Positive Signs for Nuclear Power:

Views from ANS Officers

This week, the Washington, DC local section of the American Nuclear Society had the unusual pleasure of hosting both the ANS President, Gene Grecheck, and the ANS Vice-President/President-Elect, Andy Klein.   What was particularly interesting is how many positive signs both speakers highlighted during their presentations.  They did acknowledge that all was not rosy, but overall, their comments reflected the fact that a lot of positive things have happened in the past year or so.  Taken one at a time, we sometimes don't realize that there are some changes on the horizon.    

Gene kicked off the session by stating that over 2 billion people in the world today have zero access to electricity, so talking about reducing demand globally is not meaningful.  He also noted that, while the Germans boast about shutting nuclear power plants, Germany's per capita CO2 emissions last year were higher than those of the US.   

I have been particularly interested in how the international market seems to be evolving, so I was quite interested when he shared with us some discussions he had at the COP21 with the leaders of some of the developing countries poised to buy nuclear power plants from Russia.  Gene said that they acknowledged to him that they don’t like the idea of being dependent on Russia.  However, their countries need power now, and any problem that may happen with the Russians will be after their term of office!  This seems like a reverse riff on the NIMTOO (Not In My Term of Office) mantra, that in the United States, has usually been interpreted as politicians delaying decisions on nuclear power plants (or other controversial infrastructure) until they get out of office.

While Gene did not shy away from pointing out recent negative events (nuclear power plant closings, low natural prices, counter-productive pricing mechanisms in the electricity market), he also noted a number of events in the past year or so that had at least some potential positive impacts for nuclear power:  COP21, EPA's Clean Power Plan, Wisconsin’s repeal of their nuclear power plant moratorium, the efforts of the New York Public Utilities Commission to assure the continued operation of some of their nuclear power plants, and recent high-level events in the United States, including the White House Nuclear Summit last November and the DOE Summit this week.

Andy Klein picked up on the positive theme in his remarks, noting several groups that have had  pro-nuclear events and messages, including Third Way, Breakthrough Institute, and others.  He noted that the message from some of these groups is particularly persuasive because they are not perceived as being part of the nuclear industry.  

He also discussed advanced nuclear technologies and small modular reactors, and their potential benefits, although both he and Gene were careful to note that more needs to be done to prove such technologies.  His comments about the start of the NuScale reactor were particularly interesting.  He credits DOE's Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) with helping get the project started, but he points out that, like many large research projects, the initial efforts were not without some glitches.  Since he will undoubtedly be telling this story to other audiences during his coming term as ANS President, I will not share all the details here.

Andy ended his discussion of advanced reactor R&D by showing the wide assortment of projects underway outside the United States involving different countries and different nuclear technologies.  Unfortunately, there was not enough time in the session for him to describe those in any detail, but the shear number of initiatives makes it clear that there are still a number of countries and organizations committed to developing the next generation of nuclear power.  

The two talks were followed by a brief Q&A, with both speakers addressing the questions.  During the Q&A, Gene made one particularly interesting observation.  He noted that there is an imbalance in the requirements on utilities when they build a power plant versus when they close one.  When a utility wants to build a power plant, they have to address all its impacts--the environmental impacts, the impacts on the community, etc.  They are not permitted to build or operate the plant until they demonstrate compliance with requirements and receive approval.  But when they want to shut a plant down, no approvals are required.  Shutting a power plant certainly has impacts on the environment (due to replacement power), on the local economy (employment), etc., but there is no requirement to address them.  It is the utility operator's economic decision.

Both speakers concluded with optimistic messages.  Gene's final slide read, "The world needs nuclear, and nuclear needs ANS."  Andy repeated that, and laid out some of his plans for ANS in the coming year.  Both Gene and Andy encouraged the active involvement of the nuclear community in ANS as a way to contribute to the positive message about nuclear power.

***

Nuclear Anniversaries--October:

More Nuclear Developments

This blog will finally end my catch-up activities to outline the significant milestones in nuclear power development that occurred in each month of the calendar year.  These were intended to be published in the month being discussed, but unfortunately, I fell behind, for which I apologize.  Now, if I just manage to publish one on November's events before the month is out, I will be up to date!

Let's get right down to it.  Major developments in the history of nuclear power during the month of October include:

Oct. 2, 1968:  First reactor to use U-233 as fuel (MSRE, Oak Ridge, TN)

Oct. 3, 1960:  First portable, modular reactor (PM-2A, Greenland/a US project)

Oct. 4, 1957:  First use of the centrifuge process to enrich uranium (Sverdlovsk-44, Sverdlovsk, USSR)

Oct. 10, 1962:  First use of nuclear power in a country not involved in nuclear weapons development; and first PWR in Europe (BR3, Mol, Belgium)

Oct. 11, 1954:  First professional society focused on nuclear technology (ANS, Oak Ridge, TN)

Oct. 12, 1943:  First plutonium extracted from a chain reaction (Seaborg Laboratory, CA)

Oct. 18, 1945:  First government agency to oversee civilian nuclear power (French CEA, Paris, France)

Oct. 19, 1957:  First privately owned and operated reactor connected to the grid; first license for a power reactor (VBWR, Pleasanton, CA)

October also saw the occurrence of two significant nuclear reactor accidents:  the accident at Windscale Pile 1, Sellafield, UK on Oct. 10, 1957, which was the first severe early reactor accident yielding contamination; and the accident at Fermi 1, Monroe, MI in Oct. 1966, which was the first full-scale reactor to experience a fuel-melt accident.

Further details on all these events and others are outlined in my book, "Nuclear Firsts:  Milestones on the Road to Nuclear Power Development." 

***



-->

Nuclear Power and Human Factors:

A Close Connection

I was very pleased to read recently that the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD/NEA) has just increased its emphasis on the human factors side of nuclear power. In particular, NEA "has created a new division to support its member countries in their efforts to further improve the human side of nuclear safety." The new Division of the Human Aspects of Nuclear Safety consolidates activities in the areas of training, safety culture and public communications, and encourages greater focus on such areas within member countries.

In fact, I'm more than just pleased.  I'm very gratified.  One of my areas of personal interest for the last dozen or so years has been knowledge management.  Knowledge management includes issues associated with assuring adequate training and other actions to assure that knowledge is transferred effectively within an organization.  My personal involvement in this latter area began when I was in the Office of Nuclear Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy and continued when I moved to the OECD/NEA as Deputy Director General from 2004 to 2007.  I therefore feel particularly pleased that the NEA has increased the attention it is devoting to training, as that will inevitably help with the knowledge management issues I tackled during my tenure there. 

In more recent years, I've become very engaged in explorations of the issue of safety culture as well, and have made a number of presentations in this area.  Safety culture is another important aspect of the enhanced human factors work the NEA says it will be doing, and I'm pleased to see that as well.  While both issues have been getting more attention at technical conferences and in other venues, and safety culture, in particular, has gotten a lot of attention since the Fukushima accident, I have still sometimes felt that work related to the human element was a footnote for many people in the nuclear field, and that a lot of engineers sometimes feel that you can completely engineer out the potential for people to affect the performance of a facility negatively.

