Nuclear Waste Panel Adopts NFRC Recommendation

Norris McDonald at BRC Hearing

The Blue Ribbon Commission On America's Nuclear Future (BRC) issued its final draft report today and recommended that at least one new site should be found to store waste left over from the nation’s nuclear power plants. The blue-ribbon commission assigned by President Obama in January 2010 to come up with an alternative to the plan for a nuclear waste repository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, also adopted a Center recommendation: the creation of a new federal corporation to manage the site rather than turning it over to the U.S. Department of Energy.

NFRC Cochairman Norris McDonald testified before the commission and recommended the creation of a Nuclear Waste Management Agency (NWMA).  The BRC adopted this recommendation.

Obama asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu to create the 15-member commission after his administration decided against going ahead with long-delayed plans to create a national nuclear waste storage site at Yucca
Mountain. The commission — chaired by former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush — does not suggest where that storage site would be located.  This is a cop out.  NFRC disagrees with President Obama's decision to abandon Yucca Mountain as America's national repository for nuclear waste.

The report recommends guidelines for a selection process — such as giving local communities, but not states, the power to veto a facility. Many members of the commission believe that New Mexico, which already has a nuclear waste storage facility, might prove more receptive than Nevada to a federal waste site. The group also recommends finding an interim storage site for waste that is now being stored at 10 closed reactors at nine different sites. All but one of the sites have the used nuclear fuel in dry casks, and the commission said there would be fewer security risks if the waste were stored in one place.  NFRC does not support this recommendation because we believe Yucca Mountain is the best location for the national nuclear waste repository.

For years, electric utilities with nuclear power plants paid about $23 billion in fees to the federal government to finance the repository, and substantial preparation was done at the Yucca Mountain,Nevada site. Some of those utilities have filed lawsuits to recover the money.

The report contains no dissenting opinions, but members of the commission could not reach agreement on whether to move ahead with reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, a process used today in France. (Wash Post, 7/29/2011)

Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future Draft Report to the Secretary of Energy

DOE to Pay $100 Million for Used Nuclear Fuel Storage Costs to Xcel Energy

Exel Energy has reached a settlement with the federal government regarding costs incurred by Northern States Power Company (NSP) and its customers because of the Department of Energy's failure to begin removing used fuel from the company's nuclear plant sites by a 1998 deadline. The federal government will pay approximately $100 million for used fuel storage costs at Prairie Island and Monticello nuclear generating plants incurred through 2008. The federal government also will pay costs incurred from 2009 through 2013 related to the DOE’s failure to remove used fuel. The money will be returned to NSP customers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota and Michigan.

Xcel Energy’s lawsuits were among 74 filed by utilities against the federal government alleging partial breach of contract when the DOE failed to meet a Jan. 31, 1998, deadline to begin accepting used fuel. The dispute stemmed from contracts the DOE entered into with the utilities concerning the DOE’s obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Seventeen lawsuits involving 44 reactors were settled previously. (Excel Energy, 7/8/2011)

Energy Northwest Nuclear Waste Claim Rejected by Court

Energy Northwest, a Washington state utility, did not prove that the federal government's failure to dispose of nuclear waste from its embattled reactor forced the company to upgrade a $60 million nuclear waste storage facility, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the utility did not make the case that the federal government's failure to take waste from its 1,150 megawatt Columbia Generating Station required the company to modify its spent fuel storage facility.

The NFRC disagrees with this court decision.  The federal government has the fiduciary responsibility to take possession of commercial nuclear power plant spent fuel.  Billions of dollars have been collected from ratepayers to support the federal government's responsibility for managing the waste.

The 26-year-old nuclear reactor and dry storage facility are located 10 miles north of Richland, Washington.  Energy Northwest sued the Department of Energy in 2004 for money it spent on moving spent nuclear fuel from its overcapacity spent fuel pools to a newly built dry storage facility.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims then granted Energy Northwest more than $55 million in damages last year. But the appeals court yesterday vacated the claims court's ruling, saying Energy Northwest failed to prove the government's breach of contract required the company to make the upgrades. Therefore, the court said, the federal government is not required to pay the utility $7 million for modifying the spent fuel storage facility or interest payments the utility made in connection with the project.  However, the appeals court ruled Energy Northwest was rightfully granted $2.9 million in "overhead costs" associated with the storage facility.

