Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Importance of the Nuclear Safety Culture

Ken Byrd
Ken Byrd
As director of engineering at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, I’m privileged to be part of a workforce of professionals who recognize their responsibility for upholding safety and make it a priority every day. The U.S. nuclear industry is one of the safest industries in the world, due to close regulation by federal authorities, highly trained and experienced professionals, and a vigorous “safety-in-depth” philosophy applied to the design and construction of our facilities.

But perhaps the defining characteristic of the nuclear industry is a culture that puts safety above all else in everything we do.

Our industry is guided by a set of 10 principles that outline the traits of a robust nuclear safety culture and remind us each of the important role we play in upholding the health and safety of our communities. When put into practice, the nuclear safety culture principles ensure we are meeting the energy needs of our customers while also protecting the environment, our communities and our workforce in the most safe and efficient way possible.

The principles are grounded in the concept of personal accountability, where each individual takes ownership for upholding nuclear, radiological and personal safety in all of their work activities. They also emphasize a healthy questioning attitude, rigorous decision-making practices, and a problem identification and resolution process which together ensure conditions and activities are continuously challenged and fully and effectively addressed. And importantly, the principles place a high value on maintaining an environment where nuclear workers are encouraged to raise safety concerns without fear of reprisal for doing so.

I’ve seen the importance of a strong nuclear safety culture first hand as a longtime employee of Davis-Besse. In the early 2000s, I was an engineering supervisor at the site when we conducted an extended shutdown to address some significant equipment issues. Through a very honest, critical look at our performance, we identified the need to improve our process for challenging existing conditions and activities to ensure that every decision and action supported safe, error-free performance.

It was a sobering process, to be sure. Yet every one of Davis-Besse’s employees, from the site vice president to the individual turning a wrench in the plant, recognized the experience as an opportunity to learn from the past – another of the safety culture principles – and produce nothing short of world-class performance in the future.
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
Today, Davis-Besse is realizing that goal. In addition to twice receiving a most improved plant award, the site has been recognized for excellence in operations by the U.S. nuclear industry for the past six years. Davis-Besse has consistently attained a forced lose rate – which measures the percentage of time a unit is not producing electricity due to an unplanned power reduction or outage – in the top ten percent of the industry, and our capacity factor is above industry average and significantly higher than other forms of generation. The safest plants are also the most efficient and productive facilities, and that’s especially important as we consider the important role of nuclear power in delivering environmentally-friendly and affordable power.

All of these accomplishments mean we are delivering safe, reliable, clean and affordable power to customers, when they need it. None of this could have been achieved without a strong nuclear safety culture as our cornerstone.

I am proud of what I have accomplished in my 36 years as a nuclear professional, and even more fulfilled by the safe and reliable operating record attained as a team by my peers across the industry. As our country moves towards a clean energy future, the nuclear industry is poised to lead that shift with safety as our top priority.

The above post was sent to us by FirstEnergy's Ken Byrd for NEI’s Powered by Our People promotion. It aims to showcase the best and the brightest in the nation’s nuclear energy workforce.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

From Beaver Valley to NEI: Answering the Why Nuclear Question

In my role as a Project Engineer in Security at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), I deal with questions every day. These questions involve language in the code of federal regulations, inspection findings, operational experience, etc. However, whether it is friends, coworkers, and/or industry peers, the most common question I have to answer is “Why nuclear?”

AJ Clore
AJ Clore
Six years ago I wouldn’t have been able to answer that question. That is when I first started as an Armed Security Officer at FirstEnergy’s Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station. Beaver Valley is a two unit site located in Shippingport, PA, which is about an hour northwest of Pittsburgh, PA. When I was hired in 2009 by Securitas, I was a rookie in the nuclear arena. I was aware of what nuclear energy was, but knew nothing about how a plant operated or the importance of nuclear.

The four and a half years I spent at Beaver Valley taught me the importance of protecting the health and safety of the public, as well as why it is important to understand how a plant operates and the equipment involved. It was during this time that I began to take a keen interest in nuclear energy. I found myself paying more attention to politics, researching and asking questions to individuals on site (e.g., outage workers, maintenance, operators and radiation protection technicians). As a security officer I got to know a lot of people at the plant.

