Group items tagged

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has formally docketed the Department of Energy's license application for the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The agency staff has also recommended that the Commission adopt, with further supplementation, DOE's Environmental Impact Statement for the repository project. The decision to docket the application follows the NRC staff's determination that the application, submitted June 3, is sufficiently complete for the staff to begin its full technical review. Docketing the application does not indicate whether the Commission will approve or reject the construction authorization for the repository, nor does it preclude the Commission or the agency staff from requesting additional information from DOE during the course of its comprehensive technical review.

The Department of Energy is fining CH2M Hill Hanford Group $302,500 for safety violations related to last summer's spill of radioactive waste at the Hanford tank farms. "It was only mere chance that prevented personnel from being directly contaminated by significant quantities of tank waste during the course of the event," said a letter sent Thursday to the DOE contractor from the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security.

Hanford is one of the two Department of Energy nuclear cleanup sites with employee benefits more than 5 percent higher than comparable organizations, according to the Government Accountability Office. It issued a report last week to Congress providing information on DOE's management of costs and liabilities for pensions and post-retirement benefits for which it must reimburse DOE contractors. DOE is concerned about future costs for pensions and benefits for retirees, such as health care and life insurance, and congressional leaders find budgeting for fluctuating amounts difficult each year.

DOE and federal utility Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA, will work together to provide Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman with the data he will need to determine a path forward by the end of the year for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, DOE said April 24.

The U.S. government spent billions and billions of dollars (OK, I know that doesn't sound like much these days) enriching uranium for the nation's arsenal of nuclear weapons, and so where does the money go as the Dept. of Energy carries out plans to downblend the surplus stocks of bomb-grade stuff and otherwise divest itself of uranium supplies? Well, that kind of depends. In the DOE report, "Excess Uranium Inventory Management Plan," which was released in December, there's an appendix that deals with legal aspects of uranium sales and the money trail.

The Belarusian government's report on the possible environmental impact of its future nuclear power plant does not address key issues, Russian environmental activist Andrei Ozharovsky said in an interview with BelaPAN. "It is a sloppy, incomplete and misleading report," Mr. Ozharovsky said. "The document gives the impression that it is not the result of an unbiased assessment but just the parroting of some campaign slogans provided to the Belarusian authors by Russia`s Rosatom nuclear energy corporation." "The 130-page report does not assess the impact of nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel management," he said. "Neither does it assess the plant's impact following its closure." The report was under discussion at a meeting held at the Belarusian environmental protection ministry on Friday. Mr. Ozharovsky, coordinator of the Moscow-based Ecozashchita (Eco Protection) group, took part in the discussion of the ministry's Public Coordination Environmental Council.

The Department of Energy is taking a look at building a new landfill in central Hanford to hold uncontaminated waste that's now being trucked 110 miles for disposal off-site. "We're looking for greener ways to go," said Jim Butner, project manager for DOE contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Co. The landfill could save taxpayer money and have environmental benefits, said Kevin Leary, a DOE environmental engineer. The proposal is in early stages of development and a cost study has yet to be done. But Leary estimates that building a new landfill at Hanford could save $2 million over the life of the project just in the cost of fuel for transporting waste to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill. That doesn't consider the reduction in the site's carbon footprint by eliminating the carbon dioxide production from 3.3 million miles of driving back and forth to Roosevelt. "I don't think shipping it to Roosevelt is in the government's best interest," Leary said at a committee meeting of the Hanford Advisory Board.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced Thursday that the Carlsbad Field Office will transfer the DOE-owned Waste Isolation Pilot Plant water line to the city of Carlsbad. The move will provide the city with an additional water supply while saving the Department of Energy thousands of dollars. DOE first installed the water line in 1984 to support the ongoing operations of the department's disposal facility. It now transports water from the city-owned Double Eagle Water System wells to the plant. Under the finalized bill of sale, the city will take over complete responsibility for maintaining and repairing the pipeline in exchange for the water line. The city of Carlsbad also agrees to maintain WIPP's existing priority water use and will supply WIPP with up to 6.6 million gallons of water a year.

Garfield County's congressional representatives have asked the U.S. Department of Energy to look carefully at plans for sinking drills into the ground around the Rulison nuclear blast site, to be sure that environmental and personal safety is not threatened. A letter sent by U.S. Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, and Rep. John Salazar - all Democrats representing the Western Slope of Colorado - asks that the DOE keep the congressmen informed as it moves to study the possible hazards of drilling within a half-mile of the blast site. The letter, addressed to U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, was sent out in response to an earlier letter, sent by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, to the Colorado congressional delegation and the DOE. In that letter, the commissioners asked for a study of exactly where it might be safe to drill near the blast site.

