Group items tagged

"Bellona presents an analysis of the draft law "On Management of Radioactive Waste," currently under consideration in the Russian legislature. This position reflects the opinion shared equally by Bellona and experts from most ecological non-governmental organisations operating in Russia. Aleksandr Nikitin, 01/07-2010 - Translated by Maria Kaminskaya Foreword The draft Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On Management of Radioactive Waste" (hereinafter, the Bill) has been under preparation by Russian legislators for over ten years. At present, the bill is going through its second reading at the lower house of the Russian parliament, the State Duma. According to the requirements set forth by the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, which Russia signed in Vienna in 1999 and ratified in 2005, countries that employ nuclear energy must have a regulatory and legal framework in place to ensure safe management of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and radioactive waste. The proposed legislation will govern all legal relations arising in the field of management of SNF and radioactive waste. As an instrument to regulate such relations, the Bill is without doubt a necessity. Precisely how such relations will be regulated by the Bill in its current form, however, is a different matter. For the reader's convenience, the following analysis has been divided into three distinct parts detailing the potential ecological, social, and economical issues raised by the Bill. This analysis represents the opinion shared equally by Bellona and the majority of experts working with ecological non-governmental organisations in Russia. The ecological impact 1. The fundamental ecological problem that arises with the passing of the Bill is that it will legalise the existing practice of injecting liquid radioactive waste (LRW) inside geological formations for disposal."

Entergy Northeast, the company that owns and operates the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, may consider cost-benefit analysis with reviewing technology at the plant. The issue at hand was environmentalist organizations' call for the plant to convert to a closed-cycle cooling system, which they maintain would draw far fewer fish into the system and reduce the fish kill by over 95 percent. The Riverkeeper group fought for the closed cooling system. Hudson Riverkeeper and organization President Alex Matthiessen said they are pleased that the court "agreed that EPA is not required to use cost-benefit analysis and left it up to EPA on remand to decide to what extent, if any, cost benefit analysis should be used in regulating cooling water intake structures."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a supplemental safety evaluation report for the license renewal application of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Toms River, N.J. The supplement clarifies commitments agreed to by AmerGen Energy Co., the plant's operator, as part of the aging management program for the reactor's drywell shell. It also documents the NRC staff's evaluation of AmerGen's reanalysis of the effects of fatigue on reactor recirculation outlet nozzles. The NRC asked AmerGen to conduct a new analysis when the staff determined that AmerGen's original calculations used only one of six stress components typically used. The staff's evaluation determined that the original analysis was, in fact, considerably more conservative than the confirmatory analysis. Therefore, the original results were acceptable.

Severe reactor accidents can be mitigated, and are unlikely to release much -- if any --radioactivity even if they are not, NRC staffers said March 11. The NRC's state-of-the-art reactor consequences analysis, or Soarca, attempts to quantify the probability and likely offsite health consequences of severe reactor accidents, beginning with Exelon Nuclear's Peach Bottom and Dominion's Surry plants. Analysis for those stations has been completed and a report will be completed by May, NRC's Charles Tinkler said in his presentation at the agency's annual Regulatory Information Conference in Rockville, Maryland. Jason Schaperow of NRC said the staff's "preliminary conclusions" are that all accident scenarios analyzed for Peach Bottom and Surry "can reasonably be mitigated." Sensitivity analyses concluded that, even if no mitigation measures were taken, there would be no large early releases of radioactivity, due to the relatively slow progression of the accidents and the small probability of containment failure, Schaperow said. Likely radioactive releases from the accidents analyzed so far in Soarca "are dramatically smaller" than those predicted in a 1982 NRC analysis conducted for use in siting new units, Schaperow said. The late Commissioner Edward McGaffigan and some industry officials were highly critical of that report, which they said was unrealistically conservative in its assumptions.

