Group items tagged

Article Highlights * With the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain seemingly dead, reprocessing again is being proffered as a way to deal with U.S. nuclear waste. * But the reality is that reprocessing neither solves the waste problem nor reduces safety risks. * Research should continue into next-generation reactors that can burn spent fuel, but until then, dry casks and repositories must be pursued. There are 104 commercial nuclear power reactors in the United States, which supply about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. These are light water reactors (LWR) fueled with low-enriched uranium (LEU), containing initially about 5 percent of the fissile isotope uranium 235. Each nuclear plant receives about 25 tons of LEU fuel annually, in the form of long pencil-thin rods of uranium oxide ceramic enclosed in thin metal "cladding", that are bundled together (in bunches of 300) to form fuel elements. Each year, nearly the same amount of spent fuel is removed from each reactor, but it's now intensely hot, both thermally and radiologically. In fact, even after five years of cooling in the "swimming pool" associated with each reactor, a fuel element would soon glow red-hot in the atmosphere because of the continuing radioactive decay of the products of nuclear fission. At this point, spent-fuel elements can be loaded into dry casks and stored at reactor sites on outdoor concrete pads with two casks added each year per reactor.

The House Science & Technology Committee, which is chaired by Congressman Bart Gordon of Tennessee, today held a hearing on nuclear reprocessing -- looking at the state of capabilities and possible adoption of a national strategy. In a statement distributed after the hearing, Gordon said: "I believe everything has to be on the table when it comes to meeting our growing need for energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I believe nuclear power is part of the solution to the daunting challenge of climate change, and I also recognize that our 104 operating reactors provide very reliable baseload power. To me, the best reason to consider reprocessing is that an expansion of nuclear power may make the once-through fuel cycle inadequate for maintaining our nuclear power supply as uranium resources eventually become scarce."

The Nov. 25 column by Robert Alvarez is full of assertions that require clarification and/or rebuttal. Sign up for breaking news alerts from The Chronicle First of all, reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is an issue because about 95 percent of the energy value in the original fuel remains in the "spent" fuel , so it begs the question of "shouldn't that valuable resource be recovered?" Secondly, the concept of fast reactors coupled with thermal reactors and reprocessing results in minimum waste and sustainable nuclear fuel supplies for hundreds of years.

The push for new nuclear reactors became a top-tier issue in the presidential race. Yet one aspect of the debate has received little attention, though it provides an interesting insight into competing visions for America's energy future: reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. As Dennis Spurgeon pointed out in his Nov. 20 column here in the Chronicle ("Give input now on energy future"), this issue is especially relevant to northeast Georgia and southwest South Carolina, where the U.S. Department of Energy has considered locating a reprocessing facility as part of the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

Apowerful bipartisan duo, Rep. James Clyburn and Sen. Lindsey Graham, recently joined forces to support "nuclear reprocessing." We urge these gentlemen to temper their enthusiasm. For the past year, we served on the Governor's Climate, Energy & Commerce Advisory Committee. CECAC represented a wide range of interests, including utilities, industry and banking. CECAC's final report concluded that nuclear energy is an important part of the state's energy future. However, we adopted an extremely cautious position on reprocessing.

When decommissioned in 1987, Hanford held two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. These have been leaking into the groundwater and the river despite a massively funded, 19-year cleanup effort. The Nov. 17 hearing presented a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the energy department's earlier proposal to develop a "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" presented in May, 2007 at the same locations. The DOE snuck in its mandated hearings far from our population centers, with short and little notice. For good reason. Under the GNEP plan, nuclear fuel would be produced in the U.S. and other advanced nuclear nations through a reprocessing technology that is yet to be developed. The cost is undisclosed but substantial. Nuclear fuel would be provided to developing countries for their nuclear energy development. In return, we would receive their waste for further reprocessing - an international recycling system that would keep the big boys in control of weapons-grade nuclear material production. The DOE claims the reprocessing site isn't yet selected, but the inside word is that it's Hanford.

New Delhi: India has formally asked the United States to negotiate the "arrangements and procedures" under which American spent nuclear fuel will be reprocessed in the country, presenting the Obama administration with its first test of how committed it is to the India-U.S. nuclear agreement. The request was made last month, senior officials told The Hindu. Under the terms of the '123 agreement' on bilateral nuclear cooperation, Washington has six months to begin consultations and one year after that to reach an understanding with Delhi. "The clock has started ticking," an official said. "We have till the end of August 2010 to finalise an agreement."