I believe it is particularly valuable for safety culture to be addressed at an international level.  Since Fukushima, there is a growing recognition that there are some traits that have a societal connection--independence versus conformity, going along versus rocking the boat, etc.  There is less recognition that some of these traits are not all good or all bad.  Almost any human trait, carried to an extreme, has a downside.  There is also not enough recognition that individuals within a culture vary a great deal--and even more important, that people can be retrained to overcome behaviors they may have been taught.  What better place to deal with such issues than an international organization, where people of different cultures can have a chance to see how other cultures view issues of behavior at a nuclear facility, and can learn from each other?

I have had less personal involvement with public communications, although in some of my roles, particularly when I served as president of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), I have certainly had a chance to see the important impact public opinion can have on nuclear power, how public perceptions can be distorted by biased reports, and how important timely, accurate public information can be.

I therefore applaud the direction NEA is taking, and look forward to them making important contributions in the future to human factors issues in the nuclear area, including training, knowledge management, safety culture, and public communications.

***

Nuclear Energy Institute:

A Top Workplace

This week, the Washington Post published its survey on the best places to work in the Washington, DC region.  I was delighted to see that the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) made this list.  Kudos to the management and staff of NEI for this distinction!

The results were based on a questionnaire to the employees of 317 firms in the DC area who agreed to participate, and companies were ranked in categories based on their size.  NEI was ranked 44 out of 75 companies whose rankings were published.  (Companies ranked below the top 75 were not listed.)  The category "small workplace" appears to represent companies with fewer than 150 employees in the DC area.  NEI has about 120 employees.

According to the Post, one of the reasons that the survey results were divided according to size is that smaller firms generally tend to score higher than larger firms, so NEI's ranking might have been even higher if all the companies had been ranked against each other irrespective of size. 

The survey looked at a variety of measures of employee satisfaction, including feeling "connected to their workplace through meaningful work and the belief that their company is moving in the right direction," feeling genuinely appreciated by their employer, having confidence in their leadership, and, of course, pay and benefits.

Since I live in the Washington area and have worked on nuclear policy issues for many years, I have had frequent opportunities to rub elbows with NEI management and staff.  I have always found them to be highly competent, helpful, upbeat, and enjoyable to work with.  I should also add that they have been very supportive of various elements of the nuclear community, in particular, students, and they have housed and advised the American Nuclear Society (ANS) supported students in the Washington Internships for Students of Engineering (WISE) program for many years. 

However, I must admit that, if you had asked me if NEI would have come in high on a survey of good places to work, I might not have guessed that they would.  Why?  I can imagine that the work of the NEI staff is often frustrating.  After all, we live in an environment where members of the public and Congressional decision-makers often have strongly held, but very distorted, views of nuclear power.  The staff must often feel like they are beating their heads against a wall in their efforts to promulgate factual information. 

In addition, one must realize that NEI does not operate as a completely free agent.  They work for their member companies, and while their members all share an interest in nuclear power, the companies vary in size, in their other operations, and in the regulations of the regions in which they operate.  What is best for one company is often not best for others, and NEI must constantly balance and consider the different perspectives and needs of their membership.  This, too, can be a difficult, and sometimes unappreciated, challenge.

So, what is it that makes NEI rise to the top ranks as a desirable place to work?  NEI published its own analysis, which I think does a good job of highlighting the things that make NEI a special place.  Marvin Fertel, the president and CEO of NEI, said, "NEI thrives because we believe the most satisfied and engaged employees are those who enjoy their work environment; have good camaraderie with their colleagues; are able to maintain a vibrant work-life balance; have good health and wellness; are provided opportunities to grow their knowledge and skills, and feel that they are directly achieving our mission and vision." 

Marv Fertel's statement goes on to say how NEI actively promotes these elements through targeted, proactive programs to assure a good work-life balance, to foster a healthy, productive work environment, and to assure high job satisfaction and morale." 

The NEI article also emphasizes the commitment of NEI's employees to the importance of their mission, noting that, "NEI employees are extraordinarily committed to NEI’s core mission, which is to foster the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and commercial nuclear technology.  NEI employees feel that nuclear energy, as a clean-air source of electricity, plays a vital role in meeting the growing need for low-carbon electricity." 

So this survey makes me realize that, while I have sometimes felt sorry for the monumental difficulties that NEI often faces, the commitment the staff shares to the importance of their work, and the recognition and appreciation they see from their management, makes them enjoy the challenges.

So, congratulations again to NEI staff and management on this notable and well-deserved recognition! 

***

Octave Du Temple:

Some Personal Recollections

 I was saddened to hear, earlier in the month, that Octave Du Temple, the first Executive Director of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), died on March 7.  I have been trying to wait until an obituary was published to which I could link for a fuller account of his career, but I do not want to wait any longer.  A short bio appears on the ANS website, and a fuller story about his career, written about 5 years ago, appears on the website of Michigan Technical University (MTU), his alma mater.

Neither of these articles touch on the huge influence he had on the lives and careers of so many ANS members and others during the course of his tenure as ANS Executive Director.  I am sure that many stories of his influence will be told in the coming months as we all process the fact that he is no longer here to advise and guide us--and yes, occasionally to push and prod us.  This is my story.  

I first met Octave as a young professional, just out of graduate school.  To tell the truth, my meeting  him, and in a sense, much of my career, was shaped by a small, trivial thing--a pink badge.  As I've previously recounted, ANS, in the early 1970s, used pink badges for spouses of registrants at ANS conferences.  The first ever paper I was scheduled to present at a professional conference was at an ANS meeting in Washington, DC, where we lived, so of course, I invited my husband.  He did not like wearing a pink badge, and he wanted me to do something about it.

Taking on the establishment was not exactly my forte in those days, but I finally decided that I should start by doing a survey to convince the ANS management that there were other female members of the ANS, and that meant they might want to come up with a slightly more gender neutral badge (although I don't think we used words like "gender neutral" back then).

To make a long story short--or at least, shorter--getting ANS to support the survey brought me to his attention and led to an enduring friendship.  (And, yes, ANS ditched the pink badge.)  Octave had a unique way of providing guidance and assistance, whether it was for the survey or for other things I tackled later.  "You see," he'd say conspiratorially, "They're going to think--or say--this, so what we want to do is..."  And he would then outline some steps I should take, make some phone calls himself, or otherwise grease the skids.

It was through him that I made most of my initial contacts with the icons of the Japanese nuclear establishment, contacts that have, in many cases, endured to this day, either with the individuals he originally introduced me to, or with the people they, in turn, introduced me to.  The amazing thing was that I hadn't even asked him for help.  I had simply mentioned that I was planning a trip to Japan, and the next thing I knew, he had handed me a list of people in Japan that "you really ought to meet," and had called them to let them know I'd be contacting them.