The owners of Oyster Creek Generating Station have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the full analysis regarding the cause of a recent tritium leak at the plant not be made public. Advertisement Earlier this month, state Sen. Christopher J. Connors and Assemblymen Brian E. Rumpf and Daniel M. Van Pelt, all R-Ocean, called for the immediate release of the root-cause analysis of the leak that occurred in April at the plant in the Forked River section of the township. "We will discuss what our review of the root-cause analysis found in our upcoming inspection report on the groundwater contamination issues at Oyster Creek," NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Wednesday. He added that the report should be issued next month.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct two public workshops in September to solicit public views on major issues for new regulations for land disposal of unique radioactive wastes, including but not limited to significant quantities of depleted uranium. The workshops will be held Sept. 2-3 in Rockville, Md., and Sept. 23-24 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Exact locations and final agendas for the workshops will be announced closer to those dates. The Commission directed the agency staff March 18 to initiate rulemaking to specify a requirement for a site-specific analysis for the disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium, and other unique waste streams, such as reprocessing wastes and the technical requirements for such an analysis. The Commission also directed the staff to develop a guidance document for public comment that outlines the parameters and assumptions to be used in the site-specific analyses. The Commission said the staff should "promptly" conduct a public workshop to discuss issues associated with disposal of depleted uranium and other unique waste streams, potential issues to be considered in rulemaking, and technical parameters of concern in the analysis so that informed decisions can be made in the interim before the rulemaking is final.

Meltdown is not the word you want to hear in relation to a nuclear power plant. Even the global financial meltdown has potentially dire consequences for public safety over the long term. Even as the industry and Washington quite rightly have moved toward a new generation of nuclear plant construction, an analysis by the Associated Press raises troubling questions about the current generation. Nuclear plant operators are required to set aside enough money, over the course of a plant's life, to pay for its decommissioning and demolition. That process, for most plants, costs hundreds of millions of dollars. The AP analysis found that the meltdown in the financial markets over the last two years has drained much of the money held by plant operators to safely decommission and demolish their plants. According to the analysis, operators of about half of the nuclear plants nationwide are not saving enough money for inevitable demolition projects. At the same time that the estimated costs of demolition has risen by $4.6 billion, the value of investments held by plant operators for that purpose has fallen by $4.4 billion, the AP reported. And, it found, the savings rates for demolition has declined for 80 percent of the nation's reactors. So far plant operators have reacted to the losses in two ways. In 19 cases they have won permission to delay decommissioning for as long as 60 years in order to allow their investments to recover. In more than 50 others, they have won permission to extend plant operations beyond their original permit expiration dates.

During the Cold War, Huntington contained a DOE plant involved in the production of radioactive and/or potentially nuclear materials. After its decommissioning, the remains --- except for the compressor building --- were hauled away and buried in Piketon, Ohio. During a 2006 meeting with union members representatives of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Office of Compensation Analysis and support discussed compensation for health conditions acquired due to working near contaminated materials. After an exhaustive search of the internet, HNN at this time emphasizes the official analysis that current potential radiation exposure --- even at the remaining Compressor Building ---- was/is considered negligible as it results in an annual dose of less than 1 m/rem to the maximally exposure organ. (Based on CDC/OSAS documents) However, worker reports taken from the 2006 meeting create unanswered questions. In fact, the internet search did NOT turn up further documents related to the local USWA and NIOSH. Thus, we have a series of unanswered (or unfound) questions raised by those in attendance.