Energy Northwest could not be reached for comment.

Energy Northwest signed a contract with DOE in 1983 to take spent nuclear fuel from the facility and store it in a permanent repository, which has not yet been built. The agreements followed in the wake of Congress directing the agency to prepare a permanent dump for spent nuclear fuel in 1982.
The contracts stipulated that the federal government was required to dispose of spent nuclear fuel generated by the reactor by 1998 and Energy Northwest was bound to prepare the waste for storage and contribute money to the Nuclear Waste Fund.

The Obama administration ended support for the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, prompting DOE to withdraw its application for the project and forcing utilities to store waste on-site.

Nuclear plants must store spent fuel in pools for at least five years and thereafter can leave the rods in water indefinitely, but the pools can fill up depending on their arrangement and must be moved to dry storage, according to NRC. Energy Northwest determined by the early 1990s that the pool would reach capacity after 2003 if the government did not take the waste and decided in 1999 to build an "independent spent fuel storage installation" to store the fuel indefinitely in dry casks. The facility was approved to store spent nuclear fuel in 2002. (NYT, 4/8/2011)

NRC To Review U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

NRC Appoints Task Force To Review U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has named six senior managers and staff to its task force for examining the agency’s regulatory requirements, programs, processes, and implementation in light of information from the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan, following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

The task force will be led by Dr. Charles Miller, director of the NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs.

Other task force members are:

Daniel Dorman, deputy director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS);

Jack Grobe, deputy director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR);

Gary Holahan, deputy director of the Office of New Reactors (NRO);

Nathan Sanfilippo, executive technical assistant, Office of the Executive Director for Operations; and

Amy Cubbage, Team Leader, NRO.

The task force will talk to agency technical experts and gather information to conduct a comprehensive review of the information from the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex and make recommendations for any improvements needed to NRC's regulatory system.
According to the charter, the task force will conduct a near-term review and identify topics for assessment for a longer term review. A written report is expected to made public 90 days after the start of the review.

Initially, the task force will identify potential near-term actions that affect U.S. power reactors, including their spent fuel pools. Areas to be reviewed include station blackout (loss of all A/C power for a reactor), external events that could lead to a prolonged loss of cooling, plant capabilities for preventing or dealing with such circumstances, and emergency preparedness.

The task force plans to brief the Commission in public meetings on the status of the review on May 12 and June 16.  (Power Gen Worldwide, 4/1/2011)

House Investigates Yucca Mountain

Yucca Mountain

House of Representatives leadership is launching an investigation into the Obama administration's decision to abandon plans to store the country's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the panel’s environment subcommittee, will lead the investigations, which will focus on the administration’s motivations for ending funding for the project and withdrawing its license.

According to Upton and Shimkus:

"There was “no scientific or technical basis for withdrawing the application. The administration’s move to shutter Yucca raises serious red flags. Despite the scientific community’s seal of approval, extensive bipartisan collaboration, as well as nearly three decades and billions of taxpayer dollars spent, this administration has recklessly sought to pull the plug on the Yucca repository without even the sensibility of offering a viable alternative.”

The NFRC agrees.  Moreover, the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan is a reminder that the country must designate a permanent repository for nuclear waste.

Yucca Mountain Repository Tunnel Exit

Upton and Shimkus sent letters Thursday alerting Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko about the investigation. The letters also requested detailed information about the officials’ role in the decision to abandon Yucca Mountain.

Congress approved Yucca Mountain as the country’s nuclear waste repository in 1982. But the project has been mired by years of delay and opposition from Nevada lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). (The Hill, 3/31/2011)

EPA & FDA Monitoring Food & Water for Radiation

Update on Ongoing Monitoring 

In response to the ongoing situation in Japan, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to increase the level of nationwide monitoring of milk, precipitation, drinking water, and other potential exposure routes.

EPA conducts radiological monitoring of milk under its RADNET program, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has jurisdiction over the safety, labeling and identity of milk and milk products in interstate commerce. States have jurisdiction over those facilities located within their territory.

Results from a screening sample taken March 25 from Spokane, Wash. detected 0.8 pCi/L of iodine-131, which is more than 5,000 times lower than the Derived Intervention Level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly.