He accompanied the first ANS delegation to China in 1983, which I was fortunate to join, and there, I also connected with many of his Chinese contacts.  His interests and knowledge extended well beyond the nuclear field.  He knew I was Jewish, and as we traveled overnight by train across China, I recall him coming into the cabin where my husband and I were staring into the darkness beyond our window to point out that we were passing Kaifeng, which had been the site of a small community with ancient, but mysterious, Jewish roots.

Over the years, we had conversations about many matters--ANS activities, of course, but also more general nuclear matters, and some non-nuclear matters as well.  I learned bits and pieces about his background, some of which are alluded to in the MTU link.  One thing that always impressed me is how, even many years later, he remained grateful to the people who gave him assistance early in his career.  He knew, for example, that I knew Manson Benedict, who had headed the Nuclear Engineering Department at MIT when I was a student there, so made a point to tell me that Manson's family held a special place in his heart for the scholarship that had enabled his education. 

He was also ahead of his times in many ways, and once told me that he was happy he was still the Executive Director when the first woman was elected president of ANS (Gail de Planque, who served as president in 1988-89). 

He influenced me in many ways, large and small, directly and indirectly.  I attended one event where he was called to the stage to make some remarks.  He pointedly walked to the side of the lectern on the stage instead of staying behind it, telling the audience that, being short in stature, he felt disconnected from them if he stood behind a box.  I took that observation to heart when I began to make a lot of presentations, and I have regularly driven conference organizers crazy as I insist that I don't want a microphone that pins me behind the lectern.

In fact, at one point, perhaps noticing how strong Octave's influence was on me, my husband jokingly started referring to him as "Uncle Octave."  I thought that was rather fitting, as he seemed to deal with me and so many others in the ANS as a kind uncle trying to provide help and guidance.

Although Octave retired more than 20 years ago, we kept in touch for quite some time via occasional e-mails and holiday cards.  In recent years, his replies dropped off, although a couple of years ago, in response to a card I had sent him, he sent me an e-mail to remind me to spell his name with a capital 'D' rather than a small 'd.'

So, even though I haven't seen him for a number of years now, I still feel a deep sense of personal loss knowing he is gone.  RIP, Uncle Octave.  

***
 

Food Irradiation:

Slow Progress

 When I was president of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) in 2001-2, I got interested in food irradiation.  I knew that unaged, unpasteurized cheeses, which I had enjoyed on trips to Europe, were not permitted for sale or distribution in the United States because of concerns about listeria, a bacteria that can be harmful, particularly to pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems.  I launched an effort to try to get temporary, one-time approval to irradiate the cheese to serve at a reception at an ANS conference, hoping that might ultimately lead to full approval for such products.

That effort was ultimately unsuccessful, but I have continued to monitor the status of food irradiation from time to time.

Therefore, I was very interested in recent news that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month approved the use of irradiation for crustaceans (shrimp, lobster and crabs).  As a side note, given last winter's cold weather has apparently decimated the supply of crabs in the Chesapeake Bay, I anticipate that a lot of the crabs in this area will come from elsewhere, likely making this FDA approval particularly timely for the Washington-Baltimore area.

So, the approval for irradiation of shellfish was the good news.  But, as a recent article on food irradiation in the Washington Post points out, it took 13 years to get that approval, and the last approval before that, for spinach and iceberg lettuce in 2008, took nearly 10 years.  That's the bad news.  Or at least some of the bad news.

The other bad news is the continuing efforts of small groups to fight the further use of food irradiation.  Their arguments are mostly hypothetical, minor, preventable, inconsistent, or just plain wrong.  Furthermore, a lot of the arguments against food irradiation are similar to arguments against the pasteurization of milk.  I wondered if there might be any messages in the story of how pasteurization came to be accepted.  Looking at this history, it took a combination of the endorsement by groups like the American Medical Association, an unfortunate typhoid epidemic in New York that killed thousands, and several decades.

While I certainly hope that it will not take such a tragedy to gain acceptance for food irradiation, the public should realize that, in fact, there have been illnesses and deaths from food contamination that would have been prevented had the food been irradiated.  In fact, the last large food poisoning incident occurred less than a year ago and sickened over 600 people. 

The other thing I learned from the Washington Post article was how very confusing and illogical our food laws are.  For example, the rules for indicating that a food has been irradiated (using the radura symbol shown at the left) are different for single food items, like shrimp, and for packaged food products, like frozen dinners.  Irradiation is treated as a food additive, when it is really a process, like canning or freezing, and not an additive at all.  Furthermore, it is considered an adulterant, which subjects it to the case-by-case approval process that has resulted in such long delays for approval.  This should be contrasted with the case for salt, for example, which is in the class of foods that are "generally regarded as safe."  As a result, salt can be used unlimited amounts in any food product, even though we know today that large amounts of salt are harmful to the health of a significant fraction of the population.

On a personal level, perhaps the most enjoyable fact I learned from the Washington Post article was that irradiated ground beef is available on the retail consumer market.  Only one supermarket chain was mentioned in the article, Wegman's.  Two mail-order providers are also mentioned, Schwan's Home Service and Omaha Steaks.  Although Wegman's is not a national chain, there happens to be one not too far from us, so on a recent foray, we picked up a package to sample.  It was clearly marked, but the store gave no indication of why they were selling it.

The Wegman's blog, however, provides just the kind of rationale that made me interested in irradiated cheese.  The blog has a very clear and open explanation of why Wegman's chose to sell irradiated ground beef--recommendations for food safety call for cooking hamburger to 160 degrees F, but a lot of their customers prefer a rarer and juicier burger.  (They sell unirradiated ground beef as well, so there is freedom of choice.)  While the Wegman's blog doesn't mention it, the reason they sell irradiated ground beef and not irradiated whole cuts of beef is that the bacterial contamination is limited to the surface of whole cuts of meat.  For ground beef, any contamination is spread throughout the product.  Hence, it must be heated to the center to destroy any bacteria. 

It struck me that this argument is very much in line with my interest in irradiated cheese.  It allows customers to enjoy a product with less taste-changing processing and greater safety.  What's not to like? 

Now that we've discovered a source, it looks like we will be able to enjoy rare, irradiated hamburger in our home.  Maybe there is hope yet for irradiated cheese.  I only hope I don't have to wait another 20 years for that.

***

Women and Nuclear:

Maybe We Have Come A Long Way!

I was very interested to see the results of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) election for officers and Board members, which were just announced today.  Three out of the four U.S. At-Large Directors elected to the ANS Board are women!  (They are Katherin Goluoglu, Gale Hauck, and Sandra Sloan.)  In fact, the non-U.S. At-Large Director, Sandra Dulla, is also a woman, so 4 out of the 5 new Board members are women. 

