Group items tagged

This is the last story in a three-part series related to the problems of spent fuel produced by the nation's nuclear power plants. BRATTLEBORO -- Is the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel the answer to the nation's nuclear waste storage woes? The nuclear industry contends reprocessing, or recycling as some in the industry call it, could reduce the amount of spent fuel that will one day need to be stored away and isolated from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. The nuclear industry doesn't consider spent fuel a waste product, said Thomas Kauffman, senior media relations manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry funded organization that promotes nuclear power around the world. "It can be recycled through reprocessing," he said. "It's an energy-rich resource that needs to be stored until the government decides how it wants to handle it." The NEI believes programs currently operating in countries such as Japan, France, Germany and Russia can serve as examples for the United States. The NEI also contends that new technology, including the development of breeder reactors that can consume spent fuel, might make spent fuel storage a thing of the past. And while it is true that strides have been made in the field of nuclear fuel reprocessing, it has a checkered history that includes contamination of land, pollution of water and huge clean-up costs. "Reprocessing would be a serious mistake with costs and risks that outweigh the benefits," said Jim Riccio, Greenpeace's nuclear policy analyst.

This is the last story in a three-part series related to the problems of spent fuel produced by the nation's nuclear power plants. BRATTLEBORO -- Is the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel the answer to the nation's nuclear waste storage woes? The nuclear industry contends reprocessing, or recycling as some in the industry call it, could reduce the amount of spent fuel that will one day need to be stored away and isolated from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. The nuclear industry doesn't consider spent fuel a waste product, said Thomas Kauffman, senior media relations manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry funded organization that promotes nuclear power around the world. "It can be recycled through reprocessing," he said. "It's an energy-rich resource that needs to be stored until the government decides how it wants to handle it." The NEI believes programs currently operating in countries such as Japan, France, Germany and Russia can serve as examples for the United States. The NEI also contends that new technology, including the development of breeder reactors that can consume spent fuel, might make spent fuel storage a thing of the past. And while it is true that strides have been made in the field of nuclear fuel reprocessing, it has a checkered history that includes contamination of land, pollution of water and huge clean-up costs. "Reprocessing would be a serious mistake with costs and risks that outweigh the benefits," said Jim Riccio, Greenpeace's nuclear policy analyst.

U.S. reactors have generated about 65,000 metric tons of spent fuel, of which 75 percent is stored in pools, according to Nuclear Energy Institute data. Spent fuel rods give off about 1 million rems (10,00Sv) of radiation per hour at a distance of one foot - enough radiation to kill people in a matter of seconds. There are more than 30 million such rods in U.S. spent fuel pools. No other nation has generated this much radioactivity from either nuclear power or nuclear weapons production. Nearly 40 percent of the radioactivity in U.S. spent fuel is cesium-137 (4.5 billion curies) - roughly 20 times more than released from all atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. U.S. spent pools hold about 15-30 times more cesium-137 than the Chernobyl accident released. For instance, the pool at the Vermont Yankee reactor, a BWR Mark I, currently holds nearly three times the amount of spent fuel stored at Dai-Ichi's crippled Unit 4 reactor. The Vermont Yankee reactor also holds about seven percent more rad

Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to revise its generic determination on the environmental impacts of storage of spent fuel at, or away from, reactor sites after the expiration of reactor operating licenses. The proposed revision reflects findings that the Commission has reached in the ``Waste Confidence'' decision update published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The Commission now proposes to find that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) until a disposal facility can reasonably be expected to be available.

"Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc. has embarked on full-fledged studies in preparation for extraction of spent fuel from the stricken reactors at Fukushima I nuclear power station (NPS). On September 1, it instituted an ad-hoc organization whose name translates "Fuel Extraction Preparations Group," and assigned ten employees to it. The Group is to examine methodology and technical issues in preparation for extraction of the approximately 2,700 spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pools in units 1 through 4. Its future schedule envisions the removal of rubble and performance of other work in parallel, and start of the fuel extraction job no later than three years after the achievement of cold shutdown of the reactors. The fuel pools in units 1-4 at Fukushima I are already undergoing cyclic cooling through heat exchange, and the temperature of their water is being maintained in the range of 30-40 deg C. In units 1, 3 and 4, however, the reactor building is damaged and the radioactive substances in them are not completely contained. The numbers of spent fuel assemblies in the pools are 292 in unit 1, 587 in unit 2, 514 in unit 3, and 1,331 in unit 4. In medium-term approaches following cold shutdown, a key question is how to go about extracting this large number of spent fuel assemblies."