I got a press release this week from the Dept. of Labor, announcing that it was continuing its Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program, a program developed in 2008 in response to a GAO report on high-hazard federal workplaces. DOE facilities, of course, have historically been off-limits to outside inspections because of powers granted by the Atomic Energy Act. etc., but I thought maybe this new program was opening things up. When asked for a list of inspection sites and possible Oak Ridge involvement, DOL spokesman Michael Wald responded, "It is OSHA policy not to announce which sites may receive an inspection visit, so we can't identify DOE locations specifically." So, I asked John Shewairy, DOE's public affairs chief in Oak Ridge, if any Oak Ridge facilities had been inspected as part of the FEDTARG program.

The proposed nuclear reactor is going to cost Bruce Power a lot of money. Guess again. The private sector does not invest in nuclear power - for good reason: the public will be on the hook for many generations for the biggest part of the costs. Nuclear power plants are usually over budget and start up behind schedule. If power is needed in the meantime, we will have to purchase elsewhere. It would be 10 years or likely more before a nuclear plant starts producing electricity. Construction of power grids to export to possibly Alberta and the U.S. will be a large expense - estimated at $1 billion, again largely at public expense. Power backup for both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and refurbishing is necessary. Note that eight nuclear power plants were once shut down for a whole decade in Ontario. The UDP report says that nuclear is compatible with 'clean' coal. It better be, as coal will be required when the huge, equally highly centralized nuclear system goes down. Note that there is not an operational clean coal plant on the planet. $1.4 billion plus of our money is being spent on an experimental project to produce only 100 MW of clean coal power. What if it does not work or is too costly to expand? Where does the backup power come from? Old dirty coal that will cost us in carbon charges?

Nuclear energy has always had something of a bad reputation-a volatile, barely containable force that nobody wants in their neighborhood. But with the planet heating up, the economy floundering, and the world economy striving for safer energy alternatives, it's time to ask: does nuclear power really deserve its negative stigma, and does it hold promise as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels? Nuclear Plant Safety Safety has always been a concern regarding nuclear plants, and one of the primary factors motivating people to keep nuclear plants away from their homes. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are two of the first things that come to mind when many consider hosting a nuclear power plant, and neither are particularly cheering images. When compared to other power plants, however, nuclear energy is actually one of the safest options. According to a study by the Paul Scherrer Institute, there have been only seven major nuclear accidents ever, accounting for approximately 64 deaths and 220 latent fatalities.

Nuclear energy has always had something of a bad reputation-a volatile, barely containable force that nobody wants in their neighborhood. But with the planet heating up, the economy floundering, and the world economy striving for safer energy alternatives, it's time to ask: does nuclear power really deserve its negative stigma, and does it hold promise as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels? Nuclear Plant Safety Safety has always been a concern regarding nuclear plants, and one of the primary factors motivating people to keep nuclear plants away from their homes. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are two of the first things that come to mind when many consider hosting a nuclear power plant, and neither are particularly cheering images. When compared to other power plants, however, nuclear energy is actually one of the safest options. According to a study by the Paul Scherrer Institute, there have been only seven major nuclear accidents ever, accounting for approximately 64 deaths and 220 latent fatalities.

The Department of Energy will consider the Hanford nuclear reservation as one of seven possible sites for long-term storage of the nation's elemental mercury, said a notice Thursday in the Federal Register. The nation could have 8,300 to 11,000 tons of mercury from private sources that would be eligible for storage over 40 years, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. DOE is looking for storage sites after the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 prohibited the export of mercury beginning in 2013 and required the agency to have facilities ready to manage and store mercury generated in the United States. It is a new responsibility for the DOE Office of Environmental Management, which is responsible for work at Hanford.

The US Department of Energy on Wednesday said it would use $44 million to fund 71 nuclear energy research and development projects. The funding will go to 31 universities and fund projects for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, Light Water Reactor Sustainability, as well as Investigator-Initiated Research, according to DOE. "As a zero-carbon energy source, nuclear power must be part of our energy mix as we work toward energy independence and meeting the challenge of global warming," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement. "The next generation of nuclear power plants -- with the highest standards of safety, efficiency and environmental protection -- will require the latest advancements in nuclear science and technology." Chu has voiced his support for nuclear energy since becoming energy secretary in January, but the administration's decision to stop pursuing a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain has led some to charge that DOE no longer supports nuclear power. The $44 million in funding announced Wednesday will be provided over three years and the project contracts will be awarded by Idaho National Laboratory contractor Battelle at the end of September.