I may be dating myself, but when I first got involved with ANS, women in the Society were few and far between, and women in governance were even rarer.  In fact, the first time I ran for the ANS Board of Directors, the late Gail de Planque, who was one of the few women who had served on the Board to that time, was very upset when she saw that I was one of two women on the ballot.  Her thinking was that the membership might vote for one woman, but never two, so we might end up splitting the vote and both losing.  I'm happy to report that she was wrong.  It was probably one of the few times she was wrong, but both the other woman and I were elected.

But wait. There's more.  The incoming president, Mikey Brady Raap (shown on the left), is a woman, and Margaret Harding has just been selected to fill the remaining term of the treasurer following the recent unexpected death of Mike Lineberry, who had held that position.  Furthermore, two other women (Angie Howard and Heather MacLean Chichester) continue as members of the Board, making a total of 8 women out of 20 positions (and 2 of the 4 executive committee positions).


My point in making note of these election results is not intended to imply that a Board that is almost half women is going to be "better."  The ANS membership is fortunate in that we always have a strong slate of candidates, and the real pity is that we can't elect them all.  My point is a very personal reaction, perhaps reflecting on my conversation so many years ago with Gail de Planque, when I don't think either of us would have envisioned an election result like the one we saw from ANS today.

So, congratulations to the newly elected women, and ALSO to the newly elected men, and best wishes to both the new and continuing Board members as they work to lead the ANS in the year ahead.  

***

Nuclear Liability:

The Logic of Liability Regimes

Once again, I have seen an article criticizing the fact that nuclear liability regimes assign financial responsibility solely to the nuclear plant operator, thus appearing to insulate vendors from financial claims.  On the surface, these criticisms seem to have some logic--after all, who wouldn't want to go after the "real" culprit, if there is one; or after everyone, just to make sure?

This viewpoint, however, neglects to consider fully what the likely outcome would be of a system that tried to assign the "real" blame, or that opened the field to everyone suing everyone.   The likely outcome:  Chaos.  Delay.  Hugh litigation costs.  More delay.  Strong possibility of no compensation for victims. 

It is just those likely outcomes that motivated the originators of all the major nuclear liability compensation regimes (both US and international) to focus the responsibility on the operator.

There is a fundamental logic to that approach.  After all, we always say that it is the operator that is ultimately responsible for the safety of a nuclear plant.  Not the regulator.  Not the vendor.  Not the other suppliers.

Assigning the operator responsibility puts the onus on the operator to check what the vendor and other suppliers do, to hold them to the highest standards, not to skimp where safety is concerned.  While a blog like this is not the place to make final determinations about who knew what and when, and who should have done something about it, I can at least identify the type of questions one would have to address if one were to try to specify exactly who is to blame for the Fukushima accident.

Let's look at the article cited above, which advocates assigning responsibility for the accident to GE.  In the first place, the article identifies critiques of the GE BWR Mark I design by officials of the US Atomic Energy Commission dating from the early 1970s and gives that as a rationale for concluding that GE should take the blame.  However, the article does not note that modifications were made to that design and were implemented in US plants.  Operators--and regulators--in Japan should have known this.  So, who knew what?  When did they know it?  What did they do about it?

The article mentions that GE was "involved" in shaving down the cliff where Fukushima Dai-ichi was constructed, thus increasing its vulnerability to tsunamis.  I don't know what they mean by "involved."  Who recommended it?  Who approved it?  Who brought in the bulldozers?  I have a feeling that everyone shares some blame here, so who should be considered to have the ultimate responsibility? 

While the parallel may not be exact, some of the same thinking went into the approach used to compensate the families of the victims of the World Trade Center--and when presented with the option to litigate endlessly or to accept a one-stop, fixed-price compensation system, most opted for the latter.

I am not here to defend GE--or to vilify it.  I am just here to point out that multiple liability regimes have concluded that it is in the best interest of any injured parties to achieve a prompt resolution of claims, and that can best be done by assigning full responsibility to the one party where one can truly say, "The buck stops here."

As to the final argument in the article cited above, that accepting the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage would saddle the taxpayers of Japan either directly or indirectly with the cost of cleanup, that argument, too, has been considered by the framers of this convention, as well as of other liability regimes.

The liability regimes all establish provisions for substantial amounts of compensation that would have to be paid by utilities.  That compensation is expected to be more than adequate for most cases.  However, in very rare cases--and Fukushima is one--the regimes all recognize that governments do have an ultimate responsibility.  Governments have that responsibility for natural disasters, such as tsunamis.  Governments also have that responsibility for other industrial infrastructure.  The government responsibility has been recognized in actions following large industrial accidents and in compensation schemes for other industries.

The Nuclear Energy Institute and the American Nuclear Society have published good accounts of the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act, which is the US nuclear liability law, and give some examples of other industries that have similar liability limits.  The World Nuclear Association has a comprehensive piece covering the different international liability regimes (as well as some of the national ones).  I commend all 3 for further reading:

• NEI Fact Sheet on the Price-Anderson Act
• ANS Background Paper on the Price-Anderson Act
• WNA Information Paper on Liability for Nuclear Damage

***

ANS Conference:

A Wealth of Anniversaries

The theme of this year's American Nuclear Society (ANS) Winter meeting, which just concluded, was "75 Years of Nuclear Fission," so I fully expected a lot of reflection on this milestone event.  I was not mistaken.  What I did not expect was that a number of speakers would pick up on the theme of anniversaries, and would point out the fact that this year is a significant anniversary of several other milestones in nuclear history as well.

During the course of the opening plenary of the conference, we were reminded of the following milestones we can celebrate this year:

• It is 100 years since the discovery of the structure of the atom.

• It is 75 years since the discovery of fission.

• It is 65 years since the start of the Naval Reactor Program.

• It is 60 years since President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace address.

• It is the 20th anniversary of the Megatons to Megawatts program.

As the author of a book on nuclear history, I wrote about most of these events, so I feel a little chagrined I didn't think about all these anniversaries during the course of the year.  However, I'm glad that others reflect on history as well, and were thoughtful enough to mention the milestones in their remarks.

Speakers made note of how quickly we moved from the theoretical concept of nuclear fission to applications.  One plenary speaker, Dr. Sidney Drell, Professor Emeritus at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), reflected on fact that Enrico Fermi did an experiment in 1934 that resulted in fission, but he did not recognize it as such.  Ida Noddack, a German chemist, observed that there might be an alternative explanation to the one Fermi proposed, but her idea fell on deaf ears at the time.  Drell speculated that, had scientists heeded Noddack in 1934, Germany might have had the bomb before World War II. 