Fast forward to 2013, I was privileged enough to bring my interest and experience to NEI. At NEI, I have learned the importance and value of nuclear energy, not only to the United States, but to the world.

Nuclear security is managed by NEI’s Nuclear Generation Division. Within our security section, I handle a multitude of different projects. My primary tasks include planning/developing agendas and managing NEI's annual Force-on-Force Workshop and National Nuclear Security Conference (NNSC). I also manage multiple task force projects related to security including security frequently asked questions, decommissioning, regulatory documents, and Force-on-Force. I work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on a daily basis on all of the aforementioned topics, as well as the Department of Homeland Security in matters related to nuclear security.

I thoroughly enjoy the work I do. Being at NEI allows me to interact with peers in different divisions, all striving for the same goals. The experience sharing and networking with nuclear industry subject matter experts in security on different projects has only added to my interest and fascination with nuclear that started in 2009.

One goal that NEI constantly strives for is innovation. In security, we look for innovation possibilities in everything that we do: ways to reduce burden on the nuclear industry, ways to change certain processes and procedures, and ways to promote safety and security in nuclear energy. In my role, I look with a fresh set of eyes at all security-related inspections a nuclear site has to have over the course of a year. We have had recent successes that have relieved some burden on the industry and have also been a cost savings. We continue to push forward to be innovative with our industry peers, the NRC and the public.

I will close by answering the most popular question I have been asked; “Why nuclear?”

I have spent almost 7 years in this industry and continue to learn every day. In that time I have learned the importance of nuclear, its beneficial uses, environmental benefits, reliability, safety and the role that nuclear plays in the energy arena. These are all answers that I have used to answer that question. My favorite answer to give is simple – “it is fascinating and interesting.”

The above post was submitted to us by NEI’s AJ Clore for the Powered by Our People promotion. It aims to showcase the best and the brightest in the nation’s nuclear energy workforce.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Tennessee vs. Florida: Rivals in Football & Nuclear Energy

Saturday afternoon will see the renewal of one of the greatest rivalries in college football when Tennessee visits Florida. But while the world might be riveted by the action in "The Swamp" tomorrow, our readers should know that the rivalry between these two members of the SEC extends far beyond the football field when it comes to nuclear energy.

Both Tennessee and Florida boast prestigious nuclear engineering programs, and here at NEI Nuclear Notes, we've told the stories about students from both schools who are well on their way to promising careers. Earlier this week, we told you about Alyxandria Wszolek, a senior majoring in nuclear engineering at Tennessee who will be stepping into a great job at Exelon when she graduates in 2016. In 2014, we published a story by Jitesh Kuntwala, then a graduate student in nuclear engineering at Florida, about how he and a group of Gators got together to lobby Gov. Rick Scott and Florida Power Plant Siting Board in favor of building Units 6&7 at Turkey Point. Today, Jitesh is a nuclear engineer with Duke Energy.

So who's #1? We'd like to hear what you think in our Twitter Poll. Today, we're asking the question: Which SEC school has the best nuclear engineering program: Tennessee or Florida? We'll keep the poll open until Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. Vote now!

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Engineering America's Diverse Energy Portfolio

My name is Alyxandria Wszolek and I am a senior at the University of Tennessee, majoring in nuclear engineering with a minor in reliability and maintainability. I could not be more appreciative of the Department of Nuclear Engineering here. I have been given so many opportunities and experiences through this school, and many doors have been opened to me.

Alyxandria Wszolek
Alyxandria Wszolek
Although I only recently accepted a full time job offer to work in the nuclear industry, I have been surrounded by it all my life and passionate about pursuing this career for many years. I have interned at Exelon Generation in BWR core design group, Reactor Engineering at Three Mile Island, and both Reactor Engineering and Electrical Systems at Nine Mile Point. I accepted a full time position at Nine Mile in Reactor Engineering. I am currently president of the University of Tennessee Women in Nuclear Section. I am also involved on a national level in the U. S. Women in Nuclear Communications Committee, serving as the Facebook lead on the Social Media Team. 