“Radiation is all around us in our daily lives, and these findings are a minuscule amount compared to what people experience every day. For example, a person would be exposed to low levels of radiation on a round trip cross country flight, watching television, and even from construction materials,” said Patricia Hansen, an FDA senior scientist.

EPA’s recommendation to state and local governments is to continue to coordinate closely with EPA, FDA and CDC. EPA will continue to communicate our nationwide sampling results as they come in.

EPA

FDA

Spent Fuel Pools Pose Serious Problem at Fukushima Plant

Norris McDonald with Spent Fuel Pool in background

C0-CHAIRMAN'S CORNER

By Norris McDonald

I have toured half a dozen spent fuel pools at various nuclear power plants.  They always fascinate me.  To look down on the boron-laced bluish looking water to observe the spent fuel assemblies below is just one of the most interesting things I have ever done.  It never ceases to amaze.  Being shown and instructed on how the fuel assemblies are brought into the plant, inserted into the reactor vessel, and ultimated romoved for storage in the spent fuel pools and dry cast outdoor storage is very enlightening.

The fuel rods at all six reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex contain plutonium. But only six percent of the fuel rods at the plant's Unit 3 were a mixture of plutonium-239 and uranium-235 when it was first put into operation. The fuel in other reactors is only uranium, but even there, plutonium is created during the fission process.  Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 25,000 years, meaning it takes that long to lose half of its radioactive potency. Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years. And cesium, which tends to go airborne much more easily, has a half-life of 30 years.

When the pellets of uranium dioxide inside the thin fuel rods are split to create energy in the reactor, they release neutrons that, in turn, create highly radioactive plutonium-239. Some of the U-238 is transformed into PU-239.  This plutonium also splits, creating even more energy. By the end of a uranium fuel cycle, 40 percent of the energy produced comes from the splitting of plutonium.  The spent fuel rod that remains at the end of the process contains uranium, plutonium, and a mix of other radioactive byproducts.

The Fukushima Dai-ichi site has 3,400 tons of fuel in seven spent fuel pools within the six-reactor plant, including one joint pool storing very old fuel from units 3 and 4. There are 877 tons in five of the reactor cores. Officials have said that the fuel in Unit 4's reactor vessel was transferred to its spent fuel pool when the unit was temporarily shut in November.

Japan has recently built a facility to remove the byproducts and reprocess the plutonium and uranium into a substance called MOX for reuse in its reactors.  MOX mixes plutonium or highly enriched uranium from warheads with regular uranium for a blend that can be used in commercial reactors.  I toured the LaHague reprocessing facility in France (see photo below) in 2007. Japan's reprocessing plant, in Rokkasho, a village 300 miles (500 kilometers) north of Fukushima, is only starting up, and hasn't yet begun full operation.  I also toured the two nuclear reactors in the United States that use MOX fuel.

Norris Mcdonald (center) with tour group at LaHague nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in France

The explosions at the 3 containment buildings compromised the spent fuel pools.  Now those highly radioactive fuels assemblies are left unshielded by water.  The assemblies are not only radioactive, they are extremely hot.  This is a real problem for Tokyo Electric Power. I think they will have to bury the site much as the Russians did at Chernobly.  Sand, boron, dirt, cement, concrete, steel and everything else they can put on top of the site to block radiation releases into the environment. (FOX News, 3/18/2011)

Uranium Spot Market Price Dropping: Probably Temporary

Trading in uranium on the spot market totalled about $2.5 billion in 2010. The Fukushima nuclear plant disaster is probably temporarily changing that picture as hedge funds and banks unload their uranium portfolios.  Explosions and radiation leaks in Japan have worried some traders too, who are dumping their uranium holdings amid fears that the Japanese crisis could stall expansion of the world's nuclear programs.

Almost three million pounds of uranium have changed hands in the spot market this week, five times more than the average volume. The result is that after an 80% run-up over the past eight months, uranium prices have tumbled. They reached a three-year high of $73 a pound in February, but dropped $13 earlier this week and fell to $49.25 on Wednesday, according to Ux Consulting Company. 