The organizers of the conference assembled an outstanding lineup of speakers to celebrate the 75th anniversary.  In addition to Dr. Drell, the opening plenary included: Ernie Moniz, Secretary of Energy; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; and Sam Nunn, former U.S. Senator.  The ANS President's Special Session that followed included: Allison Macfarlane, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Pete Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (who also spoke in several other sessions during the course of the conference); Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences; Dan Mote, President of the National Academy of Engineering; John Browne, Director Emeritus of the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Susan Eisenhower, Chairman Emeritus of the Eisenhower Institute; and Admiral John Richardson, Director of Naval Reactors.

These sessions were followed by a technical program that included many other distinguished members of the nuclear community, and spanned the whole scope of nuclear-related activities.  Particularly noteworthy were the 4 "embedded topicals" that took place during this meeting, covering risk management, small modular reactors (SMRs), nuclear nonproliferation, and a young professionals congress.   I gained many insights from the sessions I attended, far too many to cover in one post, but I hope to have a chance to weave some of these insights into future posts.

***

The Cost of Generating Electricity:

When the Free Market Isn't

I have been slow in commenting on the closure of Vermont Yankee announced a few weeks ago by Entergy.  This is because it is hard for me to know what to say.

In the end, it seems that the closure was triggered mainly by economics, and that some of the economic issues are so bizarre they simply make my head spin.

There are some economic issues I do understand.  Sort of.  I understand that the recent developments in the gas industry are leading to low costs for gas, making almost every other source of energy non-competitive.  I can argue that this is a short-sighted view, and I could wish the business world didn't have such a short-term view, but I understand that they do.

However, there are other economic issues that simply make no sense to me at all.  The fact that renewable energy suppliers are so heavily subsidized that they can bid negative numbers and still make money just doesn't make sense to me in a country that is supposed to be based on a free market.  Honestly, if I were Entergy, I would have given up long ago!

I have seen some very good coverage of this issue in other sources.  All the sources I respect feel, as I do, that something is irrational about what is happening.  Examples include a recent article in the New York Times by Matthew Wald, and a discussion on the American Nuclear Society (ANS) blog by Jim Hopf.

I do understand the government role in providing incentives to help new technologies get started, but the impacts of these incentives should be monitored to make sure they don't have unintended consequences.

As I see it now, we have subsidized renewables because we want to assure the viability of solar and wind power in the hopes of replacing dirtier and more polluting forms of energy supply, such as coal.  That might be a good idea--if that is what we actually accomplished.  However, what has really happened is that we have forced the closure of another source of clean power--that is, a nuclear power plant.

In the long run, the current situation is in no one's interest.  It will not lead to a cleaner environment and it will not lead to lower real costs for energy supply.  I do not know if the energy markets are as bizarre in other parts of the country, but if they are, it does not bode well for our national energy future.

***

Washington Internships for Students of Engineering:

The 2013 Season Kicks Off

2012 WISE Interns on Capitol Hill

Some readers may remember that I once wrote a post about a technology policy internship program called the Washington Internships for Students of Engineering.  The acronym for this program, conveniently, is WISE, and so the interns often call themselves the "WISE guys."

When I wrote that post in early 2012, I told readers that I had a long-time involvement with the program through the American Nuclear Society (ANS), which is one of the sponsors of the program.  Little did I know at the time, but a little more than a year later, I was selected to be the "faculty member in residence" for the 2013 season.

The program starts next Monday and runs for 9 weeks, until early August.  During that time, I will arrange for the 14 rising college seniors in the program to visit a number of government agencies and other organizations in the Washington area, and will supervise them in the research on a technology policy topic and the preparation of a research paper.  I will be aided in that effort by mentors from the 7 engineering Societies, including the ANS, who collectively sponsor and manage the program.

I anticipate that I may find some interesting fodder for this blog in my work with the WISE interns this summer, so I thought I'd use this post as an introduction.

I will preserve the anonymity of the interns, in this blog and in any others I do on WISE, so I will not provide names or other identifying information.

The 14 students come from 13 schools in 11 states.  They have already identified their tentative research topics.  A majority of the topics have something to do with energy use--either energy supply (nuclear power and natural gas), energy demand (biodiesel fuel, fuel cells, and other transportation-related options, and energy efficiency in homes), and energy transmission (smart grid).  Two topics are on water management, and one each is on telecommunications, radioisotopes, and technology for the disabled.

I cannot tell at this point what the summer will bring, but I suspect that I will watch the interns learn a lot about technology policy, and at the same time, I will learn a lot about how the upcoming generation deals with their first exposure to live "inside the Beltway."  If I have some interesting observations, I'll be sure to share them.

***

The Saga of a Book:

Business Opportunity or Scam?

I had occasion to open the Amazon page for my book, Nuclear Firsts, recently, and was taken aback to see that it is selling for over $300 for a new copy, and for anywhere from $100 to $400 for a slightly used copy.

I guess I still have a lot to learn about the book-selling business, when ANS is selling the book for $45!  It makes the ANS price really look like a bargain, doesn't it?

I'm beginning to wonder if I should buy out ANS's stock and resell the books to the companies hawking the book on Amazon for such inflated prices.  Or, get in the business of reselling the books myself on Amazon.  I could easily undercut the competitors and still make a profit.

I must be missing something here.  Maybe I should stick to nuclear engineering.

*** 

John Landis:

Remembrance of a Nuclear Pioneer

I recently had an e-mail message informing me of the death of John Landis on March 16, 2013 at the age of 95.  I haven't noticed the news elsewhere, so although there are others who certainly know John better than I did, I wanted to devote this post to citing his accomplishments and his contributions to the nuclear field, some from my own personal knowledge and some from his obituary. 

I did know John through some American Nuclear Society (ANS) activities.  John was one of the founders of ANS, and served as its president from 1971-2.  I did not get active in ANS until some time after that, but I always heard him referred to as one of ANS's most outstanding presidents.  What I do know about John and the ANS is that he continued to be active in ANS--and to be an ardent supporter of ANS--for the rest of his life.

Particularly noteworthy is his financial support of the ANS through the John and Muriel Landis Scholarship for disadvantaged students of nuclear engineering.  Over the years, a number of these scholarships have been awarded, and I know it's made a difference in the lives and careers of many students.  It is through these scholarships that I got to know John, during the time I served as chair of the ANS Honors and Awards Committee.  (One of the really nice things about serving in this role was that I received letters from several students sharing their stories of how ANS scholarships, including John's, made a real difference to them.)  Later, as ANS president, I always felt I walked in the shadow of John and several other luminaries of the nuclear field who had preceded me as ANS presidents.

From John's obituary, I learned more details of his career than I ever knew when I worked with him.  While I always knew he was a pioneer in the field, I did not know just how much of a pioneer he was until I read his obituary.  A key excerpt summarizes a lot of his "firsts":

• John's 50-year career in the nuclear industry started in 1950 when he began working for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in Washington, D.C. He participated in developing the rudimentary ground rules for the design of nuclear power plants. He oversaw some of the first research projects on nuclear energy and prepared material for some of the earliest courses in reactor technology.
•  
• In 1953 John joined the Atomic Energy Division of the Babcock and Wilcox Company. In 1955 he was put in charge of the Division's operations in Lynchburg, Virginia: the world's first privately-owned center for nuclear research, development, and testing. In 1961 John was named Manager of the Atomic Energy Division. While at Babcock and Wilcox, he oversaw the design of the reactor for the first civilian nuclear ship, the N.S. Savannah. He also contributed to the inception and design of the nuclear power station at Indian Point, New York, the first built in the U.S. without government subsidy.

