Group items tagged

Despite long-standing public concern about the safety of nuclear energy, more and more people are realizing that it may be the most environmentally friendly way to generate large amounts of electricity. Several nations, including Brazil, China, Egypt, Finland, India, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and Vietnam, are building or planning nuclear plants. But this global trend has not as yet extended to the U.S., where work on the last such facility began some 30 years ago. If developed sensibly, nuclear power could be truly sustainable and essentially inexhaustible and could operate without contributing to climate change. In particular, a relatively new form of nuclear technology could overcome the principal drawbacks of current methods-namely, worries about reactor accidents, the potential for diversion of nuclear fuel into highly destructive weapons, the management of dangerous, long-lived radioactive waste, and the depletion of global reserves of economically available uranium. This nuclear fuel cycle would combine two innovations: pyrometallurgical processing (a high-temperature method of recycling reactor waste into fuel) and advanced fast-neutron reactors capable of burning that fuel. With this approach, the radioactivity from the generated waste could drop to safe levels in a few hundred years, thereby eliminating the need to segregate waste for tens of thousands of years.

The U.S. Department of Energy's "Report to Congress on the Demonstration of the Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel from Decommissioned Nuclear Power Reactor Sites" (DOE/RW-0596, December 2008) concluded that the agency does not have authority under present law to accept spent nuclear fuel for interim storage from decommissioned commercial nuclear power reactor sites. According to a Dec. 10 press release, the report was prepared pursuant to direction in the House Appropriations Committee Report that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 that DOE develop a plan to take custody of spent nuclear fuel currently stored at decommissioned reactor sites.

RADIOACTIVE waste from a new generation of nuclear power stations will have to be stored above ground for 100 years, the Government has been told. The claim comes as the possibility of a nuclear power station being built to replace the existing one at Wylfa on Anglesey continues to grow. Hugh Richards, of the Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance (Wana), told officials at the Department for Environment and Climate Change: "Both the promoters of new reactors and the Government have largely ignored the implications of those reactors discharging high burn-up spent fuel. New-build spent fuel, already acknowledged as twice as hot and twice as radioactive as legacy-spent fuel, will have to cool down for 100 years on each site before it can go for deep underground disposal.

If no federal repository for spent nuclear fuel is opened in the next 100 years, the nation's taxpayers could be on the hook to pay for on-site storage, such as the dry casks at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon. That cost could run anywhere between $10 billion and $26 billion. That was the conclusion of the Government Accounting Office, which just released a report on the costs of nuclear waste management -- whether it be a long-term repository, centralized storage or on-site storage. The United States has 70,000 tons of waste stored at 80 sites in 35 states. By 2055, the amount of waste is expected to increase to 153,000 tons. The GAO also conducted a scenario in which fuel stays on site for 500 years. It concluded the cost for that scenario could range between $34 billion to $225 billion.

If no federal repository for spent nuclear fuel is opened in the next 100 years, the nation's taxpayers could be on the hook to pay for on-site storage, such as the dry casks at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon. That cost could run anywhere between $10 billion and $26 billion. That was the conclusion of the Government Accounting Office, which just released a report on the costs of nuclear waste management -- whether it be a long-term repository, centralized storage or on-site storage. The United States has 70,000 tons of waste stored at 80 sites in 35 states. By 2055, the amount of waste is expected to increase to 153,000 tons. The GAO also conducted a scenario in which fuel stays on site for 500 years. It concluded the cost for that scenario could range between $34 billion to $225 billion.

EDF, the French firm which owns eight of Britain's nuclear power stations has shipped hundreds of tons of used radioactive material to Russia. More than 1,500 tons of spent fuel produced by the power company EDF was discovered in metal containers near a Siberian town. The company claims that it recycles almost all of its fuel. Environmental experts have claimed that 13 per cent of the spent fuel from the company's French power plants is on the site and described it as "really dirty stuff".

EDF, the French firm which owns eight of Britain's nuclear power stations has shipped hundreds of tons of used radioactive material to Russia. More than 1,500 tons of spent fuel produced by the power company EDF was discovered in metal containers near a Siberian town. The company claims that it recycles almost all of its fuel. Environmental experts have claimed that 13 per cent of the spent fuel from the company's French power plants is on the site and described it as "really dirty stuff".

The governments new draft National Policy Statement on nuclear power, indicating which issues the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) should take on board, and which it can ignore, contains this remarkable statement: "The Government is satisfied that effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power stations. As a result the IPC need not consider this question." The draft Statement goes on to say that 'Geological disposal will be preceded by safe and secure interim storage'. So it seems, the waste issue is all in hand and we needn't bother too much about it, or any problems with the much more active spent fuel that the new reactors' high fuel 'burn up' approach will create. Despite the fact that the highly active spent fuel is to be kept on site at the plant for perhaps several decades, that is evidently not something IPC will have to consider in its assessment of whether the proposed plants can go ahead. Instead the IPC will just focus on any conventional local planning and environmental impact issues that may emerge in relation to the 10 new nuclear plants that the government has now backed.

