated the procedures and bypassed the safety systems to complete a test, then the reactor would have shutdown safely. Although the test was approved, the make it work changes were not authorized by the Plant Management or Russia's NRC.I cannot speak to the stability of N Reactor as compared to that of Chernobyl. The overall design may be the same but lots of specific details could be different.At FFTF we routinely verified the reactor's stability after every major refueling. The safety analysis depends on the reactor being stable as defined and measured by certain parameters.Only under very controlled experimental circumstances and starting at very conservative initial conditions and proceeding very slowly did we ever do tests which required bypassing safety features. We had computers and people watching everything to make sure the plant behaved as expected (lots of math and reactor physics calculations by lots of people and independently reviewed by even more people) for every step of the test.Others (Ken Dobbin comes to mind) can verify what I have written and give you a reference to the detailed Chernobyl report.

The secret is employing people who are not only smart, but have high ethical standards. You see, the problem is that you always need to take risks in order to make progress. Without ethics, we tend to look at the benefits and ignore the risks.

From my former student: I understood that the N reactor was (is?) not shielded as was the Chernobyl reactor, which was why so much radiation was released to the atmosphere. I can't speak to the positive reactivity issue. If it is indeed a foolproof shutdown then shielding not required?

The US Dept. of Labor found that my father received acute and chronic exposure to radiation over a period of about 15 years, with a big spike in 1960-61 when he was involved with the cleanup of a very bad accident at NRTS in Idaho Falls, and that it was the primary cause of his cancer (and therefore death).

I must admit I was relieved when I quit working at ComEd (probably one of the biggest nuclear electrical utilities in the country) because I didn't have to defend nuclear energy at parties anymore. I have done my share of defending it, but let us not be disingenuous about its dangers. Yes, everything has its downside, but just before I checked my E-mail I was reading Buried Suns by David Samuels in Best Am Science Writing of 2006. He describes the Sedan crater created by nuclear testing. "In less than thirteen seconds the earth was emptied of 6.5 million cubic yards of sand and rock, some of which was lofted up into the atmosphere to return later as dust and rain, and the remainder of which was driven down into the earth or simply vaporized." Yeah, that was a bomb, but I can see why people might be nervous. Oh, and the waste is a gift that keeps on giving.

---------- Original Message -----------

From: Sent: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 23:53:38 EST

Subject: Fwd: Comment on medical isotopes and GNEP

I am not sure this will be anything you even want to read in view of the death of a beloved father, but I heard the safety factors at Chernobyl and Hanford were quite different and was curious what the scientists had to say. Did your father suffer from nuclear exposure of some kind or do you even care to say?

I'm beginning to see the difference between bad management and human error.

From an expert:

Actually, the key to the runaway part of the accident was Chernobyl's positive VOID coefficient of reactivity, i.e., as the water started to boil away instead of stopping the reaction as Western reactors are all designed to do, Chernobyl increased its power. However, the psychological causes of the accident are more interesting.The test that they were running was just one in a series that they had begun some months before. It was scheduled to begin Friday morning and a special crew was on hand to run it. Unfortunately, the power dispatcher would not give them permission to remove themselves from the grid because of high power demand. So the crew just sat on their hands. And sat. And sat until 11:00 PM Friday night when the dispatcher gave them the OK. That's about 15 hours of waiting before they could even begin. The operative order for the test was "Hurry up and get it over with!" In their haste they took shortcuts, ignored precautions, etc. To begin the test they had to reduce reactor power to, say 10% (I don't remember the actual number). To hurry up they drove the control rods in further than they should have which caused the reactor to overshoot so they pulled the control rods out further than they should have (I believe some of them full out). When the reactor finally turned around and began increasing power it took off and accelerated out of control ... and the rest is history.

N Reactor at Hanford was not like Chernobyl, in that it did not have a positive reactivity coefficient. It used slightly enriched uranium to preclude this. With loss of coolant, N would have shut down, not gone to very high power and remain there for sometime as Chernobyl did. Chernobyl-type reactors in Russian et al have been modified to avoid the positive reactivity coefficient.The theme of my keynote address at an international conference on nuclear safety in Moscow on the 10th anniversary of Chernobyl accident pointed out that if Soviet leaders had paid attention to engineers who expressed concern about Chernobyl, etc., and made relatively modest changes, the accident would have been avoided. Leaders of Russian Ministry for Atomic Energy and Nuclear Workers formally adopted my ideas to ensure that worker concerns were properly considered and resolved.

Clinton

Here's one I didn't send to my former student until now. She has had many different responses and wanted to see them all.

Hi

Irradiated hamburger, cloned beef, and nuclear power plants are all acceptable and proven technologies scientifically. Unfortunately the real issue is not science but politics. There is no plausible scenario for harm in the first two of these technologies. Nuclear power has its risks but so do other paths to power and the balance of evidence is that nuclear power will win out in any comparison of risk. With regards to deaths from nuclear power in this country there have been none that I am aware of from an operating nuclear power plant. . . . I would not even try to approach such an emotional position with facts.

This is the comment that started an exchange of e-mails concerning nuclear reactors. Thank you to all of you who participated.

My former student wrote this statement, which started the correspondence. Your comments have been extremely enlightening and interesting both to her and to me. They were very reassuring to me. Now I must get back to writing my Christmas cards after this fascinating distraction. Thank you again!