 I was interested to discover that these were some of the key events I profiled in my book on nuclear firsts, so I know from my own research that the areas cited above were some of the key milestones in the early days of nuclear power development.

Clearly, we have lost one of the giants in the field, both in terms of his technical contributions to the field, in terms of his contributions to the ANS, and in terms of his support of students.  He truly had a positive influence on the lives and careers of many people.  My condolences to his family and to his many friends and admirers. 

***

Glenn Seaborg:

My Favorite Memory

This post was inspired by Will Davis, who blogs at Atomic Power Review.  Sometime in January, Will solicited stories about "favorite nuclear artifacts" for a planned post on the ANS Nuclear Cafe blog.  I had a couple in mind, but was still on the road, completing an 8-week, around-the-world trip, so I put it off until I returned.  OK, OK, I know it's an excuse, but I do think it trumps the "my dog ate my homework" excuse!

Alas, by the time I got around to writing up my story, I was just hours too late.  A couple of hours after I hit the send button, I got a message that his blog of people's favorite nuclear artifacts was posted.  If you haven't read those stories, I recommend you do--after you read the rest of my post, of course.

After consulting with Will, we've agreed that I should post my story on my own blog. 

The story of my favorite nuclear artifact relates to two meetings I had with Glenn Seaborg. 

When I was a junior or senior in high school, I won an all-expense-paid trip to Washington, DC, for a student science fair or a science symposium.  (I can't recall specifically what the event was.)  One of the luminaries we met was Glenn Seaborg, who, at the time, was Chairman of the old Atomic Energy Commission.  I was just gaga--a Nobel Prize winner and the head of a major government agency.  Who would think I'd ever meet such a person, let alone at the tender age of 16 or 17?  For me, this was better than meeting a rock star!  Somehow, I got up the nerve to thrust the program for the event in his hand and ask for his autograph.  He graciously complied.  I had the program for a long time, but over the decades, it disappeared somewhere in the recesses of my parents' basement.

Cut to a time many years later, when I was Chair of the ANS Honors and Awards Committee.  We had just established the Glenn Seaborg Award, and he was asked to present the very first award.  As Chair of the H&A Committee, I had the honor to sit next to him at the luncheon preceding the awards ceremony.  Desperate to make conversation with this man, who I still regarded with awe, I recounted to him that he had once given me his autograph, but alas, I was embarrassed to admit to him that it had been misplaced.  Without a moment's hesitation, he said, "Then I must give you another autograph."  Before I could say another word, he grabbed my copy of the H&A awards luncheon program, which had been sitting by my dinner plate, and signed it! 

Alas, over the years, that autograph also eventually disappeared, this time in the recesses of my own basement.  However, it is still there somewhere, and just as soon as I have a chance to go through my basement :-), I'm sure I'll unearth it.  This time, I'll give it a place of honor.  To me, it symbolizes the fact that, as famous a man as he was, he remained a true gentleman.

***

Post-Fukushima Activities in the US:

American Nuclear Society and Utility Initiatives

Two related pieces of news crossed my desk yesterday. Both have to do with decisions and actions by US entities in the follow-up to Fukushima.

The first news item was the release of a study of the Fukushima accident by the American Nuclear Society (ANS). (Conflict-of-interest alert--I'm a former President of the ANS.) The study, chaired by former NRC Chairman Dale Klein and University of Wisconsin Professor (and President-Elect of the ANS) Michael Corradini, provides a review of the accident and makes some recommendations. Particularly noteworthy is a conclusion that has been widely circulated in the press that the report concludes that emergency zones around nuclear power plants "should not be based on arbitrary mileage designations," and that the necessary changes "in some cases could expand the standard 10-mile evacuation zone."

Unfortunately, these statements do not appear in the report itself. The report contains only a more neutral statement on emergency planning: "The U.S. nuclear community recognizes the need for a clear approach to emergency planning in case of a serious accident. We recommend that the NRC work together with other agencies and industry to develop a more risk-informed approach to emergency planning for U.S. NPPs."

This neutral statement is correct, but it skirts the very points that make the press reports compelling. In trying to track down the source of the quotes, I discovered that ANS developed a set of talking points for the media events. The talking points go a bit farther. The quote about the arbitrary mileage designations comes from the talking points, but the specific comment about possible expansion of the 10-mile zone does not. Rather, it seems to have come from an Associated Press interview with one or both of the primary co-authors of the report.

I was especially interested in the conclusion about the 10-mile zone because it has been my observation that many people in the media fail to draw a distinction between the ANS and industry groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The report itself takes pains to mention the distinction, but critics might point out that most of ANS's positions are aligned with industry interests. I am glad to be able to point to a statement by ANS that provides evidence that the ANS is--as it should be--willing to take positions, when warranted, that could favor more stringent requirements. I only wish they had included this discussion in the report itself.

The second news item was a report that the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is criticizing industry, claiming that industry is trying to skirt new NRC requirements that haven't even been finalized yet. Specifically, UCS is taking aim at the utility industry for implementing improvements to the current fleet of reactors as a response to the Fukushima events prior to the publication of final NRC requirements. This one is puzzling, as I more often find the UCS and other critics of the nuclear industry complaining that the industry is dragging its feet! In this case, the industry is getting out ahead of the curve, and they are still being criticized.

The point of the UCS criticism, as I understand it, is that industry is racing to stay ahead of requirements the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) might require in the expectation that they will be able to use their political influence to avoid other, possibly more costly, changes.

All I can say is that this presumes a lot. It presumes that the utilities are acting primarily to position themselves for a later political fight, and not to protect their multi-billion dollar investments. It presumes that the NRC requirements will be significantly different and more stringent than what the utilities are doing, even though the barrage of information that has circulated about the vulnerabilities seem to point clearly to certain kinds of actions. It presumes that the utilities will be successful in exerting political pressure to avoid taking safety-related measures, even though the politicians, the media, and the public are all now hyper-sensitive to issues of nuclear power plant safety.

Rather than criticism, the nuclear utilities deserve credit for being pro-active on the post-Fukushima changes. After all, NRC repeatedly makes the point that the utilities have the first line of responsibility for the safe operation of their plants. These actions are evidence that the utilities are meeting that expectation.

So rather than seeing negatives, I see this week's actions by the ANS and the utilities as demonstrating that major nuclear organizations in the US are shouldering their responsibilities appropriately.