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.

This is the second in a series of stories dealing with the issue of spent fuel stored at the nation's nuclear power plants. BRATTLEBORO -- With spent fuel piling up at commercial nuclear power plants around the country and no permanent disposal site on the horizon, many power plant operators are hoping the federal government might soon endorse the interim storage of the waste at one or two locations in the nation. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry-funded organization that promotes nuclear power around the world, is suggesting just that. "An interim facility wouldn't have to be huge," said Thomas Kauffman, senior media relations manager for NEI. If you were to put the 60,000 tons of spent fuel currently being stored in dry casks into one location, he said, "They would fit onto an area of about a square half-mile." No site has been identified yet for interim storage. "The industry has had some dialogue with volunteer communities," said Kauffman. Those communities include the sites of decommissioned power plants.

This is the second in a series of stories dealing with the issue of spent fuel stored at the nation's nuclear power plants. BRATTLEBORO -- With spent fuel piling up at commercial nuclear power plants around the country and no permanent disposal site on the horizon, many power plant operators are hoping the federal government might soon endorse the interim storage of the waste at one or two locations in the nation. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry-funded organization that promotes nuclear power around the world, is suggesting just that. "An interim facility wouldn't have to be huge," said Thomas Kauffman, senior media relations manager for NEI. If you were to put the 60,000 tons of spent fuel currently being stored in dry casks into one location, he said, "They would fit onto an area of about a square half-mile." No site has been identified yet for interim storage. "The industry has had some dialogue with volunteer communities," said Kauffman. Those communities include the sites of decommissioned power plants.

Russia is well underway to improve the situation in the Andreeva Bay, an official from Rosatom confirmed in a seminar yesterday. Sweden, Norway and the UK pledge continued support to the clean-up of the site, one of the world's biggest and worst protected storages for spent nuclear fuel. However, the most important question still remains to be solved: how to remove thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel assemblies, the Bellona Foundation underlines. This week, the environmental organisation organised a seminar on the issue in Murmansk. Spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste storage facilities at Andreyeva Bay were hastily built during the Soviet era. They were meant to be used on a temporary basis to house nuclear materials, which are still being stored there at enormous risk to the environment and local community. The facilities store more than 20,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies, Bellona.org reports.

Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Spent Fuel Facility; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding the Proposed Exemption From Certain Regulatory Requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shana Helton, Senior Project Manager, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 492- 3284; fax number: (301) 492-3348; e-mail: shana.helton@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2301, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption to the United States Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office (DOE or applicant), from the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1501(c). Section 20.1501(c) requires that dosimeter processors hold current personnel dosimetry accreditation from the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Exemption from this requirement of 10 CFR 20.1501(c) would allow DOE to use the DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP) process for personnel dosimetry at Idaho Spent Fuel (ISF) facility independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho.

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has called a special meeting next week to discuss three apparent violations involving a spent fuel pool at Turkey Point - a critical issue as the long-held plans for storing waste in Nevada have completely collapsed. Technically, the meeting in Atlanta on Wednesday involves the degradation of "a neutron-absorbing material called Boraflex in the Unit 3 spent fuel pool." Used nuclear fuel has been building up at Turkey Point for the 35 years of its operation. The degradation involves systems intended to cram more spent fuel into the pools, according to Lawrence King, a former NRC inspector. More than two million pounds of waste now sit at the South Miami-Dade site in pools of water - although Florida Power & Light Co. spokesman Michael Waldron says it's more accurate to think of the spent rods as occupying a 16-foot cube if bunched together."