I always knew that I wanted to be an engineer. Engineers are the creators of the world we live in. Mostly everything you see and use throughout the day has been engineered in one way or another, whether it was designed, optimized, manufactured, etc. I want to do these things and I want to help change the world. That is how I came to become a nuclear engineer. We all use energy, and we take it for granted. But what would we do if we turned on the lights and nothing happened or if we couldn’t charge our phones or laptops? The demand for energy is increasing, more and more each day. Not only that, but there many countries that struggle with energy availability. Energy makes it easier to teach, create, innovate, heal, and develop. I believe we need nuclear to help solve these issues to help generate electricity in an affordable, emission-free, reliable way.

I truly believe that nuclear is the best form of energy production to supply large amounts of baseload power. Right now, our country relies heavily on fossil fuels, but when you look at the facts, nuclear is a lot more efficient. One uranium fuel pellet creates as much energy as one ton of coal or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Nuclear is an emission-free energy source. Even moving forward with renewable energy, we will need nuclear not only for the transition, but also to provide the reliable baseload energy that would be needed to support. There is danger in relying on one sole form of energy production. A diverse energy portfolio is key to the protection and growth of our country’s energy consumption.

The above post was sent to us for NEI’s Powered by Our People promotion. It aims to showcase the best and the brightest in the nation’s nuclear energy workforce.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

An Energy Truth Shines Through

Amb. Jim Nicholson 
From Jim Nicholson, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See from 2001 to 2005:
Well, there's another thing that I hope he [Pope Francis] realizes, and that is that the best way to help the poor in this world is to help them come out of that poverty and get electricity. There are over a billion people in the world that still do not even have electricity, and fossil fuel is the hope for that electricity. It's cheap, it's readily producible, and if you can't refrigerate medicine and you can't read in the dark, and you can't grow out of that poverty and there's a real link there, and the Holy Father, I think, needs to be very careful about this green movement that he sort of seems to align himself with in this encyclical on global climate change, and I hope that he will realize that.
One may disagree with most of what Nicholson says here. But not with his main point: “the best way to help the poor in this world is to help them come out of that poverty and get electricity.” It’s such an important message – and important for the public to understand - that we’ll take it wrapped however anyone cares to wrap it. The rest will be resolved in the fullness of time.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Finding Opportunities to Advocate for Nuclear Energy

As a child growing up on a farm in a small town in rural southwestern Michigan, I never imagined that one day I would be an engineer, let alone work at a nuclear power plant. I grew up in the 1990s watching The Simpsons – probably the worst stereotypical view of nuclear plant workers – and wasn’t even aware of nuclear energy in a different context. I certainly wasn’t aware of the amazing benefits that nuclear provides to America.

Terry Groth
Terry Groth
That all changed when I began my nuclear career. I majored in mechanical engineering at Western Michigan University. During my last semester, I applied to work at several companies in different industries but none of them afforded me the opportunity to have a major impact on society like working at a nuclear power plant does with all of its environmental and economic benefits to the local communities.

Southwestern Michigan will always be home for my family and me. Our great state has four nuclear reactors – Palisades Power Plant, Fermi Unit 2 and DC Cook Units 1 and 2 – which cleanly and reliably provide nearly 30 percent of the state’s electricity. But with the low cost of natural gas right now and the recent closure of a few nuclear plants, it’s essential for nuclear workers and proponents to advocate on behalf of the industry.

We must take every opportunity to explain that nuclear is a clean air energy, reliable, affordable and efficient. These discussions can happen in front of an audience at a local community college, face to face in the grocery store, with a social media post or retweet or even during a break at my son’s baseball game.

Being a nuclear advocate means I’m educating others about what I believe in. It also allows me to secure my family’s future in the great state that I love. Michigan’s four nuclear units provide thousands of dependable, well-paying jobs, as well as millions of dollars for state and local economies through taxes and contributions. Our communities would be devastated if nuclear power was no longer an option.