***

These Plants Are Your Plants:

A Nuclear Song Some time ago, I wrote a blog about a nuclear song called Neutron Doodle. In it, I alluded to an earlier set of lyrics I had written, but the only link I gave for the lyrics was to a member-only American Nuclear Society site. Recently, I was reminded of both songs by a thread I was following in a LinkedIn group I belong to that was talking about the potential value of a nuclear song in helping shape the image of nuclear power. That reminded me of the old posting, and when I provided it to them, I realized I ought to make the lyrics of my song more publicly available as well. So here they are: These Plants are Your Plants (sung to the tune of "This Land is Your Land," by Woodie Guthrie) Lyrics by Gail H. Marcus

These plants are your plants These plants are my plants From their cooling towers To their nuclear islands From the U.S. Heartland To its coastal waters These plants were made for you and me. As I was walking That ribbon of highway I saw before me A smogless skyway And sparkling waters Were flowing my way These plants are good for you and me. The children were laughing And people were singing At all the wonders The power was bringing The lights were shining And the bells were ringing These atoms split for you and me. And at the plant sites The workers labored To use the atom To help their neighbors With clean safe power To fuel all nations These plants bring joy to you and me. These plants are your plants These plants are my plants From their cooling towers To their nuclear islands From Europe's vineyard To Asia's water These plants were made for you and me. ***

The ANS Conference:

Lots to Think About

I'm a little late reporting on the American Nuclear Society conference, which took place June 13-17 in San Diego, but I have been trying to synthesize in my mind some of my many observations during the course of the meeting, and I only now feel I can add something to the reports that have already been written.

In the first place, the meeting appeared to be very successful. Strikingly, although the economy is still in the doldrums, the meeting attendance was up--very much so for a summer meeting, which usually draws a smaller crowd than the winter meetings. More than 1400 people attended. Although I could not get statistics, I was also struck by the number of non-US attendees. Again, there are usually more foreign attendees at the fall meeting, particularly every other year when the fall meeting is in Washington, DC.

There are several possible reasons for this, one of which may be the renewed interest in nuclear power. Companies that haven't sent people in the recent past may be re-engaging. Another factor might have been the fact that additional people were drawn to the meeting by the three "embedded topicals" held simultaneously with the meeting. The three were: the International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP); Second International Meeting on the Safety and Technology of Nuclear Hydrogen Production, Control and Management (ST-NH2); and Nuclear Fuels and Structural Materials for the Next Generation Nuclear Reactors. The international nature of these meetings may also have contributed to the high number of non-US attendees.

The number of simultaneous conferences, of course, made for many competing sessions, and the only downside was that it was sometimes difficult for me to hear everything I wanted to hear. I necessarily had to be selective, and although I heard from others about sessions I missed, my report reflects what I was able to see and hear firsthand.

The opening plenary was a good kickoff for the conference, with talks by NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, Dick Stratford from the Department of State, Nuclear Energy Institute CEO Marv Fertel, Hitachi-GE President Masaharu Hanyuu, and Ross Ridenoure of Southern Cal Edison.

I was particularly interested that both Marv and Ross offered very thoughtful cautions about the potential entry of so many new nations to nuclear power. While the idea of more nations having nuclear power seems attractive in some respects, Marv cautioned that there is a need to assure that new entrants have the competence to operate nuclear power safely, and Ross wondered about the ability of the grids in some smaller countries to support nuclear power. Small reactors would seem to be a large part of the answer to that, but turning again to Marv's comments, he indicated that he saw a definite role for such reactors in the future, but he noted that all reactors look good on paper, and hoped that the small reactor community would learn from the mistakes of the large reactors. Another interesting observation offered by Marv is that no technologies are completely proliferation resistant. We need both good technologies and institutional controls.

There was much more to the session, of course, including a lively Q&A exchange on the new NRC-commissioned study by the National Academy of Sciences on the effects of radiation around nuclear power facilities, and a very comprehensive summary by Dick Stratford of the status of the various nuclear agreements between the US and other countries, and the reasons behind the approaches taken, the reasons some agreements have moved or stalled, etc. It was a fascinating look into international diplomacy.

I would be remiss if I did not conclude my discussion of the opening plenary by congratulating Dick Stratford on receiving the Smyth award at this meeting. (The Smyth Award is the highest recognition given jointly by ANS and NEI. Its recipient must have international stature in a broad area of the nuclear energy field and must have made significant contributions toward the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.) Marv Fertel presented the award to Dick, and in his acceptance of the award, Dick noted that his former boss and mentor, Dick Kennedy, had received the same award in 1998, but in Dick Kennedy's case, the award was made posthumously. Dick Stratford opined that he was very glad that his award wasn't posthumous!

In other sessions, one thing that was notable to me were that a number of presentations were made by people looking at the role of nuclear energy in a broader context. These included looks at the implications of very large-scale energy storage to allow nuclear power to meet peak loads by Professor Charlie Forsberg of MIT and two of his students (Isaiah Oloyede and You Ho Lee), and an interesting proposal by Cal Abel, a student at Georgia Tech, to replace coal-fired plants with nuclear plants, but to maintain the coal--and rail--industries by converting coal to natural gas to replace imported petroleum for transportation needs.

In addition, there were many talks that covered advanced reactor technologies, both large and small, and both water-moderated and other. In addition to talks from the developers of some of these technologies, there were some more general discussions of regulatory issues and the like. Still other talks that I attended addressed issues of financing or issues associated with the national strategies of particular nations, including potential new entrants such as Jordan. Rather than trying to offer a complete synopsis of sessions I attended (which would only be a subset of the meeting anyway), I hope to bring in further comments and insights as appropriate when I address particular subjects in the future.

My own small role in the meeting was to organize and chair a plenary session in the embedded topical on nuclear hydrogen covering some of the nuclear hydrogen programs around the world. In opening the session, I had to observe that, when we organized a similar session at the meeting in Boston 3 years ago, I had six countries and IAEA represented. At this meeting, I had only 3 countries and IAEA in the program (and due to a last minute health problem, the speaker from China could not attend). The 3 countries who did not participate this time were South Africa, France and Russia. The three countries who were on the program were all in Asia (Japan, Korea and China), and the two who were present both reported slowdowns of their activities.

Thus, as always, different activities proceed at different rates. The good news is that in most cases, the slowdowns appear to be temporary. In some cases, they may be related to belt-tightening by governments, and in other cases, they seem to be a pause to take stock and possibly redirect focus. Whether the slowdowns will stretch out, I cannot guess at this point, but given the current interest in nuclear power on other fronts, nuclear hydrogen efforts could well be reinvigorated in the months ahead.