During the Cold War, Huntington contained a DOE plant involved in the production of radioactive and/or potentially nuclear materials. After its decommissioning, the remains --- except for the compressor building --- were hauled away and buried in Piketon, Ohio. During a 2006 meeting with union members representatives of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Office of Compensation Analysis and support discussed compensation for health conditions acquired due to working near contaminated materials. After an exhaustive search of the internet, HNN at this time emphasizes the official analysis that current potential radiation exposure --- even at the remaining Compressor Building ---- was/is considered negligible as it results in an annual dose of less than 1 m/rem to the maximally exposure organ. (Based on CDC/OSAS documents) However, worker reports taken from the 2006 meeting create unanswered questions. In fact, the internet search did NOT turn up further documents related to the local USWA and NIOSH. Thus, we have a series of unanswered (or unfound) questions raised by those in attendance.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a predecisional enforcement conference in Atlanta for Friday, Dec. 11 to discuss with officials of Global Nuclear Fuel -- Americas, LLC of Wilmington, N.C., apparent violations of NRC requirements associated with the company's safety analysis of the facility. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. at the NRC Region II office in Atlanta, located in the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St. SW, Suite 23T85. The meeting will be open to observation by the public, and NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions from interested observers. Members of the public interested in attending the meeting or participating by toll-free audio teleconference should contact the NRC's Chad Cramer at 404-562-4712 or chad.cramer@nrc.gov or the NRC's Richard Gibson at 404-562-4718 or richard.gibson@nrc.gov. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss apparent violations related to shortcomings in the company's required safety analysis, including the failure to identify or document credible accident scenarios.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a predecisional enforcement conference in Atlanta for Friday, Dec. 11 to discuss with officials of Global Nuclear Fuel -- Americas, LLC of Wilmington, N.C., apparent violations of NRC requirements associated with the company's safety analysis of the facility. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. at the NRC Region II office in Atlanta, located in the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St. SW, Suite 23T85. The meeting will be open to observation by the public, and NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions from interested observers. Members of the public interested in attending the meeting or participating by toll-free audio teleconference should contact the NRC's Chad Cramer at 404-562-4712 or chad.cramer@nrc.gov or the NRC's Richard Gibson at 404-562-4718 or richard.gibson@nrc.gov. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss apparent violations related to shortcomings in the company's required safety analysis, including the failure to identify or document credible accident scenarios.

The U.S. NRC has informed Westinghouse that the proposed design of the shield building for its AP1000(TM) nuclear power plant will require either additional analysis, testing or actual design modifications to ensure compliance with NRC requirements. As a result of our understanding of the requirements, Westinghouse fully expected that the NRC would require additional analysis, testing or actual design modifications to the shield building. In fact, we had already begun to address certain portions of the design. We have fully committed the resources necessary to both quickly and definitively address the NRC's concerns, and we are confident that we will meet all applicable requirements. Westinghouse continues to work toward our goal of receiving Design Amendment Certification from the NRC in 2011, and we continue to work to bring the first AP1000s online in the United States in the 2016 timeframe.

The U.S. NRC has informed Westinghouse that the proposed design of the shield building for its AP1000(TM) nuclear power plant will require either additional analysis, testing or actual design modifications to ensure compliance with NRC requirements. As a result of our understanding of the requirements, Westinghouse fully expected that the NRC would require additional analysis, testing or actual design modifications to the shield building. In fact, we had already begun to address certain portions of the design. We have fully committed the resources necessary to both quickly and definitively address the NRC's concerns, and we are confident that we will meet all applicable requirements. Westinghouse continues to work toward our goal of receiving Design Amendment Certification from the NRC in 2011, and we continue to work to bring the first AP1000s online in the United States in the 2016 timeframe.

More than a third of the $4.2 billion in federal grants and contracts sent so far to South Carolina to revive the economy has gone to the former Savannah River nuclear weapons facility, according to an analysis of federal data by The Greenville News. The stimulus awards amount to about $954 for each S.C. resident - the nation's third-highest per-capita rate behind only the District of Columbia and Alaska, the paper found. STIMULATED Richland County, home to the state capital, received the largest chunk of stimulus money among South Carolina's counties, according to the analysis. Much of Richland's funding went to state agencies to be used across South Carolina. Aiken was second because of large earmarks to clean up the Savannah River nuclear complex: 1. Richland - $2.2 billion 2. Aiken - $1.6 billion 3. Greenville - $76.3 million

More than a third of the $4.2 billion in federal grants and contracts sent so far to South Carolina to revive the economy has gone to the former Savannah River nuclear weapons facility, according to an analysis of federal data by The Greenville News. The stimulus awards amount to about $954 for each S.C. resident - the nation's third-highest per-capita rate behind only the District of Columbia and Alaska, the paper found. STIMULATED Richland County, home to the state capital, received the largest chunk of stimulus money among South Carolina's counties, according to the analysis. Much of Richland's funding went to state agencies to be used across South Carolina. Aiken was second because of large earmarks to clean up the Savannah River nuclear complex: 1. Richland - $2.2 billion 2. Aiken - $1.6 billion 3. Greenville - $76.3 million

A coalition of environmental groups that opposed the relicensing of the Oyster Creek Generating Station issued a statement accusing the power plant's owners of not taking corrective action that may have prevented leakage of tritium last spring. The coalition was also critical of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when it referenced the recent release of Oyster Creek's root cause analysis report of a tritium leak that occurred in April, eight days after the power plant was relicensed by the NRC to operate for another 20 years. A more recent incident of tritium leakage took place Aug. 25. The root cause analysis report, which was released in a redacted form, was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear. In addition, NRC released e-mail exchanges surrounding the coalition's inquiries regarding buried pipes.

