102nd Carnival of Nuclear Energy At Next Big Future

The 102nd Blog Carnival is posted at Next Big Future.  Once again, Brian Wang has done a splendid job of putting together a great Carnival.  Rod Adams on an Australian project on climate change, Stephen Aplin on how PBS story on water in Africa manages to omit the fact that the new purification methods require electricity, me about San Onofre at Atomic Power Review blog, and me about KI pills at this blog.  And there's more: Gail Marcus and Brian Wang on world-wide events, Steve Skutnik on how nuclear proponents have a "tin ear" for what might persuade their audiences, and a provocative post from Charles Barton on Uranium as a Renewable Resource (think sea-water!)  And more, too!

It's a great Carnival.  Stop by and visit.  Enjoyable reading for a spring evening!

AP Retraction: No Iodine Pills, No Radiation Poisoning at Brattleboro High School

"Iodine Pills" at Brattleboro High School
On Saturday April 14, there was a rally against Vermont Yankee in downtown Brattleboro.  AP had a story about it which was widely reprinted. Among other places, the story appeared in the Burlington Free Press.  The article was titled Vermont Yankee protest draws quadruple-digit crowd.

The AP story included this astounding statement:
Putney resident Nancy Olsen, 65, a teacher, said she stumbled upon the rally and stopped to see what people had to say. Overall, she said, she has mixed feelings about the plant remaining open.


“When the school distributed iodine pills to the teachers it was a little bit of a shock, because I hadn’t really thought about it that much,” she said, referring to the pills that were handed out at Brattleboro Union High School during last year’s tritium leak to counteract the radiation poisoning. 


What-what-what-what?? ( That was my reaction.)  Pills were handed out at Brattleboro High School?  Only to the teachers?  KI for tritium? "The radiation poisoning?" And the tritium leak was 2010, not last year, though that seems a rather trivial point, considering everything else.

Calling the High School

After I read this, I called Brattleboro Union High School to find out more about it.  Olsen is a teacher at the high school, and they offered to connect me to her.  However, I figured I already knew what she had said, and did not ask to be connected.  I wanted to know if and when such pills were distributed: therefore, I wanted to speak to the principal.

I spoke to people, but I didn't do a very good investigation. I am not blaming anyone for not resolving the issue.  Everybody was very nice. Everybody also seemed very eager to refer me to someone else to talk to. Before I was done, I had spoken with someone in the prinicipal's office, someone in the school district office, and one of the school nurses. I was also encouraged to speak to the Vermont Department of Health, but I didn't follow up.  In general, the people I spoke to didn't know about any KI distribution, but nobody said: "It certainly did NOT happen."

I folded my mini-investigation. Before I folded, I spoke to some Brattleboro friends about my adventures. I have no idea if my friends followed up the investigation.

Retraction

Something happened.  I don't know who did what, but something happened that encouraged the AP to write a correction, which is now running in various papers. Here's the correction:

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) — In a story about the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, The Associated Press erroneously reported several details about a tritium leak from the plant. The tritium did not cause radiation poisoning and posed no harm to the public, according to state health officials. The leak took place over a couple of months in late 2009 and early 2010, not last year. Also, the Vermont Health Department distributes potassium iodide — not iodine— pills in case of a leak of a different type of radiation and did not distribute pills for the tritium leak.

It was good to see this correction.

---------

My own coverage of the rally is in two parts: Three Views of the April 14 Rally, and We start with Vermont Yankee.  Later, we shut down capitalism.

Radio Days: Podcast from Massachusetts and on the air in Vermont

On Tuesday Morning, Richard Schmidt and I debated Vermont Yankee's future against Michael J. Daley and Jeff Napolitano.  The debate was on WHMP radio, broadcasting from Northampton, Massachusetts.

Today, the podcast of the debate is on-line.  Also, there's a nice photo gallery of the debate.  I will write about this debate more in the future, but right now, I wanted to put up the links and thank WHMP for hosting it.