Nuclear power generator operators would go straight to the US Department of Energy to seek damages instead of to the courts if the agency does not remove all of the spent fuel from future reactor sites within 10 years after the unit closes, DOE waste program director Edward Sproat said Monday. Sproat told reporters following a nuclear waste symposium in Washington that under a proposed DOE spent fuel disposal contract for new reactors, a utility would receive $5 million a year until all of the spent fuel has been removed from the site. Total damages paid to a utility, Sproat said, would be limited to the total amount the utility has paid into the federal Nuclear Waste Fund for the disposal of spent fuel generated by that unit.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an application dated January 30, 2008, from Duke Power Company LLC d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, (Duke) for the renewal of its Special Nuclear Material (SNM) License SNM-2503, under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72, for the receipt, possession, storage and transfer of spent fuel and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel storage at the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), located at the ONS site in Oconee County, South Carolina. If granted, the renewed license will authorize Duke to continue to store spent fuel in a dry cask storage system at the ISFSI. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 72.42, the renewal term of the license for an ISFSI is limited to 20 years. Duke, however, has also submitted an exemption request with its license renewal application, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, seeking a license renewal term of 40 years. In accordance with 10 CFR 72.34, Duke's renewal application included an Environmental Report (which is attached as Enclosure 3, Appendix E of Duke's application).

"HIGHLY radioactive spent fuel from the Sizewell B nuclear power station could be stored in containers in a massive new building on the site. British Energy, part of EDF energy, has outlined plans to build a dry storage building to manage the power station's spent fuel from 2015. The company has submitted an application to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for permission to build the facility near Sizewell B on the north Suffolk coast. At the moment, spent fuel is kept in a fuel storage pond, which is expected to provide capacity until about 2015. If the application for the new dry fuel store is permitted, it will be built on the existing site and store spent fuel from 2015."

"'Under the Radar': Outgoing Bush White House Hiked Likely Penalties Borne by Taxpayers By Inking Deals With Over a Dozen Utilities; 170 Groups in All 50 States Release Principles Urging an Upgrade in Spent Reactor Fuel Storage Safety to Withstand Equivalent of '9/11 Attacks' Between the output of existing commercial nuclear reactors and 21 proposed nuclear reactors covered by agreements quietly signed by the outgoing Bush Administration with more than a dozen electric utilities, the United States already has agreed to store enough spent (used) reactor fuel to fill the equivalent of not one, but two, Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste repositories, according to documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Given that the U.S. is back to square one for the first repository, U.S. taxpayers would be on the hook for potentially tens of billions of dollars in penalties that would have to be paid to utilities if the 21 proposed reactor projects proceed. This new information about the daunting scale of the challenge that faces the United States in disposing of spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors comes one day before the first meeting of the Obama Administration's "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future." In addition to highlighting the serious consequences of the eleventh-hour deals stuck by the Bush White House, experts also focused public attention on the fact that the recently cancelled Yucca Mountain repository -- even if it were open today, 35 years after the process to create it started -- would already be filled to its legal limit of 63,000 metric tons of commercial waste by this spring. A second repository the same size would be filled with the 42,000 additional metric tons of spent fuel yet to be produced by existing nuclear reactors and the 21,000 metric tons that would be produced by the 21 proposed reactors covered under the Bush-industry agreements."

"Frank von Hippel's article ("South Korean Reprocessing: An Unnecessary Threat to the Nonproliferation Regime," January/February 2010) on the proliferation risks of South Korea's plans for reprocessing spent fuel from its nuclear power program elegantly frames what is likely to become a major controversy as South Korea's agreement for nuclear cooperation with the United States comes up for renewal in 2014. Von Hippel argues that the South Korean approach, based on an unproven technology known as "pyroprocessing" and yet-to-be-designed fast reactors, is unlikely to succeed on a scale sufficient to alleviate South Korea's spent fuel management problem. Moreover, he stresses, it could introduce new proliferation risks by creating stocks of material from which plutonium could be more easily extracted than from spent fuel. To underscore his point, von Hippel highlights the great difficulties Japan has encountered in its own spent fuel reprocessing program, based on classic reprocessing technology that is well understood, and conventional reactors. The situation in Japan, however, is considerably worse than von Hippel describes, making his core point all the more powerful."