A coalition of environmental groups that opposed the relicensing of the Oyster Creek Generating Station issued a statement accusing the power plant's owners of not taking corrective action that may have prevented leakage of tritium last spring. The coalition was also critical of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when it referenced the recent release of Oyster Creek's root cause analysis report of a tritium leak that occurred in April, eight days after the power plant was relicensed by the NRC to operate for another 20 years. A more recent incident of tritium leakage took place Aug. 25. The root cause analysis report, which was released in a redacted form, was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear. In addition, NRC released e-mail exchanges surrounding the coalition's inquiries regarding buried pipes.

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important conference. The concept of managing risk to avoid adverse consequences has been with us since the first human beings appeared on the planet. Over time, the application of the principles of risk management to ever broader fields of activity has been constant and is still expanding. Some view this as progress and others as the unwelcome price we have to pay for the increasing complexity of our existence. In the regulatory field, the concept of risk as a management tool is relatively recent. At the NRC, it was not until 1995 that the Commission issued a policy statement that encouraged the application of probabilistic risk assessment "as an extension and enhancement of traditional regulation." As a regulator and based on the agency's experience over the last two decades, I strongly support the use of risk analysis as a means to focus on the events and activities that pose the greatest risks to public health and safety and to ease unnecessary burdens on licensees. I believe we have come a long way since 1995. I also believe, however, that we can and should expand the systematic use of risk analysis to areas where, up to now, it has been used intermittently. I am referring here to the security arena. This will be a difficult task, however, and will require the concerted effort of the NRC and the industry to carry it out.

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important conference. The concept of managing risk to avoid adverse consequences has been with us since the first human beings appeared on the planet. Over time, the application of the principles of risk management to ever broader fields of activity has been constant and is still expanding. Some view this as progress and others as the unwelcome price we have to pay for the increasing complexity of our existence. In the regulatory field, the concept of risk as a management tool is relatively recent. At the NRC, it was not until 1995 that the Commission issued a policy statement that encouraged the application of probabilistic risk assessment "as an extension and enhancement of traditional regulation." As a regulator and based on the agency's experience over the last two decades, I strongly support the use of risk analysis as a means to focus on the events and activities that pose the greatest risks to public health and safety and to ease unnecessary burdens on licensees. I believe we have come a long way since 1995. I also believe, however, that we can and should expand the systematic use of risk analysis to areas where, up to now, it has been used intermittently. I am referring here to the security arena. This will be a difficult task, however, and will require the concerted effort of the NRC and the industry to carry it out.

"New Subsidies for Constructing Reactors Would Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers Massive government subsidies proposed in two pending Senate climate and energy bills would shift the risk of financing and constructing new nuclear reactors from the industry to U.S. taxpayers, according to an analysis released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Such subsidies would disadvantage more cost-effective, less risky approaches to curbing the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming, including energy efficiency programs and renewable energy technologies, the group said. The UCS analysis is the first to quantify the most significant subsidies for the nuclear industry proposed in the American Power Act (APA) and the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA). Those subsidies include expanded federal loan guarantees, reduced accelerated depreciation periods, a 10 percent investment tax credit, expanded production tax credits, and expanded federal regulatory risk insurance. Assuming eight new reactors are built over the next 15 years, UCS found those subsidies would amount to approximately $40 billion, or $5 billion per reactor, slightly more than half of what a typical 1,100 megawatt reactor would cost to build today. If the industry is able to secure federal approval to build the 31 new reactors it is expected to request, UCS found that total proposed subsidies could be worth from $65 billion to as much as $147 billion."

"Far more sewage has been spilled in Canadian urban centres over the last six years than any other harmful contaminant, newly released figures show. An analysis by The Canadian Press reveals hundreds of millions of litres of sewage, as well as many other dangerous liquids, have been dumped right under Canadians' noses."