The governments new draft National Policy Statement on nuclear power, indicating which issues the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) should take on board, and which it can ignore, contains this remarkable statement: "The Government is satisfied that effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power stations. As a result the IPC need not consider this question." The draft Statement goes on to say that 'Geological disposal will be preceded by safe and secure interim storage'. So it seems, the waste issue is all in hand and we needn't bother too much about it, or any problems with the much more active spent fuel that the new reactors' high fuel 'burn up' approach will create. Despite the fact that the highly active spent fuel is to be kept on site at the plant for perhaps several decades, that is evidently not something IPC will have to consider in its assessment of whether the proposed plants can go ahead. Instead the IPC will just focus on any conventional local planning and environmental impact issues that may emerge in relation to the 10 new nuclear plants that the government has now backed.

Perhaps the most distinctive building near N Reactor, the "golf ball," should be rubble by the end of today. The building, which looks like a large, white golf ball half buried in the sand, was used as a waste treatment facility for the piping system at N Reactor. It stands about 20 feet high and has a diameter of 35 feet. Washington Closure Hanford also is making progress at the cooling water building on the banks of the Columbia River. It filtered water from N Reactor's fuel storage basins, which stored highly radioactive fuel rods. Two sand filter tanks, each weighing about 60,000 pounds, have been removed from the building.

Where others see only radioactive waste, engineers at TVA and the Department of Energy envision another source of needed energy. Most of the potential energy in the nuclear fuel used to generate nearly 30 percent of the electricity in the Tennessee Valley remains untapped in spent fuel pools or dry casks at the Sequoyah, Watts Bar and Browns Ferry nuclear plants, said Sherrell R. Greene, director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory's nuclear technology programs.

A new report calls for a permanent solution for the nation's safe storage of nuclear waste because the push for clean energy has placed renewed emphasis on nuclear power and the waste that goes with it. "Revisiting America's Nuclear Waste Policy" notes that 2,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel are generated by U.S. reactors each year, to add to the more than 70,000 tons of spent fuel and other high-level waste already being stored at 121 sites in 39 states. Moreover, 20 companies have submitted applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 26 new nuclear reactors in the next decade. "With the needed expansion of nuclear power, the amount of used fuel produced will also increase," the report said. "The time is ripe for a permanent solution." The report, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, notes that Yucca Mountain in Nevada is not the "only" solution, but asks if not there, where?

Uranium from the Grants Mineral Belt running under rugged peaks and Indian pueblos of New Mexico was a source of electric power and military might in decades past, providing fuel for reactors and atomic bombs. Now, interest in carbon-free nuclear power is fueling a potential resurgence of uranium mining. But Indian people gathered in Acoma, N.M., for the Indigenous Uranium Forum over the weekend decried future uranium extraction, especially from nearby Mount Taylor, considered sacred by many tribes. Native people from Alaska, Canada, the Western United States and South America discussed the severe health problems uranium mining has caused their communities, including high rates of cancer and kidney disease.

Uranium from the Grants Mineral Belt running under rugged peaks and Indian pueblos of New Mexico was a source of electric power and military might in decades past, providing fuel for reactors and atomic bombs. Now, interest in carbon-free nuclear power is fueling a potential resurgence of uranium mining. But Indian people gathered in Acoma, N.M., for the Indigenous Uranium Forum over the weekend decried future uranium extraction, especially from nearby Mount Taylor, considered sacred by many tribes. Native people from Alaska, Canada, the Western United States and South America discussed the severe health problems uranium mining has caused their communities, including high rates of cancer and kidney disease.

THE final defuelling of one of the reactors at Chapelcross began last week. The first fuel element was removed from the core of Reactor 1, beginning the active commissioning of the newly-upgraded fuel route. About 40,000 fuel elements will be systematically removed from all four reactors and dispatched for reprocessing at the Sellafield site in west Cumbria.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) manages high-level waste (HLW) at sites across the DOE complex. This HLW is the highly radioactive waste material produced as a byproduct of the reactions that occur inside nuclear reactors: * Much of this HLW is spent (depleted) nuclear fuel, which has been accepted for disposal. * Some HLW consists of other highly radioactive materials that are determined (consistent with existing law) to require permanent isolation. * The remaining HLW comprises the liquid and solid waste byproducts (containing significant concentrations of fission products) that remain after spent fuel is reprocessed to extract isotopes that can be used again as reactor fuel. Although commercial reprocessing is currently not practiced in the United States, the defense reprocessing programs at certain facilities managed by DOE do produce significant quantities of HLW. From time to time, however, in accordance with DOE Order 435.1 exit icon, DOE has determined that certain waste resulting from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is actually waste incidental to reprocessing (WIR), rather than HLW. For an understanding of the role that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plays in the waste determination and disposal processes, see the following pages, as well as the related information provided below:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to double the period that nuclear power plants can store spent fuel on site to 40 years, as plans to build a permanent federal repository stall. The rule would formalize a site-by-site exemption the commission has used when nuclear plants, including those owned by Dominion Resources Inc. and Progress Energy Inc., applied to renew waste storage licenses for longer than 20 years. "This change would codify a technical approach begun in 2004," the commission said in a statement today. Utilities store nuclear waste on site until the government removes the spent fuel under contracts the U.S. has yet to honor because it has no permanent storage facilities. President Barack Obama abandoned support after he took office this year for the government's Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, which had been proposed as a permanent underground site for spent fuel.