"Such a hefty fine certainly seems doubtful, but that figure is contained in a Jan. 26 letter to DOE from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. The letter notifies DOE of failure to meet multiple milestones for "excess material removal" at the K-27 Building in Oak Ridge. DOE's Oak Ridge manager, Gerald Boyd, said today there may have been a misunderstanding or miscommunciation and that his staff is researching it. "There's a difference of opinion about whether or not the milestone was missed, and that's what we're trying to sort out.""

"The Environmental Protection Agency is setting the stage for upcoming negotiations with a strong message to the Department of Energy: Don't let the focus on demolition of old buildings in Oak Ridge stall or deter efforts to reduce pollution in the environment. "EPA is concerned that DOE . . . is placing too much emphasis on building demolition activities in lieu of contaminated environmental media cleanup," EPA's Franklin E. Hill wrote in a Feb. 9 letter to DOE's Oak Ridge office. "Significant levels of contamination in environmental media continue to migrate uncontrolled in groundwater and surface water, and in some cases beyond the boundaries of the ORR (Oak Ridge Reservation). This is viewed as a significant risk and should be addressed earlier than what DOE . . has recently indicated.""

"Per Peterson, professor and chair of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, with expertise in advanced reactor systems, nuclear waste processing, and inertial fusion energy, has been named to a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. DOE Secretary Steven Chu, former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a former UC Berkeley physics professor, announced the 15 members of the commission on Friday, Jan. 29. The panel is charged with providing recommendations for a safe, long-term solution to managing the country's used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The recommendations will provide an alternative to storing spent nuclear reactor fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a proposal that the Obama administration rejected in 2009. "

"The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is opposing President Obama's nomination of William Magwood for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Along with two other of the President's nominees to the NRC, Mr. Magwood will come before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for a confirmation hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, February 9, 2010. In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined a plan to build a new generation of nuclear power reactors. POGO does not take a stance on nuclear power, but does strongly believe that the regulatory body that licenses and inspects nuclear power reactors should be independent, active, and unconflicted. Mr. Magwood does not satisfy those key criteria. "As a result of our investigation and given his more than a dozen years promoting nuclear power, we do not believe Mr.Magwood has the independence from the nuclear power industry, nor the security oversight background, to regulate it," said Danielle Brian, Executive Director, POGO. "We don't care if he is pro-nuclear. The current NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko and the Republican nominee Bill Ostendorff, are pro-nuclear, but we believe they have a demonstrated record of being independent and serious about oversight.""

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on issues associated with blending of low-level radioactive waste and is planning public meetings to discuss blending in Rockville, Md. The issue of blending low-level radioactive waste has received increased attention from the nuclear industry since the 2008 closing of the Barnwell, S.C., low-level waste disposal site. This action left waste generators in 36 states with no disposal options for Class B and Class C wastes, the two classes of low-level waste with higher radioactivity. Blending in some cases can lower the classification of the wastes to the lower-radioactivity Class A, which has available disposal capacity, by reducing the concentration of radionuclides. Blending refers to mixing low-level wastes of different concentrations, primarily Class B or C with Class A. It does not involve mixing radioactive waste with non-radioactive waste, a practice known as "dilution." And it does not imply release of radioactive material to the general environment, either to municipal non-radioactive waste disposal sites or to consumer products. Blended wastes remain low-level waste and must be disposed in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on issues associated with blending of low-level radioactive waste and is planning public meetings to discuss blending in Rockville, Md. The issue of blending low-level radioactive waste has received increased attention from the nuclear industry since the 2008 closing of the Barnwell, S.C., low-level waste disposal site. This action left waste generators in 36 states with no disposal options for Class B and Class C wastes, the two classes of low-level waste with higher radioactivity. Blending in some cases can lower the classification of the wastes to the lower-radioactivity Class A, which has available disposal capacity, by reducing the concentration of radionuclides. Blending refers to mixing low-level wastes of different concentrations, primarily Class B or C with Class A. It does not involve mixing radioactive waste with non-radioactive waste, a practice known as "dilution." And it does not imply release of radioactive material to the general environment, either to municipal non-radioactive waste disposal sites or to consumer products. Blended wastes remain low-level waste and must be disposed in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.