At the same time, some utilities and even producers have stepped in to buy the metal in the belief that the demand for more nuclear plants will remain. A total of 65 nuclear units are under construction, mostly in China and Russia. Despite the bearish news in recent days, traders note that more than 400 reactors are still operating, consuming about 180 million pounds of uranium a year.  Nuclear power accounts for 14% of global electricity output

Most of the uranium traded in the physical market is in the form of uranium oxide concentrate, which is several steps away from being used as nuclear fuel. After utilities buy uranium on the spot market, these facilities convert the oxide into a gas form of pure uranium, called uranium hexafluoride. The gas, which is radioactive, is then enriched to become nuclear fuel. It is then transported to fabrication centers to convert into a pellet, which is put into a fuel rod that goes into a nuclear reactor.

NFRC believes the current drop represents a short-term impact and the fundamentals for the market are still very strong. (WSJ, 3/17/2011)

Fire at Fukushima Unit #4

A fire is out of control at the #4 Unit at the Fukushim Daiishi nuclear power complex.  This comes after hydrogen explosions at Units 1, 2 & 3.  Plant workers are spraying ocean water laced with boron on those reactors to keep them from melting down.

Radiation hazards are causing massive evacuations near the facility.  Residents are being monitored for radiation exposure.

A 6.4 scale earthquake also rocked Tokyo today.

(Various news & agency sources)

Obama Still Supports Nukes & San Onofre Under Scrutiny

The Obama administration is maintaining its support for nuclear power even after three explosions at crippled nuclear power plants in Japan.  Senator Charles Schumer is also standing by nuclear power.  However, Senator Joe Lieberman has called for a 'time out' and Congressman Ed Markey is calling for a moratorium on building new plants. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is planning legislation aimed at streamlining the approval process for new plants.  The Japanese incidents come as a number of power companies have begun applying for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses to build what would be the first new U.S. reactors in decades. The White House has supported the efforts.

Last year the administration approved $8.3 billion worth of Energy Department loan guarantees for utility giant Southern Co. to add two new reactors to its Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia — a decision Obama announced personally. But the project would still need an NRC construction and operating license to move ahead.  The White House fiscal 2012 budget plan would give the Energy Department another $36 billion in loan guarantee authority for supporting new reactors, in addition to the roughly $10 billion worth the department has remaining.

And Obama used January’s State of the Union speech to float a “clean energy standard” that would require power companies to collectively supply 80 percent of U.S. electricity from various low-carbon sources — including nuclear power — by 2035.
 
The Center agrees with the position of the Obama administration.

Norris McDonald at control room

Norris McDonald touring plant

The San Onofre nuclear power plant in San Clemente, California is receiving scrutiny because it sits right on the coast like the Fukushima plant. There are worries that it is vulnerable to a tsunami.  NFRC Co-chair Norris McDoanald toured San Onofre on June 6, 2005. San Onofre is about an hour's drive south of Los Angeles and can be seen from Highway 5.  It is about a 30 minute drive from San Diego.  (The Hill, 3/14/2011)

San Onofre nuclear power plant

3rd Explosion at Fukushima Nuclear Complex: Reactor # 2

Tokyo Electric Power Company confirmed an explosion at the No. 2 reactor of its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.  According to the Nuclear Safety Agency, the explosion was heard at 6:10 a.m. Tuesday. 

1st Explosion

2nd Explosion

(Chicago Sun-Times, 2/13/2011)

2nd Explosion at Nuclear Power Plant in Japan

Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex suffered a second explosion today, destroying an outer building at unit 3. Unit 3, a third reactor at the six-reactor facility, lost its cooling capacity just as Unit 1 did on Saturday.  Engineers are flooding both units with seawater and boron to prevent a meltdown.

The Center is concerned about the status of the spent fool pool, which contain used nuclear fuel.  These explosions could have compromised that fuel and could have spewed it into the surrounding environment.



Just as with Unit 1, the explosion at unit 3 did not damage the core containment structure.  These reactor vessel containment is quite robust, as is evident by remaining intact with a massive structural explosion right around it.  Both explosions resulted from a hydrogen build-up.   The hydrogen was produced by the exposure of the reactor’s fuel rods and their zirconium alloy casing to hot steam.  In normal conditions, the fuel rods would be covered and cooled by water.