In this third segment of my review of William Tucker's outstanding book Terrestrial Energy, I consider Tucker's assessment of available opportunities to solve the nuclear waste problem by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Recycling Opportunities If U.S. nuclear power plants were to resume reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, as is done in France and other nations, only 2 to 3 percent of the material now scheduled to be stored at the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository would have to be stored there, and the whole nuclear waste problem would disappear. After reprocessing, the total unusable portion of three full years of nuclear power production can be stored indefinitely in a dry cask about four times the size of a telephone booth.

* Faulty reprocessing facility threatens UK atomic plans * Critics call for plug to be pulled on 'white elephant' The company that runs the Thorp nuclear reprocessing plant admitted that it may have to close for a number of years owing to a series of technical problems. The huge £1.8bn plant at Sellafield imports spent nuclear fuel from around the world and returns it to countries as new reactor fuel. But a series of catastrophic technical failures with associated equipment means Thorp could be mothballed at a cost of millions of pounds. Under strict orders from the government's safety watchdog, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the plant's operators, Sellafield Ltd, is expected to have little option but to mothball the reprocessing plant for at least four years.

The Obama administration's decision to drop a plan to store nuclear power plant waste in an underground repository in Nevada has renewed consideration of alternative ways to dispose of the highly radioactive material, the Salt Lake Tribune reported yesterday (see GSN, March 13). Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced this month that the administration would create a blue-ribbon commission to offer waste storage solutions besides the two-decade-old plan to put it in Yucca Mountain (see GSN, March 12). Alternative plans include reprocessing the waste to remove its plutonium, which could then be used again in nuclear power reactors. Environmental and nonproliferation activists have historically opposed reprocessing, arguing that it creates new, more dangerous waste and produces weapon-usable materials. U.S. Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah), however, told the Tribune that he believes reprocessing can be conducted safely.

"Arjun Makhijani, Head of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, explains the problems in dealing with nuclear waste and dangers related to reprocessing. Share this More from Arjun Makhijani Reprocessing Waste Nuclear Energy: Irrelevant? Nuclear Deterrence Nuclear Waste: French Style"

Contents KK-7 Stopped Due to Radioactive Leak, KK-6 Begins Start-up Tests Local groups demand that start-up tests be suspended until investigations into KK-7's leaking fuel rod problem have been concluded and that both KK-6 and KK-7 be immediately shut down. Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Struck By Earthquake The fact that an earthquake that arose so far away could cause so large a ground motion begs the question of whether the plant could withstand an earthquake immediately beneath the plant. Nuclear Energy Policy Under a New Government It might be hoped that a change of government would herald a change of nuclear energy policy, but we should not be too sanguine about the chances of a significant improvement. Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant: 14 Month Delay The estimated date of completion of construction and testing of its Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant has been extended by fourteen months to October 2010. It is the seventeenth time that the schedule had been extended. Public Finance and Export Insurance for Nuclear-Related Exports NGOs demand rigorous safety assessment, information disclosure and stakeholder involvement. An accident not to be forgotten: 10 Years have passed since the JCO Criticality Accident It might not have been so when the plant was first constructed, but at the time of the accident the plant was surrounded by houses. Nuclear fuel should not be handled in such places. Workers' Radiation Exposure Data for FY2008 The total collective dose in FY 2008 for people working at nuclear power plants was 84.04 person sieverts, an increase of 5.86 person sieverts compared to the previous year. Who's Who: Hiromitsu Ino There are many superb specialists in all sorts of academic fields, but there is one important difference between Ino and a large percentage of these "experts". That is that Ino succeeded in bridging the gap between specialist research and social activism.

Contents KK-7 Stopped Due to Radioactive Leak, KK-6 Begins Start-up Tests Local groups demand that start-up tests be suspended until investigations into KK-7's leaking fuel rod problem have been concluded and that both KK-6 and KK-7 be immediately shut down. Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Struck By Earthquake The fact that an earthquake that arose so far away could cause so large a ground motion begs the question of whether the plant could withstand an earthquake immediately beneath the plant. Nuclear Energy Policy Under a New Government It might be hoped that a change of government would herald a change of nuclear energy policy, but we should not be too sanguine about the chances of a significant improvement. Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant: 14 Month Delay The estimated date of completion of construction and testing of its Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant has been extended by fourteen months to October 2010. It is the seventeenth time that the schedule had been extended. Public Finance and Export Insurance for Nuclear-Related Exports NGOs demand rigorous safety assessment, information disclosure and stakeholder involvement. An accident not to be forgotten: 10 Years have passed since the JCO Criticality Accident It might not have been so when the plant was first constructed, but at the time of the accident the plant was surrounded by houses. Nuclear fuel should not be handled in such places. Workers' Radiation Exposure Data for FY2008 The total collective dose in FY 2008 for people working at nuclear power plants was 84.04 person sieverts, an increase of 5.86 person sieverts compared to the previous year. Who's Who: Hiromitsu Ino There are many superb specialists in all sorts of academic fields, but there is one important difference between Ino and a large percentage of these "experts". That is that Ino succeeded in bridging the gap between specialist research and social activism.