I take my nuclear advocacy role serious enough that I want to help others promote nuclear energy. Because of this, I am happy to be a member of my plant’s North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NAYGN) chapter. NAYGN works with the industry to align advocacy efforts around the country. It’s a great feeling to know that we’re a part of the hundreds of thousands of logged hours of activities to educate the public. It really makes you understand that yes, you as one person can make a valuable contribution to a more informed public. Into addition to NAYGN, the American Nuclear Society Young Members Group (YMG) also offers young professionals in our industry opportunities to engage in nuclear advocacy, professional development and advanced research.

I grew up as a 4-H member and the last line of our pledge was, “…for my club, my community, my country and my world.” I carry that pledge with me today, as a nuclear advocate; making sure the public is properly educated so my community, country and world are afforded all of the benefits of nuclear energy.

The above post was sent to us by Entergy's Terry Groth for NEI’s Powered by Our People promotion. It aims to showcase the best and the brightest in the nation’s nuclear energy workforce.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Swedish Study Examines Nuclear and Climate Change

From the land of lingonberries and aquavit:

In just two decades Sweden went from burning oil for generating electricity to fissioning uranium. And if the world as a whole were to follow that example, all fossil fuel–fired power plants could be replaced with nuclear facilities in a little over 30 years.

And if you did this?

Such a switch would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nearly achieving much-ballyhooed global goals to combat climate change. Even swelling electricity demands, concentrated in developing nations, could be met.

The Scientific American article says that this would be a heavy lift. Would it? The interesting thing is that someone worked out the numbers and figured it all out – well, at least the industrial and manufacturing parts. That someone would be Staffan Qvist, a physicist at Sweden’s Uppsala University.

Sweden gets about 50 percent of its electricity generation from hydro power and 30 percent from nuclear energy. Midnight Sun Land has had mixed feelings about nuclear, passing a bill to phase it out, then reversing course and deciding that new reactors can be built at existing facilities but only to replace end-of-life reactors. This torturous approach is a bit eye rolling – just split the atom, don’t split the difference. It’s as though Sweden has learned that nuclear energy has benefits it wants to leverage yet doesn’t want to seem too enthusiastic about it.

Scientific America’s write-up is good, though we wondered if we could get a look at Qvist’s study. And indeed, it is online and in English to boot. The title is (deep breath) “Potential for Worldwide Displacement of Fossil-Fuel Electricity by Nuclear Energy in Three Decades Based on Extrapolation of Regional Deployment Data.” The regions considered are Sweden and France.

Some features of the report seem obvious, but are not often stated in this context and can easily be overlooked as useful factors. Some of this reflects the growth of the industry over the last 50 years and what that means to countries who now want to implement nuclear energy now:

Countries adopting or expanding their nuclear production capacity today have comparatively little need to develop indigenous designs and supply chains in the way Sweden did, since turn-key products are available from a number of vendors on an open competitive market. It is considerably easier to buy plants and nuclear fuel internationally today than it was in the early days of the Swedish nuclear program, with a larger number of mature, internationally marketed commercial designs on offer today compared to the situation of the mid 1960s.

Nine of Sweden’s current fleet are home-grown boiling water reactors while three are American-sourced pressurized reactors. So Sweden did design and build most of its plants itself.

A lot of the paper is, as you’d expect, fairly dense, comparing coal to nuclear to determine their relative output. It all supports a conclusion that is loud and clear.

No renewable energy technology or energy efficiency approach has ever been implemented on a scale or pace which has resulted in the magnitude of reductions in CO2-emissions that is strictly required and implied in any climate change mitigation study—neither locally nor globally, normalized by population or GDP or any other normalization parameter.

The results indicate that a replacement of current fossil-fuel electricity by nuclear fission at a pace which might limit the more severe effects of climate change is technologically and industrially possible—whether this will in fact happen depends primarily on political will, strategic economic planning, and public acceptance.

I can’t imagine this being said any plainer.