Govt expects nuclear reactor to restart this month

Federal Science Minister Kim Carr has told the operator of Australia's only nuclear reactor he expects them to meet a timetable for restarting it.

Full report from ABC.

Mr Carr has made it clear he expects ANSTO to fulfil the plan to restart the reactor this month.

The report goes on to say ARPANSA (Australia's nuclear regulatory body) is in the process of reviewing OPAL's safety submission for the redesigned fuel. ARPANSA did not provide any indication of an expected completion date for their review.

Canadian government to overrule independent regulatory body

The need for radio-pharmaceuticals (specifically Mo-99, the world's most in-demand diagnostic medical isotope), produced by the NRU reactor in Chalk River (producing about 60% of global Mo-99 supply) look to be put ahead of the opinion of Canada's regulatory body.

The government is voting to suspend CNSC's authority on this matter for 120 days.

This is a fairly significant event to say the least, not really so much for nuclear 'power', but for the commercial application of nuclear technologies in general.

Further detail from WNN

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Mo-99 (UIC)

Mo-99 Spec sheet - MDS Nordion

Standardised, multinational licensing

As reported in this article at World Nuclear News.

What a great idea - particularly for a country like Australia! Multi-lateral cooperation and standardised designs to avoid the complete re-licensing of every reactor in every country. This could significantly reduce the time required to expand nuclear power around the world.

Also, take a look at the countries involved - some of those key indicator countries that I like to keep and eye on.

With our limited nuclear infrastructure and regulatory experience, such an approach could provide much needed assistance!

From here to there

In an effort to look past the rhetoric coming from both sides, I’d like to begin to consider the Australian transition to nuclear power in a more pragmatic sense.

Let’s assume that each and every anti-nuclear Australian did a complete flop. The doors of public and political opinion are flung open to the idea – even in our own backyards. What else will it take to produce electricity from that first nuclear plant?

(My assumption above in no way erodes expectations that the plant be constructed and operated to highest safety and quality standards, or that the companies building and operating it be denied a favourable business case for their investment.)

A certain amount of prerequisite infrastructure is a must, if for nothing else to persuade electric utilities to invest in the plants. This infrastructure must convincingly reduce business risk to manageable levels.

Just one case in point can be found by comparing the nuclear regulatory infrastructure within Australia to the USA. I selected the USA because it has the most nuclear experience (from the perspective of plant operating years) and they have also learned the lessons of a significant nuclear accident.

First peruse the ARPANSA Act and the subsequent regulations.

Then as a comparison, see Title 10 of the USA Code of Federal Regulations (10CFR). This is how the nuclear industry is regulated in the USA. It is quite large compared to the ARPANSA Act. If you’re brave, here’s a link to the whole thing (15 Mb zip file).

10CFRPart50 deals with domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities (i.e. the requirements to license a commercial nuclear power plant).

If you compare the two, you will find the USA regulations significantly more robust and, in particular, very prescriptive. I’ve heard some very senior nuclear proponents in Australia speak critically of prescriptive nuclear regulation, but I disagree quite strongly with their opinion with respect to nuclear power.

Prescriptive regulations facilitate business confidence. Utilities and their investors must know their success paths to a fair degree of confidence (and hence be able to manage the relevant business risks).

The USA has decades of experience with various commercial reactor designs, has lived through some hard lessons and incorporated both into the current regulations. As we ponder our future energy options in Australia, I would beware of those who presume to know better.

Regulatory needs

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Fitch's associate director of Asia-Pacific Energy and Utilities, Gavin Madson, said nuclear-powered economies generally have a regulatory body dedicated to dealing with nuclear power issues.

"We currently do not have such a regime in place," he said. "The development of such a watchdog in Australia will alleviate some of the problems potential investors currently face, and will prove to be a prerequisite for any investment in domestic nuclear generation."

The major issue curtailing any serious consideration of investment in nuclear generation was regulatory uncertainty.

"The current uncertainty surrounding the treatment of greenhouse gas obligations has hindered investment in any base-load generation, let alone nuclear power," Mr Madson said.

He said the considerable up-front cost and lengthy construction times for nuclear power generation meant there was the need for regulatory clearance before investment.