The blast injured 11 people, one seriously and Japan’s nuclear agency warned those within 12 miles to stay indoors.  Trace amounts of radioactive elements cesium-137 and iodine-131 have been detected outside the plant.

The Fukushima Daiichi unit 3 was built by Toshiba, using a GE design.  Last year, the unit began using some reprocessed fuel known as “mox,” a mixture of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide, produced from recycled material from nuclear weapons as part of a program known as “Megatons to Megawatts.”  (Wash Post, 3/13/2011)

Explosion At Japanese Nuclear Power Plant

Explosion at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

The 8.9-magnitude earthquake in Japan is putting a spotlight on the nuclear power plants due to fears of a dangerous leak.  The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was crippled by today's earthquake and an explosion at the plant is very serious. Widespread evacuations have been implemented and officials declared a state of emergency.  Fukushima Daiichi was built 40 years ago by General Electric.

The explosion was not nuclear [as in fission nuclear bomb explosion], but was created by hydrogen gas mixing with oxygen in the air. A spark ignited the hydrogen.  The secondary containment structure around the reactor was partially destroyed, but the reactor itself remains embedded in concrete and steel.  The nuclear plant's cooling system failed to function properly after the nuclear reactor lost power and automatically shut down. Japanese officials initially ordered 2,800 people living around the facility to evacuate their homes as a precaution. The Fukushima plant is near the city of Onahama, about 170 miles northeast of Tokyo.



Japan's nuclear safety agency, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) has reported that pressure inside one of the boiling water reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant had risen well beyond normal levels. Hours after the evacuation order, the government announced that the plant, in northeastern Japan, will release slightly radioactive vapor from the unit to lower the pressure. Pressure was rising inside the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear reactor after a backup generator also failed and the cooling system was unable to supply water to cool the reactor. The reactor core remains hot even after a shutdown.  The explosion is serious, particularly if it involved the containment dome [see video of Japanese nuclear power plant explosion, above].

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant

The Vienna-based U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency is reporting that the four other Japanese nuclear power plants closest to the quake have been safely shut down.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company. They initially evacuated about 1,800 residents living within 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 1 reactor as a precaution. According to the Emergency Information Center of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, residents within 10 kilometers were told to stay indoors. The earthquake and tsunmai forced the automatic shutdown of 11 of the country's 55 nuclear power plants.

According to the World Nuclear Association, Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand specified earthquake intensities evident in ground motion.  The plants are fitted with seismic detectors.  If these register ground motions of a set level, systems will be activated to automatically bring the plant to an immediate safe shutdown.  (ABC News International, 3/11/2011, Bloomberg, 3/11/2011, WNA, MSNBC, 3/11/2011)

1st Environmental Group in America to Support Nuclear Power

Looking back in Center history

The Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy, through its outreach arm (African American Environmentalist Association), participated in a National Press Club press conference with the Nuclear Energy Institute on February 19, 2002.  It was the first time that any environmentalist or environmental group in America supported nuclear power.  It was a very scary step for the Center, but the group stands by its decision. 

Participants spoke to reporters about the Bush administration's decision to store spent nuclear fuel cells and radioactive waste material at federal facilities in Yucca Mountain. Following their remarks they answered questions from the reporters.

We Energies $31 Million Settlement Re Failed Yucca Mtn

The Milwaukee utility, We Energies, reached a settlement that will return $31 million to its customers from Uncle Sam. The settlement money is expected to be paid to We Energies by the end of March. The utility's claim was linked to funds it spent to build concrete casks outside the Point Beach nuclear plant, where spent nuclear fuel from the Point Beach reactors is stored.

The Department of Energy's failed to meet a 1998 deadline it had committed to for opening a national collection and storage site for nuclear reactor fuel waste. We Energies is the former owner of the state's largest nuclear plant, Point Beach. Together with the Kewaunee power plant, the reactors along Lake Michigan near Green Bay generate more than 15% of Wisconsin's power. The utility originally sought to recoup $96 million from the federal government and was awarded $50 million in a decision by the Federal Court of Claims in December 2009.  The Department of Energy appealed, but then approached We Energies to negotiate a settlement.

Through a surcharge on monthly electric bills that ended when Point Beach was sold, We Energies ratepayers paid $215 million into an $18 billion federal government fund that would have been used to pay for the opening of Yucca Mountain. The government had proposed to open a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that project was canceled two years ago.