I can't write more now because I am going to be on the radio again later this morning, this time broadcasting from Waterbury, Vermont. From 11 a..m. to 12 noon, I will be on WDEV(AM 550, FM 96.1).  I will be on the Rob Roper Common Sense Radio Show.  This show is sponsored by the Ethan Allen Institute, which also sponsors the Energy Education Project that I direct.  Rob Roper is also the editor and force behind the web site True North Reports, which is always worth reading.  

San Onofre Steam Generators: My Post at Atomic Power Review

Introducing my post, San Onofre and Steam Generator Design at Atomic Power Review.

History

An excellent post by Dan Yurman, Debunking Some Nuclear Nonsense, introduced me to the controversies about the new steam generators at San Onofre.  The steam generators are newly installed, and having unexpected problems.  His post also introduced me to Arnie Gundersen's critiques of the San Onofre steam generators, how they were made, how they were designed, etc.  These critiques were  funded by Friends of the Earth.

I try to stick to energy issues in my own region, the Northeast, but this situation got under my skin.  You see, I actually know a great deal about steam generators and their issues.  I was a project manager in the Steam Generator Owner's Group at EPRI.  When I left EPRI to start my own company, I had contracts to help utilities with steam generator chemistry decisions. My contracts were in the U.S. and abroad. My expertise was in demand.

So, of course I fired off a geeky letter to the ANS mailing list about steam generators.  Will Davis of Atomic Power Review asked me to de-geek the letter a bit. He said he would put it on his blog, Atomic Power Review.

My post is up at Atomic Power review today.  I'm proud of it, and I very pleased that Will Davis encouraged me to write it.  It's getting a lot of hits...

Update: I was going to put in a series of links to other SG articles, but the NEI blog post today has done it for me.  A Reader's Guide to the San Onofre Steam Generator Situation.  Great guide to SG posts by Barq, Davis, Yurman, and people at Southern California Edison.  Thanks for the comprehensive guide to steam generator issues at SONGS.

------------------
Graphic of steam generator support plates courtesy of AREVA.

We start with Vermont Yankee. Later, we shut down capitalism

In my recent post Three Views of the April 14 Opponent Rally,  I quoted a friend's email to me:

This one sign, held high and very visible at the rally, says it all, or very nearly:
Shut down VT Yankee 
Shut down all nukes 
Shut down capitalism. 

The first comment  on my post asked if I had a picture of the sign.  Of course I didn't, but I found one!  You can see the gazebo in this picture, too.  The speakers addressed the crowd from that gazebo.

If you go back to my blog post and watch the video, or if you follow its links to other coverage of the rally, you will not see this sign. Regular media did not take pictures of it, as far as I can tell.



 

Guest Post by Kit P: EPA, NRC and Coal Environmental Studies

In my blog post Vermont Yankee is Not Fukushima, I compared the health effects of Vermont Yankee with the more serious health effects from coal, quoting an EPA paper. Kit P made incisive comments  on that post, stating that the EPA link did not show the cause-and-effect relationships that I thought it showed.

 I felt his comments were too important to be hidden in a long (17 comment) stream of responses to a blog post. I invited Kit to write a guest post. He was good enough to write one, and here it is.



--------------------

The Purpose of Environmental Studies

One reason to read environmental studies is to learn information to make informed decisions about solving environment problems. One reason to cite environmental studies is to promote an agenda.

I worked at a nuke plant in California called Rancho Seco when it closed. Studies have cited how infant mortality improved after the plant closed. I have not read the study. One way to improve infant mortality is to provide free prenatal care for the poor which is just what happened about the same time as the closing of the plant.

My point here is to recognize the difference between improving the quality of life and fear mongering.

So on one hand I am an advocate of VY and on the other hand fear mongering about other sources of power is unnecessary. If VY closes it will be an economic loss for those who work at VY and the state that has to import power most likely by burning fossil fuel someplace else.