"This will not make me popular in the old stompin' grounds but I have my doubts about nuclear energy. I remember people saying that Chernobyl could never happen here because of all the safety precautions only to find out that a reactor I lived next door to (N for Next Door) was EXACTLY the same as the Chernobyl one. Nuclear may save; it can also kill. It killed my father and the govt. has just gotten around to admitting it."

Do you think you could ask your friend Xavier to send us the French version he mentioned, the complete report?

Chuck Lo Presti

Thanks for your response. I've been deleting addresses from those who
responded so I could share their thoughts without violating their privacy.

I am rereading your suggestions with interest. # 2 makes me wonder if
the
American public will ever get over the notion that we are entitled to
guzzle up the world’s supply of oil with our toys.

#5, I wish we had high speed trains and commuters, but would the
government ever build them? Would the taxpayers ever be willing to
make the investment?

#7, More deaths have been caused by coal and car crashes than
anything nuclear in this country, but no one seems to get hysterical about that.

"Use the current nuclear industry by extending the life of the
reactors, but do not manufacture new ones. . . "

I hope your above comment means to make use of FFTF for the production
of medical isotopes and other peacetime purposes. Thanks again for
your input. Happy New Year to you and your family!

I am forwarding a request from someone named Chuck Lo Presti who wants to read your report in French. I do not know this gentleman, but apparently someone sent him the e-mails relating to the nuclear controversy. This turned out to be a truly fascinating and informative exchange! I can thank my former student for opening the discussion!

Attention, Clinton!

"Well, he's cranky. Why is gross mismanagement not human error? I would agree that it would arise to a higher standard of recklessness than simply ignoring a warning or pushing a button in error, but it's still human and it's still a mistake. The only way to protect against human error is by good discipline and management."

My former student who raised the nuclear question practiced law and has her opinion of human error vs. bad management at Chernobyl. I hope all the lawyers in my family pay attention. We don't have many scientists.

She says:
"See previous re: error and mismanagement. As a very ex-lawyer, the law distinguishes between many layers of culpability both in civil and criminal cases. They range from intentional to reckless and willful disregard to accident with many intervening causes in between. Combined with the type of duty owed to the injured party, they go to the degree of culpability of the defendant. I believe your friend sees a level of intentionality (hope that's a word, grammar-maven) at Chernobyl which makes it different. It is indeed, but if it could have been prevented by human action, it is human error.

January 4, 2007

Department of Energy Releases the Notice of Intent for the GNEP Environmental Impact Statement

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced that a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for President Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Initiative is posted in the Federal Register. The NOI outlines the programmatic and project-specific proposals of GNEP.

“We continue to mark significant progress with GNEP and we look forward to gaining a broader understanding of the environmental conditions under which we will be operating,” DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. “Our need for nuclear power – a safe, emissions-free and affordable source of energy – has never been greater and GNEP puts us on a path to encourage expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy production while reducing nuclear proliferation risks.”

The GNEP PEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts for both programmatic and project-specific proposed actions, as well as reasonable alternatives, and will also evaluate, at a programmatic level, the potential environmental impacts associated with the international initiatives.

GNEP will recycle spent nuclear fuel and destroy its long-lived radioactive components. To accomplish this, DOE proposes to design, build, and operate three facilities:

1. A nuclear fuel recycling center, which would separate spent nuclear fuel into reusable and waste components and then manufacture new nuclear fast reactor fuel using the reusable components.
2. An advanced recycling reactor, which would destroy long-lived radioactive elements in the new fuel while generating electricity.
3. An advanced fuel cycle research facility, which would perform research and development into spent nuclear fuel recycling processes and other advanced nuclear fuel cycles.

At this time, DOE contemplates that the PEIS will consider 13 sites as possible locations for one or more of the proposed GNEP facilities. Eleven of these sites were selected based on responses received regarding the Funding Opportunity Announcement (http://www.energy.gov/news/4492.htm), as well as 2 additional DOE sites that the Department has preliminarily identified as a possible location for a DOE-directed advanced fuel cycle research facility.

GNEP also includes two international initiatives: 1) Ensure reliable fuel services, in which the U.S would cooperate with countries that have advanced nuclear programs to supply nuclear fuel services to other countries that refrain from pursuing enrichment or recycling facilities to make their own nuclear fuel; and, 2) Development of proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors suitable for use in developing economies.

To further define the GNEP PEIS and identify key issues, DOE invites the public to comment on the proposed scope during the 90-day comment period that begins with the Federal Register notice and continues through April 4, 2007. All comments received during the public scoping period will be considered in preparing the GNEP PEIS.

To encourage public participation in the GNEP PEIS process, DOE will host scoping meetings, as follows:

February 13 Oak Ridge, TN
February 15 North Augusta, SC
February 22 Joliet, IL
February 26 Hobbs, NM
February 27 Roswell, NM
March 1 Los Alamos, NM
March 6 Paducah, KY
March 8 Piketon, OH
March 13 Pasco, WA
March 15 Idaho Falls, ID
March 19 Washington, DC

As part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, GNEP encourages expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy production while minimizing proliferation risks, and reductions in the volume, thermal output, and radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel before disposal in a geologic repository.
For more information on GNEP or to review the full text of the GNEP PEIS NOI, visit: http://www.gnep.gov

Media contact(s):
Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940