We Energies continues to buy the electricity generated at Point Beach. The plant was sold in 2007 and is now operated by Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources. (JSOnline, 2/20/2011)

Upton Says Nuke Plant License Renewals Taking Too Long

Fred Upton

Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has called on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide greater transparency and certainty in the reactor license renewal process.  Although the NRC timeline for renewal is typically 22 to 30 months, that process has unexpectedly doubled in some instances.  The Pilgrim Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and Vermont Yankee Power Plant in Vermont, both submitted their renewal applications five years ago today.  Both licenses are set to expire in 2012, yet no decision on renewal is imminent.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the timeline for the reactor renewal process has now doubled without explanation, eclipsing 60 months with no end in sight for the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee plants.

According to Upton:

"With a dozen outstanding renewal applications, the alarming rate of delay has put thousands of good paying jobs in jeopardy and has threatened to disrupt a reliable source of clean, affordable energy for surrounding communities and businesses."

According to the NRC’s website, “License renewal is expected to take about 30 months, including the time to conduct an adjudicatory hearing, if necessary, or 22 months without a hearing.”

(House Energy & Commerce Committee Press Release)

Yucca Mountain Still On The Table?

The Obama administration claims to be pronuclear but, to appease Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, they oppose the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.  South Carolina and Washington are preparing to go to court in March to challenge the administration's actions.  The repository is 100 miles from Las Vegas.

Both South Carolina and Washington are home to large collections of Cold War-era nuclear waste, and members of Congress representing these radioactive sites, including House Natural Committee Chairman  Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), are leading the effort to revive the Yucca Mountain facility. They argue that a 1982 law prohibits the administration from abandoning the Yucca Mountain project, which Congress designated as the nation's first nuclear-waste repository. 

Yucca Mountain Tunnel Exit

The NFRC agrees that the administration no authority to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application. However, the Energy Department believes it does have the legal authority to withdraw the application for the Yucca Mountain repository.  How does this square with support nuclear power.  It is a shutdown strategy.

Yucca Mountain

The Energy Department moved to terminate Yucca Mountain in March 2010 when it asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to withdraw a two-year-old application to build a repository. A quasi-independent NRC panel denied the administration's  request, saying the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act "does not give the secretary the discretion to substitute his policy for the one established by Congress."

The NFRC agrees with this interpretation.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko is a former aide to Mr. Reid and halted the review last year.  The NFRC disagrees with Jaczko's action. (WSJ, 1/31/2011)

Yucca Mountain Appeal Will Be Heard in March 2011

A federal appeals court will begin hearing oral arguments on March 22 in a lawsuit brought in part by Aiken County against the Department of Energy for stopping plans toward a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The lawsuit, filed by the county, the state of South Carolina, the state of Washington and the National Association of Utility Regulators maintains that the Obama administration and DOE do not have the authority to stop plans for Yucca Mountain, a project for which South Carolina dollars have already been spent. Without the repository in Nevada, spent nuclear fuel at the Savannah River Site would have nowhere to go. (Aiken Standard, 1/19/2010)

Texas To Import Low-Level Nuclear Waste From 36 States

The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission, which manages the state's radioactive-waste dump, voted 5-2 to approve rules governing the process for accepting importation of low-level radioactive-waste from 36 other states.

The waste will be stored at the 1,338-acre site in concrete-reinforced underground units. The site will permanently store low-level radioactive waste—contaminated materials and equipment from nuclear plants, research laboratories and hospitals. The material includes everything from parts from dismantled nuclear-energy plants to booties worn by scientists working in labs where radioactive materials are present. More highly contaminated waste, such as spent fuel from power plants, wouldn't be stored at the site. Waste Control Specialists LLC is the site owner.  In the Oct. 14, 2009 photo at left, canisters filled with uranium byproduct waste are placed into a burial pit at at Waste Control Specialists near Andrews, Texas. The 1,340-acre site is the nation’s only dump licensed to take all three categories of low-level waste, which come from nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research labs, but not nuclear fuel or weapons material. (AP)

States are responsible for handling low-level radioactive waste produced within their own borders, but space for it is limited. And the three disposal sites for it in the U.S. don't take all kinds of materials within the low-level category or can only take waste from certain states. That leaves 36 states without a permanent storage place.