Is the EPA fear-mongering?

The question that this essay attempts to raise is the Obama EPA fear mongering? If so Meredith has jointed the ranks of an Obama sock puppet. She should not feel too bad being in the company of a Nobel Prize winner in Physics. (Meredith comments: "Sock puppet", "shill", whatever. No problem!)

Meredith writes:

“On the other hand, some of the worst air quality in their models is Ohio and Pennsylvania. ”

From the map, “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) RIA, Table 1-1 and -2; mortality impacts estimated using Laden et al. (2006), Levy et al. (2006), Pope et al. (2002) and Bell et al. (2004); monetized benefits discounted at 3%.” http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/benefitsmap.html

The following are listed references and quotes:

• Laden et al. (2006): “Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality Extended Follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study” http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/173/6/667.full.pdf+html  
• “Annual city-specific PM2.5 concentrations were measured between 1979 and 1988, and estimated for later years from publicly available data.”
• Levy et al. (2006), “Ozone exposure and mortality: an empiric bayes metaregression analysis."zxs http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15951663 
• "We gathered 71 time-series studies relating ozone to all-cause mortality, ”
• Pope et al. (2002). “Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11879110
• “The risk factor data for approximately 500 000 adults were linked with air pollution data for metropolitan areas throughout the United States and combined with vital status and cause of death data through December 31, 1998.”
• Bell et al. (2004). “Ozone and Short-term Mortality in 95 US Urban Communities, 1987-2000” http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/292/19/2372.full 
• "we estimated a national average relative rate of mortality associated with short-term exposure to ambient ozone for 95 large US urban communities from 1987-2000.” “Deaths for people aged 75 years and older comprised approximately half of total deaths in these 95 communities. ” “Ozone pollution is now widespread in urban areas in the United States and many other countries. Its rise reflects primarily increased numbers of motor vehicles and miles traveled; vehicle emissions are a major source of precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. ”

Nice Try, EPA, But Those References Are Not About Coal

Nice try EPA but if you want to make claims about 'mortality impacts' of coal don't you think that coal should be the source of the pollution? The second problem with these studies is 'cause and effect' is not studied. The third problem is that 'mortality impacts' are not defined.

So what do all the studies say for those who are worried about air pollution cutting short their life?

• Do not smoke. 
• Do not heat your house with coal, wood, or dried manure. 
• If you do not want your children to breathe mercury, do not break things with mercury in your house bigger than a thermometer.

For the US there are just no studies that provide a 'smoking' gun for 'mortality impacts' related to coal plants, Yes there are chronically ill people and yes they die. We all die but I am skeptical that our good air quality is the cause.

NRC and EPA Regulatory Approaches

Let me approach the question from a different angle. The NRC and the EPA regulate differently.

The NRC is very site specific. Each nuke plant must show that annual offsite exposure is less than 5 mrem/year compared to 300 mrem/year average background. Each plant provides an annual report. For example, I used to live 12 miles from a nuke plant. One year I checked the annual report and the offsite exposure was below detectable. A calculation estimated the annual offsite exposure is less than 0.004 mrem/year.

Downwind of the nuke plant about 90 miles, background is 1800 mrem/year because of elevation and radon. If Downwinders are concerned about radiation, they should more closer to the nuke. This downwind location sometimes has air quality issues. The same conditions that trap radon also trap pollution from cars/trucks. However, there are not coal-based generation impacting air quality.

The US EPA looks at air quality based on regional measuring stations and can be found at http://airnow.gov/ and the Weather Channel will also provide a local report. I frequently monitor this site looking for places where the air quality is above a threshold of harm.

At the moment, Cleveland/Akron has just reached that threshold.

The EPA provides this warning, “Health Message: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.”

The Third Approach

The '"Ain't It Awful" group hates good news. Zero is the number of people who check http://airnow.gov/ and tell me I am wrong. Air quality is very good in the US. Air pollution has no 'mortality impacts' any more.