The 4th AtomTrans-2009 international nuclear forum has opened in St. Petersburg. BaltInfo.ru news agency reported Tuesday that AtomTrans-2009 Press Secretary Vadim Titov said that a key topic of forum discussions will be "efforts to ensure safety in the transportation and use of radioactive materials, as well as safety in the handling of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste." Addressing Atomtrans-2009 participants Atomspetstrans JSC Director Vladimir Naschokin said that upgrading Russia's containers for transporting spent nuclear fuel will require investment of $79 million to $93 million. Otherwise, according to Naschokin, while the need for transport will continue until 2028, in the absence of investment a shortage of containers for transporting spent nuclear fuel from Russia's 19 VVER-440 440-megawatt reactors will occur beginning in 2016. Besides radioactive material transport issues, the forum will also cover matters concerning intermediate storage and final isolation of radioactive waste. Scientists and specialists attending the forum will also tour nuclear power industry facilities in northwestern Russia.

The 4th AtomTrans-2009 international nuclear forum has opened in St. Petersburg. BaltInfo.ru news agency reported Tuesday that AtomTrans-2009 Press Secretary Vadim Titov said that a key topic of forum discussions will be "efforts to ensure safety in the transportation and use of radioactive materials, as well as safety in the handling of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste." Addressing Atomtrans-2009 participants Atomspetstrans JSC Director Vladimir Naschokin said that upgrading Russia's containers for transporting spent nuclear fuel will require investment of $79 million to $93 million. Otherwise, according to Naschokin, while the need for transport will continue until 2028, in the absence of investment a shortage of containers for transporting spent nuclear fuel from Russia's 19 VVER-440 440-megawatt reactors will occur beginning in 2016. Besides radioactive material transport issues, the forum will also cover matters concerning intermediate storage and final isolation of radioactive waste. Scientists and specialists attending the forum will also tour nuclear power industry facilities in northwestern Russia.

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is citing Florida Power & Light Co. for three violations and has proposed a $70,000 civil penalty against the company for an issue with the Unit 3 spent fuel pool racks at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant near Homestead, Fla., about 20 miles south of Miami. In December 2009, the NRC became aware that the neutron-absorbing material called Boraflex in the Unit 3 spent fuel pool had degraded below the levels spelled out in the plant's design basis documents. Although FPL had taken compensatory measures including the addition of soluble boron, the regulatory requirements that ensure the spent fuel pool remains safe were not met. The company's actions ensured the pool's condition did not pose an immediate safety concern, but the NRC found that FPL did not promptly identify and correct the condition. The NRC issued the civil penalty because the agency felt the company did not report the condition in a timely fashion. The NRC has determined that the issue has low to moderate safety significance and may result in additional inspections. The NRC staff held a regulatory and enforcement conference with FPL in April, and the company disagreed with some aspects of the NRC's evaluation. After considering information provided by FPL, the NRC staff issued its final determination including the three violations and $70,000 fine."

"Moscow Uses 'Infamous' Ship to Move Spent Nuclear Fuel Even as It Announces Plans to Build More Nuclear Power Plants Abroad Paul Goble Staunton, June 15 - Russia's Atomic Energy Corporation is using a refitted ship that became "infamous for dumping liquid radioactive waste from the Soviet ice-breaker fleet in the Barents Sea," Barents Observer reports today, even as Moscow announces plans to dramatically expand its involvement in the construction of atomic power plants abroad. The "Serebryanka," the news agency reports, has picked up "the first load of spent nuclear fuel from the run-down storage facility" near the Norwegian border without Russian officials informing Oslo in advance as they had pledged to do (www.barentsobserver.com/first-shipment-of-highly-radioactive-waste-from-border-area.4793260-116320.html) Eldri Holo, an official at the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, told the news portal that "we expect to be informed about the dates for shipment of spent nuclear fuel." But she added that the first she had heard about this move was from the news agency rather than from the Russians. "

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.

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

Workers at Indian Point nuclear power plant have loaded the fifth and final canister of spent fuel from the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool onto the outdoor storage pad. The canister contains the last of the spent fuel from the Unit 1 pool. Officials said removal of the fuel from the pool eliminates the source of Strontium-90 and other radioactive contaminants in the pool water and ultimately the groundwater.