Controversy had surrounded the proposal in part because the dump, set to open by year's end, was conceived and built to take waste from only two states—Texas and Vermont. Opponents also note that the site is near the Ogallala aquifer that provides drinking water to several states. Texas regulators already deemed the site safe, and thus granted a license for the project. The state will receive a cut of disposal fees as well as a $136 million fund to help pay for any future liabilities, he added.

The commissioners agreed to reserve 20% of the space for Vermont. (WSJ, 1/5/2010)

Unistar Promises American Citizens Will Manage Calvert Cliffs 3

UniStar Nuclear Energy plans to put American citizens in key corporate positions to ensure U.S. control over the proposed third reactor at Calvert Cliffs in Southern Maryland.  Unistar, owned by French energy company EDF, made the pledge to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as it is seeking a license to own and operate the plant. Unistar needs a U.S. partner for the project because federal law prohibits ownership or control of a U.S. nuclear plant by a foreign entity.

EDF and Constellation formed UniStar to develop new nuclear plants in the United States, including the third unit at Calvert Cliffs. But Constellation pulled out of negotiations in October with the Department of Energy over a federal loan guarantee considered crucial for financing the $9.6 billion reactor, throwing the project into doubt. By selling its half-stake in Unistar, Constellation abandoned that business, leaving EDF to pursue Calvert Cliffs 3 on its own.


Calver Cliffs Nuclear Plant

Unistar's governance structure calls for two independent U.S. citizens n the eight-member board of directors as well as a chairman and a chief executive who both must be U.S. citizens. They have set up a security subcommittee of the board composed of the chairman and the two independent U.S. citizens. The subcommittee has the authority for any decisions related to nuclear safety, security and reliability issues.

A final decision on the license for Calvert Cliffs 3 is not expected to be made until at least mid-2012. (Energy Central, 12/9/2010)

Oyster Creek Closing 10 Years Early To Avoid Cooling Tower

Anonymous sources have disclosed that Chicago-based Exelon Corporation has reach an agreement with New Jersey officials to close its Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 10 year earlier than planned in exchange for not having to build expensive cooling towers.  The facility is in the Forked River section of Lacey Township and is the nation's oldest nuclear power plant.  The plant will now close in 2019 instead of 2029.


Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

The facility's current 'once-through' technology draws 1.4 billion gallons of water a day from Barnegat Bay and opponents of the plant use the charge that it is killing billions of aquatic creatures each year.  This is a back door method to try to close the plant. Exelon estimates that it would cost $800 million to build the towers, which is more than the plant is worth.

In January, the state Department of Environmental Protection required the plant to build one or more closed-cycle cooling towers instead of relying on water drawn from the Oyster Creek to cool the reactor. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the Oyster Creek station a new 20-year license in April 2009. Oyster Creek generates enough electricity to power 600,000 homes a year. It provides 9 percent of New Jersey's electricity. Oyster Creek went online Dec. 1, 1969, the same day as the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station near Oswego, N.Y. (NYT, 12/9/2010)

Update: Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository

Yucca Mountain repository entrance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing a June order by a Construction Authorization Board (CAB) panel that flatly said the Department of Energy (DOE) had no authority to pull the application for developing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The Bush administration submitted the application in 2008. NFRC supports the CAB ruling that DOE does not have authority to pull the application. NFRC supports Yucca Mountain as the repository for America's nuclear waste.  DOE officials insist the agency has the authority to end the project and that a better national strategy for managing nuclear waste can be found.

Yucca Mountain peak

Largely because one NRC commissioner—George Apostolakis—has recused himself from the proceedings, the numbers are against NRC overturning the CAB decision and backing DOE’s efforts to halt work on Yucca. The recusal leaves NRC with four commissioners and a 2-2 a tie would leave the CAB decision intact, meaning a 3-1 vote would be needed to overturn it. Apostolakis, a Democrat, recused himself because of his past work as chairman of a panel that reviewed certain aspects of DOE’s work in developing Yucca. 


