Peter Collopy has a master”™s degree in environmental engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy and is board certified in occupational safety, industrial hygiene and health physics ”“ the radiation protection discipline. He has 35 years experience in nuclear energy with 10 years as the radiation protection manager of boiling water reactors similar to the Fukushima reactors and pressurized water reactors similar to the Indian Point systems. Collopy lives in upstate New York and currently works as a project manager on large scale radiological/chemical remediation projects and as a risk analysts for Atlanta-based MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, with 80 offices internationally.
They have had a magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan that is impacting nuclear plants as this is being written. There are few examples in the world of such interconnectedness where commodity availability (such as plutonium) is not the problem: They sneeze, proverbially and albeit tragically, and we catch a cold. Why is it this way with nuclear power?
“While nuclear power is being singled out by this event, it”™s important to point out that other technologies, such as high-hazard biological research, also undergo high levels of scrutiny and skepticism. There is nothing wrong with this scrutiny as it is an essential part of our democratic process. As a proponent of the use of nuclear energy for generating power and as a potential future means to generate hydrogen for fueling our road vehicles, I am satisfied that the public will support the safe generation of electricity from nuclear power sources.
“Dr. Peter Sandman, an expert on risk communication, has summed up the human perception of risk as ”˜risk = hazard + outrage.”™ It is natural to view the radiation risk as more dangerous than other hazards because it is invisible and because people associate nuclear power with the horrific bombings of WWII. There is a feeling we can”™t control our exposure to radiation and the potential cancer outcome from exposure is extremely frightening. Those factors create a great sense of outrage and thus a feeling of extreme risk. The perceived risk is often far worse than the actual risk. The public is much more frightened of radiation exposure than nuclear plant workers for whom it”™s an occupational hazard.”
Do you think the Fukushima accident diminishes the ability to get a nuclear power plant built in the U.S.?
“I would hope that a thorough evaluation of the accident, the causes and the lessons learned will be performed to make the building and operation of nuclear power plants in the U.S. even safer. The most recent reactor designs are significantly different than those of the Fukushima reactors (which were built in the 1960s and 1970s) and inherently safer, but it”™s important that the nuclear industry demonstrates an understanding of the Fukushima event and the potential impacts on our nuclear systems.
“If the industry can show the public that the lessons learned have been incorporated into both the current operating plants and the designs for those yet to be built, then the public will be much more inclined to support future construction. Nuclear power provides over 20 percent of the electric power in the U.S. and is a vital component of our energy security. The U.S. nuclear industry has shown an excellent safety record since the Three Mile Island event and in my opinion will continue to demonstrate a high level of competence as the public learns of their response to this event.”
What about relicensing? Will Indian Point face tougher scrutiny now than prior to the accident in Japan, in your opinion, as it seeks relicensing?
“Absolutely. The public will insist on an evaluation of the likelihood of a ”˜Fukushima event”™ occurring at the Indian Point facilities. It is important that the industry be able to clearly show that this type of event is extremely unlikely and that if such an event ever were to occur, that the measures needed to minimize its impact to members of the public and the plant operating staff will be in place and capable of being implemented.”
Should the Japanese plants get an asterisk because, unlike errors that caused Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, who can predict an earthquake?
“Well, seismologists can estimate the probability of an earthquake within a several hundred-year period. But they still can”™t predict an exact date and magnitude for an earthquake. It is exceedingly difficult to predict large earthquakes on a decade timescale, much less within a given year. Therefore, it is critical that nuclear reactor designs can withstand the highest likely earthquake magnitude for a given geographical area.”
Indian Point bills itself as greener than the grass of the Yankee infield. If Indian Point were to close, how much oil or coal would be required to replace it?
“Well, it”™s a megawatt for megawatt tradeoff so we are talking about 2,000 megawatts between the two plants, which is equivalent to building five to eight coal plants. Building a replacement oil-fired plant to generate electricity would be folly. Of course, we should also ask if other types of trade-offs such as natural gas, solar, geothermal or energy conservation are practical and economic to implement. That will be the core of the debate if Indian Point is not relicensed and the energy deficit caused by its shutdown cannot be quickly and adequately compensated by other technologies.”
We have geologic faults in this area and even occasional minor earthquakes. Is there anything in the geological record to indicate Indian Point could suffer from a massive temblor as was experienced in Japan?
“I am not an expert in seismology. My understanding from geologists is that because it is not on an active tectonic plate margin, an earthquake of a magnitude 8.9 is extremely unlikely in the New York region. You”™ll notice that people in the nuclear field never say ”˜never.”™ Nonetheless, it is important that the Indian Point design be re-evaluated in light of the Fukushima event for potential earthquake impacts from the Ramapo Fault system and any other regional faults that are nearby. I am confident that the IP engineers will be able to address potential impacts with additional safeguards to protect the plants and ultimately the public.”
How does Indian Point make its power? How much does a fuel rod weigh? How many fuel rods power Indian Point? How are they stored?
“The Indian Point plants are ”˜pressurized water reactors”™ (PWRs) and utilize the energy created by the fissioning of the uranium in the fuel to heat the water, which is converted to steam. The steam drives turbines that generate the electricity coming from the plant. I can”™t speak specifically to the current core design of the two Indian Point plants, but the following information is typical of plants of their size. A fuel rod typically weighs about 6 pounds, but may vary depending on the reactor type and design of the core. The rods are assembled in fuel arrays, there are about 60 arrays per nuclear core with a total array or assembly weight of about 45 tons. Fuel that is no longer useful for generating power is stored in what is termed the ”˜spent fuel pool”™ and maintained under water or in an air cooled ”˜dry cask”™ until final disposition for burial (the current expected U.S. practice) or reprocessing (an alternative practice used in other countries, but not done in the U.S.) to collect the still useful portion of the fuel.”