While it will cost taxpayers billions to clean out dangerous radioactive waste from a defunct nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, storing it there would cost billions more over the centuries - and risk contamination of Lake Erie. That was the conclusion of a state-funded report on the 3,300-acre West Valley nuclear site, closed since the early 1970s and once the nation's only commercial center for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Released Tuesday, the report comes during a growing national debate about stepping up nuclear power as a way to cut the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Critics continue to question the fate of spent fuel, which is dangerous for thousands of years. The report by Cambridge-based Synapse Energy Economics claimed it will cost nearly $10 billion to clean radioactive waste from West Valley over the next 60 years and ship it to a federal dump that does not exist yet.

The Tennessee Valley Authority has received $4 million to develop a conceptual design for a nuclear waste reprocessing plant that could end up as a demonstration facility built on the former Clinch Breeder Reactor site.

The U.S. Energy Department made official today its plan to scrap a Bush administration initiative that could have brought a major nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to South Carolina. Economic developers, however, say the cancellation of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership-published in today's Federal Register- doesn't mean Barnwell County and Savannah River Site won't win a similar venture in the future. "At this point, GNEP, as a concept, is dead, but the issue of what do do with this material isn't," said Danny Black, president of the Barnwell-based SouthernCarolina Alliance, a regional economic development consortium. The GNEP program, unveiled in 2006, was a broad plan to reprocess spent commercial nuclear fuel to maximize its efficiency, reduce waste volume and prevent its exploitation for nuclear weapons.

The U.S. Energy Department will scrap a Bush administration initiative that could have brought billions of dollars in new spending-and a lot more nuclear materials- to South Carolina. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, unveiled in 2006, was a plan to reprocess spent commercial nuclear fuel to maximize its efficiency, reduce waste volume and prevent its exploitation for nuclear weapons. Two of the 11 sites proposed for such reprocessing centers are in South Carolina.

"SELLAFIELD Ltd has just exported a shipment of recovered uranium to Russia for processing to allow its manufacture into new fuel. The uranium was recovered from spent nuclear power station fuel owned by European reprocessing customers in Germany and the Netherlands and sent to Sellafield for reprocessing at the Thorp plant. It was the eighth such shipment of material from Thorp."

"The U.S. and India have agreed on procedures for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from the U.S., helping General Electric Co.'s atomic venture bid for contracts to build power plants in the South Asian nation. The agreement will enable India to reprocess U.S. nuclear material under International Atomic Energy Agency standards and allow American companies to participate in the country's civil nuclear energy sector, the U.S. State Department said in a statement today. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a subsidiary of Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric and Monroeville, Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse, a subsidiary of Tokyo's Toshiba Corp., are likely to bid for nuclear energy contracts as the world's second fastest-growing major economy builds generating plants to end blackouts and reduce poverty. India plans to raise nuclear generation capacity 10-fold over the next decade to sustain its economic growth. The State Department statement didn't provide more details and S.K. Malhotra, a spokesman for India's Department of Atomic Energy, couldn't be reached on his mobile phone. "

"The United States and India have taken an important step toward implementing civil nuclear cooperation by completing negotiations on "arrangements and procedures" for reprocessing U.S.-origin spent nuclear fuel. These arrangements, negotiated pursuant to Article 6(iii) of the historic Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of India and the Government of the United States of America concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, will enable Indian reprocessing of U.S.-obligated nuclear material under IAEA safeguards. Completion of these arrangements will facilitate participation by U.S. firms in India's rapidly expanding civil nuclear energy sector. For additional information, please visit www.state.gov."

"Reprocessing of nuclear waste is neither an affordable remedy for future waste disposal in the United States nor will it eliminate the need for a deep geologic repository to replace Yucca Mountain, according to a recent study released by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), a nonprofit and nonpartisan research group. Even as some are urging the Obama Administration's blue-ribbon panel on nuclear waste to consider the options of reprocessing and breeder reactors, the IEER study looks at the global experience - including those of France and Britain - and finds that both approaches are widely misunderstood in the United States. France has not solved its nuclear waste problems and now needs a repository in face of strong public opposition to the development of such a facility."