A third approach is the correct approach. The benefits of power generation far out weighs the risks.

 Closing Vermont Yankee requires that the power be replaced as discussed in the Vermont Yankee renewal EIS: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/vermont-yankee.html#impactstatements

Already know what it will say:

Table 8-2

Air Emissions from Coal-Fired Alternative

As such, Entergy concludes that the coal-fired alternative would have MODERATE impacts on air quality; the impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality in the area. (Page 8-8)

However, in the absence of more quantitative data, human health impacts from radiological doses and inhaling toxins and particulates generated by a coal-fired plant at an alternate site are considered to be SMALL. (Page 8-9)

Therefore, it is official the environmental impact of nukes is less than a coal-based power plant, but this does not justify saying that coal is causing 'mortality impacts'.

Evidence for Impacts?

Is there any evidence?

“The NRC stated in the GEIS that there could be human health impacts (cancer and emphysema)

from inhalation of toxins and particulates from a coal-fired plant, but the GEIS does not identify the significance of these impacts [Reference 8-11].”

As far as I know, lung cancer and emphysema are strongly associated with smoking and nothing else. So I went to NUREG-1437 looking for the reference. No reference was listed.

While I think WIKI is a place to start, it is a source to be skeptical about. What could be some of the other causes of emphysema?

“This could include exposure to air pollution, second-hand smoke, and/or other chemicals and toxins.[citation needed]”

Here is the deal with a smoking gun, the absence of evidence is not actually evidence. However, if coal-based power is causing 'mortality impacts' or mercury poisoning there should be lots of smoking guns.

We Can and Have Solved Environmental and Safety Issues

There is lots of evidence that systematic approaches to solving environmental and safety issues work. Measured levels of air quality have shown huge improvements over the last 50 years in the US so that it no longer has 'mortality impacts'.

Air quality is poor for billions of poor because of cooking and heating using coal and biomass. Industrial societies show that air quality improves by electrification with affordable power if coal is the source.

Blog Carnival at ANS, and a New Blog with Attitude

The 101st Blog Carnival of Nuclear Energy is posted today at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  Once again, Dan Yurman has put together a great, wide-ranging Carnival, including:

• a book review (Superfuel about thorium molten salt reactors) reviewed by Rick Maltese at Thorium MSR,  
• why ExxonMobil is betting on higher natural gas prices in the future, by Rod Adams at Atomic Insights,
• projections of world nuclear power, and nuclear power in Turkey, but Brian Wang at Next Big Future,
• debunking nuclear energy nonsense (especially about Fukushima and San Onofre) by Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat
• important early history of nuclear power by Will Davis at Atomic Power Review
• the launch of the Nuclear Literacy Project at ANS Nuclear Cafe by Suzy Hobbs Baker
• competition for Small Modular Reactors at ANS Nuclear Cafe by Dan Yurman
• update on unit 2 of Fukushima by Leslie Corrice of HiroshimaSyndrome.

I ended with the Hiroshima Syndrome blog because there's a great new blog by MIT grad students, and it is called Things Worse Than Nuclear Power.  This is a blog with attitude, and I love it.  Some sample posts:

• Shipping waste and pollution Bunker oil ships versus nuclear ships.  Ships that burn fuel oil are mostly unregulated and highly polluting.
• Aspirin, by this logic  LNT and the lethal dose of aspirin

I ended with Les Corrice's Hiroshima Syndrome blog because I think that name also shows some attitude. Corrice believes much of the fear of nuclear energy is due to confusion between reactors and bombs, and he names his blog to reflect that. Similarly, a blog named Things Worse Than Nuclear Power shows a willingness to tackle misconceptions and make comparisons to other technologies.

Gosh, I would never have named my blog anything so provocative as Hiroshima Syndrome or Things Worse Than Nuclear Power. I think the names are great.

Of course, around some parts of Vermont, the statement Yes Vermont Yankee is pretty provocative in its own way!