***

ANS Conference:

New Energy for Nuclear Energy

I've now had a day or two to reflect on the recent American Nuclear Society Winter meeting held in Washington DC last week. If the meeting was any indication, there is certainly new energy in the air for nuclear power. The conference, as those who have ever attended an ANS conference will know, sometimes seems like a three-ring circus, with multiple parallel sessions, industry exhibits, a raft of committee meetings for those involved in governance, and many friends and acquaintances to catch up with. No one person can capture all that goes on in the conference, and indeed, after every meeting, I eagerly await the issue of Nuclear News a couple of months later that summarizes some of the sessions I was unable to attend.

So rather than report the nitty-gritty from those sessions I chose to attend, I'll restrict myself to some general observations that I think suggest the changes I see happening:

• First, and perhaps most obviously, the attendance at the meeting was up. The final number of registrants was just over 1600, almost double the attendance at the beginning of this decade, if my memory serves me right.

• Not incidentally, the number of exhibitors has increased substantially. I spoke to the exhibit coordinator, and he said the available space was virtually sold out. I also asked some of the exhibitors how the show was going for them, and everyone I spoke to seemed pleased.

• The Young Generation-Nuclear group has continued to gain in numbers and level of activity. A major initiative at this meeting was a day of visits to Capitol Hill on the last day of the meeting. I attended the kickoff for this event, and was pleased to see the turnout and the enthusiasm. One of my initiatives when I was ANS president had been to try to encourage more of this kind of grassroots activity among the membership, and I am glad to see that more members now see the value of this kind of activity.

• Perhaps the most interesting development came at the very beginning of the meeting. I was surprised to see that the final program showed 1) such a long list of speakers, and 2) so many prominent speakers. No fewer than 10 speakers were listed. Three of them were very high level government officials: NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko, DOE Secretary Steven Chu (via video), and DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Warren F. "Pete" Miller. Three were current Members of Congress: Senators Jeff Bingaman and Lamar Alexander, and Representative James E. Clyburn. One was a former Member of Congress, Senator Pete V. Domenici. There were also three non-government speakers: Michael "Mike" J. Wallace (Vice Chairman and COO, Constellation Energy), and the General Co-Chairs of the conference, Carl Rau (President, Bechtel Nuclear Power) and Mark H. Ayers (President, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO).

As an old Washington hand, I just knew that among all these high-level people, there would be some no-shows. In Washington, when you invite speakers of that ilk, you must always be prepared for the unexpected crisis that will pull your speaker away. I assumed that was why the organizers had so many "extra" names.

How wrong I was. Not only did every one of these speakers show up, one additional Senator showed up! Senator Jim Webb joined Senator Lamar Alexander in announcing that they were introducing bipartisan legislation on that day, "The Clean Energy Act of 2009," to invest in nuclear energy development. I do not know how if such major legislation has been rolled out at an ANS conference before, but I know that it hasn't happened often.

My second concern had been that, if all the speakers showed up, we might be there through lunch, but once again, I was pleasantly surprised. Every one of the 11 speakers kept to the time, and we finished the opening plenary on schedule. Kudos to all the speakers and organizers for that almost unprecedented performance!

The meeting, of course, covered much, much more, but suffice it to say that, from the opening plenary session, to the exhibit hall, to the buzz in the hallways of the Omni Shoreham Hotel, the mood of the ANS conference has changed. As someone said in one session, "A few years ago, we were talking about decommissioning. Now the talk is focusing on new nuclear power plants."

***

Irradiated Cheese:

Cheese and Nuclear Energy

I don't know why it is that I keep coming back to cheese as a theme, when the overall topic is nuclear energy. (See my previous essay for the JANUS series in this blog or on the JANUS website.) Maybe it's because I like cheese. Whatever the reason, a recent article from MIT called "Against the Common Gouda," discusses some concerns of cheese-makers about US rules on cheese production. This article reminded me of a past initiative of mine. Although it is not about nuclear power per se, and although it was unsuccessful at the time, it is probably of interest to the same community, and it may be time to raise the issue again.

The issue, for those who may not be familiar with it, is that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that either pasteurized milk be used for cheese made and sold in the US, or that cheese made from unpasteurized milk be aged for at least 60 days before it can be sold. The concern is that cheese that is unpasteurized and not aged can carry a bacteria known as listeria that can cause illness in humans.

By contrast, some other countries do not require either pasteurization or aging of their cheeses. In particular, France does not have these requirements, and I think most people would agree that, when it comes to cheeses, the French know their stuff. Those of you who have lived or traveled in France know that there are a number of soft, fresh cheeses that are either not available here--or if they are, the pasteurization required here has made them a shadow of what they could be.

Now, in the first place, one can question the need for the rigid US rules. In the three years I lived there, during which time I had the pleasure of eating many fresh cheeses, I did not see reports of massive illness due to the consumption of unpasteurized cheeses. In fact, I didn't see any reports of illnesses. The French--and as the MIT article relates, many artisanal cheese makers in the US--believe that careful attention to cleaning of the equipment used in cheese making makes the process safe and hygienic.

Furthermore, the small population that may be particularly susceptible are taught the risks and behave accordingly. Female friends in France told me that pregnant women in France know that they are not supposed to eat unpasteurized cheese. The entire population is not denied because the cheeses may present more of a risk to pregnant women. Just as Americans are not denied access to wine just because pregnant women should limit their consumption of wine.

But where, you might ask, does nuclear energy come in to this picture? Well, the listeria can also be killed by irradiation. So, to paraphrase a famous quote, pregnant women could have their unpasteurized cheese and eat it. However, the same FDA that doesn't allow the sale of unpasteurized/unaged cheeses also does not permit cheese to be irradiated.

About 10 years ago, when I was president of the American Nuclear Society, I tried mightily to address this issue. I hoped to serve irradiated, unpasteurized/unaged cheese at one of our receptions. First, I had to confirm that irradiation would not change the taste or texture of the cheese. For that, I enlisted the help of some friends in France, who had some cheese irradiated and convened a small group of experts to taste the cheese. Alas, I could not join them! However, they reported to me that they felt the irradiated cheese had the same taste and texture as the unirradiated cheese. So, there was success on the French side.

However, when I turned to the FDA to seek permission to import the cheese, I was rebuffed. I initially requested just a one-time exemption, knowing that a full rule change would take more time. Even that was rebuffed. I then turned to Congressman Joe Barton, who had an interest in this issue. He and his staff made heroic efforts to get the FDA to change its position, but to no avail.

That was 10 years ago. Perhaps now, with the increasing interest in artisanal production of foods, the situation might be different. The MIT article didn't mention irradiation as a possibility at all. In fact, I might imagine that small-scale farmers and cheese makers might initially be turned off by the idea, as it might seem counter to their idea of more "natural" food.

However, the use of irradiation would address a lot of concerns: What if all producers do not consistently maintain the high level of cleanliness required? What if we do not manage to educate all pregnant women and others with compromised immune systems? Irradiating fresh cheeses can address those concerns, and open the US market to a broader and more interesting array of cheeses. As one who misses some of the cheeses I ate in France, I would like to encourage all those involved to reconsider the use of irradiation for cheese.