"Breaks Under Kerry-Lieberman Wipe Out Risk for Utilities Already Benefiting From Massive Loan Guarantees Earth Track Analysis Finds That Just Two of the Subsidies Add Another $1.3 Billion to $3 Billion in Tax Breaks Per Reactor; May Make It More Likely Taxpayers Will Face Downside Risk. Washington, DC -- The nuclear industry could end up facing no risk under massive tax break subsidies in the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill, according to an important new analysis conducted for Friends of the Earth by the research organization Earth Track. These tax breaks totaling $9.7 billion to $57.3 billion (depending on the type and number of reactors) would come on top of the Kerry-Lieberman measure's lucrative $35.5 billion addition to the more than $22.5 billion in loan guarantees already slated for nuclear power. Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said: "Doling out an additional $1.3-$3 billion in tax breaks per new reactor means the industry would be at the table playing almost entirely with taxpayer money. Industry will have little to lose when a reactor goes belly up. While taxpayers are bankrolling the industry's nuclear gamble they would share in none of the reactor's financial returns. In fact, all taxpayers will receive if the reactors are built is responsibility for disposing of the waste. By contrast, investors stand to make billions with no risk should their reactor gambit goes belly up and enter bankruptcy." "

"Between 1946 and 1958 the United States tested 66 nuclear weapons on or near Bikini and Enewetak atolls, which had previously been evacuated. Populations living elsewhere in the Marshall Islands archipelago were exposed to measurable levels of radioactive fallout from 20 of these tests. In this carefully considered analysis, National Cancer Institute (NCI) experts estimate that as much as 1.6% of all cancers among those residents of the Marshall Islands alive between 1948 and 1970 might be attributable to radiation exposures resulting from nuclear testing fallout. Due to uncertainly inherent to these analyses, the authors calculated a 90% confidence interval of 0.4% to 3.6%. Why did the NCI investigate this exposure? In June 2004, the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources asked the NCI to provide its expert opinion on the baseline cancer risk and number of cancers expected among residents of the Marshall Islands as a result of exposures to radioactive fallout from U.S. nuclear weapons tests that were conducted there from 1946 through 1958. In September 2004, the NCI provided the Committee with preliminary cancer risk estimates and a discussion of their basis in a report titled Estimation of the Baseline Number of Cancers Among Marshallese and the Number of Cancers Attributable to Exposure to Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Testing Conducted in the Marshall Islands. That analysis was based on a number of conservative assumptions designed to avoid underestimating the actual cancer risks and used information that could be collected quickly to provide a timely response. "

Article Highlights * Iran's interest in nuclear power began more than 30 years ago during the Shah's government. * Even with the Shah's denials that he wasn't interested in building a nuclear weapon, the United States remained leery about Tehran's intentions. * Therefore, the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations spent many years attempting to devise a nuclear deal with Iran that limited the chances for proliferation. Editor's note: The following article is drawn from a long-form analysis of the history of the Iranian nuclear program in the Bulletin's January/February 2009 edition. That analysis can be found here.

Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings--Nevada Rail Alignment for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of Decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In July 2008, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) issued the ``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High- Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada--Nevada Rail Transportation Corridor'' (DOE/EIS-0250F-S2) (hereafter referred to as the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS), the ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the Construction and Operation of a Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada'' (DOE/EIS-0369) (hereafter referred to as the final Rail Alignment EIS), and the ``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada'' (DOE/EIS-0250F-S1) (hereafter referred to as the final Repository SEIS). The final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS analyzed the potential impacts of constructing and operating a railroad for shipments of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and other materials in the Mina corridor, and DOE concluded that the Mina corridor warranted further analysis at the alignment level. This further, more detailed analysis is presented in the final Rail Alignment EIS, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating a railroad along rail alignments in both the Caliente and Mina rail corridors. The final Rail Alignment EIS also analyzed the potential environmental impacts from shipments of general freight (also referred to as common carriage

Environmental groups have filed a federal lawsuit claiming that a program clearing the way for uranium mines in western Colorado is illegal. The lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District in Denver says the Department of Energy's environmental analysis of the leasing program on federal land last year was inadequate. The groups want the court to make DOE do a more comprehensive analysis of the impacts of past uranium mining and potential impacts of new mines.