"The company wants to use radioactive waste as fuel in a next-generation reactor. Eric Loewen won't even utter the words "spent nuclear fuel." That's the industry term of art for the nuclear fuel bundles that are pulled out of today's reactors after they're done making electricity. Loewen, a nuclear engineer at General Electric ( GE - news - people ), doesn't see them as "spent" at all. He sees them as raw material for a new type of nuclear reactor. "It's used, but it's an energy asset," he says."

"Next week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet in New York with diplomats from more than 180 countries at the eighth review conference of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (pdf), the Cold War pact that determines who can have nuclear weapons and who can't. The nuclear accord obliges the five original nuclear powers to disarm while exacting a pledge from other countries not to pursue nuclear weapons. In exchange, those that foreswore atomic weapons were assured the right to develop nuclear energy programs, under the monitoring of U.N. inspectors. The Obama administration will seek to use the nearly month-long conference to plug gaps in a landmark agreement that has significantly limited the spread of nuclear weapons but enabled a small number of nuclear proliferators, including Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, to develop clandestine atomic weapons programs under the nose of U.N. weapons inspectors. The nuclear conference has gained increased urgency as concerns about global warming have fueled renewed interest in nuclear power, and the prospects of lucrative international trade in nuclear fuel."

A new draft environmental study for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership on the impacts of expanding nuclear energy favors reprocessing fuel that has been used in nuclear power plants rather than using it only once. A public hearing on the plan is planned at 7 p.m. Nov. 17 at the Pasco Red Lion, 2525 N. 20th Ave. An Oregon hearing will be held the next evening in Hood River. The draft study, or programmatic environmental impact statement, looked at alternatives to the practice of using nuclear fuel once and then sending it to a deep geological repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nev.

HIGH-LEVEL radioactive waste built up at Sellafield from fuel reprocessing over the years will soon be sent back to foreign customers. This is a milestone for both the nuclear industry and the British government, who hope the move will dispel claims that Sellafield was destined to become "the world's atomic dustbin". The waste comes from the fuel Sellafield has reprocessed over 30 years after removing the plutonium and uranium energy products. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority says it will reduce the stockpile of high level waste stored at Sellafield. All UK reprocessing contracts with foreign customers since 1976 have included an option for the waste to be returned to "country of origin" and 10 years later the British government decided the option should be taken up.

HIGH-LEVEL radioactive waste built up at Sellafield from fuel reprocessing over the years will soon be sent back to foreign customers. This is a milestone for both the nuclear industry and the British government, who hope the move will dispel claims that Sellafield was destined to become "the world's atomic dustbin". The waste comes from the fuel Sellafield has reprocessed over 30 years after removing the plutonium and uranium energy products. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority says it will reduce the stockpile of high level waste stored at Sellafield. All UK reprocessing contracts with foreign customers since 1976 have included an option for the waste to be returned to "country of origin" and 10 years later the British government decided the option should be taken up.

"The Yakama Nation has filed a lawsuit challenging the state of Washington's actions to start construction of a cover over closed portions of private company US Ecology's waste disposal trenches at Hanford. Heart of America Northwest Research Center has joined the Yakamas in the lawsuit filed in Yakima County Superior Court. The state believes it has acted properly and that the Yakama Nation does not have a valid case, according to the Washington State Office of the Attorney General. The state has a lease from the federal government for 100 acres on the Hanford nuclear reservation subleased to US Ecology for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste from organizations such as universities, hospitals, biotech firms and electric utilities in western states. The plaintiffs maintain that the landfill contains at least 220 pounds of plutonium 239 plus irradiated fuel segments and other spent nuclear fuel. It also may contain two high-level radioactive fuel rods disposed of at the site around 2003, the plaintiffs said."

The Dept. of Energy today delivered a report to Congress saying it does not have the authority to accept decommissioned fuel from the nation's commercial nuclear power plant. Here's the link to the report. In a press statement, DOE's Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said, "The Department has concluded that, without legislation, a demonstration project accepting spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned nuclear reactor sites could not be completed in the near term and would not reduce taxpayer costs for waste disposal."

PG&E's decision to begin moving its spent fuel to above-ground canisters sparked a legal battle Operators at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant will begin loading the first dry cask with highly radioactive used reactor fuel on June 1. The decision by plant owners Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to begin transferring its spent fuel to above-ground canisters touched off a groundbreaking legal battle with local antinuclear activists in 2002 - and it continues to this day. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace wants federal regulators to require that PG&E take additional steps to protect the storage facility from terrorist attacks.