George Apostolakis & Norris McDonald (Jaczko in background)


Many surmise that the most likely vote to overturn the CAB and back DOE’s efforts to sink Yucca is NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, a former Harry Reid aide who is considered a likely anti-Yucca vote out of allegiance to his former boss. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes Yucca Mountain. Jaczko, a nuclear physicist, has given no indication what he might do on Yucca and has generally been seen as an even-handed commissioner and chairman.



Bill Magwood & Norris McDonald

 But if Jaczko were to try to line up two more anti-Yucca votes, it would be difficult. First, he would have to win the vote of at least one Republican commissioner—either Bill Ostendorff or Kristine Svinicki—which could endanger either Republican’s chance of re-nomination, given that most GOP leaders support Yucca. Second, there is no reason to believe that the commission’s other Democrat, Bill Magwood, is inclined to undermine Yucca. He is seen as moderate and served as director of DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy under both Democratic and Republican administrations, including under the George W. Bush administration when Yucca was being advanced.

Besides Apostolakis' recusal, none of NRC’s four other commissioners have signaled their intention on Yucca, and the upcoming decision turns strictly on their interpretation of DOE’s authority to yank the Yucca application under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Although the NRC’s upcoming ruling will certainly inform the outcome, the legality of DOE’s effort to yank Yucca will likely ultimately be decided in the courts, however. (The Energy Daily, 9/22/2010)

South Africa Ends Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Program

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project has been cancelled and the program has been reduced to a few people with the focus now being on the retention of its intellectual property, certain skills and the preservation of its assets. The PBMR project has not been able to secure an anchor customer or another investment partner and it is estimated that further investment in the project could exceed an additional R30-billion. The Westinghouse consortium was lost in May when Westinghouse withdrew from the programme.

The government also announced that should the country embark on a nuclear build programme in the future it will not be using the PBMR technology, which was still in the research and design phase. The project has been missing deadlines constantly, with the construction of the first demonstration model delayed further and further into the future. Over the last years a total R9,244-billion has been invested in the PBMR project, government having contributed an amount R7,419-billion or 80,3% of that amount. Eskom also contributed 8,8% with Westinghouse and the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) accounting for 4,9% each.

Originally, it was envisaged that Eskom would be the PBMR's anchor customer, with a possible purchase of up to 24 reactors as part of the country's expansion of its electricity generation capacity to meet increasing demand with a first demonstration PBMR to be constructed on the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station site in the Western Cape. "However, between 2005 and 2009, it became increasingly clear that, based on the direct-cycle electricity design, PBMR's potential investor and customer market was severely restricted and it was unable to acquire either; hence government has been constrained to make decisions about the future of the project. (Engineering News, 9/16/2010)

India Passes Law To Hold Nuclear Equipment Suppliers Liable

India passed a law that exposes firms supplying equipment to nuclear plants to liability in the case of accidents. This law threatens to effectively exclude U.S. companies from Indian projected $150 billion nuclear power market. In nearly all countries with nuclear power, suppliers are immune from lawsuits while all liability is channeled to nuclear-plant operators.

India's nuclear-plant operator, state-run Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., believes making suppliers liable, whether domestic or foreign, will hurt India's nuclear projects because no manufacturers will want to participate in them. Under India's law, the cap on liability for any nuclear accident is about $322 million . Though plant operators would be primarily responsible for accidents, they could seek "recourse" by suing suppliers.

India generates about 3% of its electricity from nuclear energy. (WSJ, 9/9/2010)

Exelon Contracts Out To Dismantle Zion Nuclear Plant

Exelon Corporation has been spending about $11 million a year for the past 12 years to maintain the
closed Zion nuclear power plant on the shore of Lake Michigan. Now it is contracting out to have it torn down. Chicago-based Exelon is transfering its Zion nuclear licenses to EnergySolutions Inc., a nuclear waste storage and services firm in Salt Lake City. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the Exelon-EnergySolutions arrangement. The license transfer will give the Utah-based firm full control of the Illinois site so it can handle the demolition.

EnergySolutions will receive government-mandated funds paid by ratepayers over the years for plant closure. Zion's fund has a balance of about $900 million. EnergySolutions will receive the funds and Exelon will contribute up to $200 million more if needed.

Radioactive waste must be sent to licensed sites or put in special storage at the site. EnergySolutions will put Zion's spent nuclear fuel, its most radioactive waste, into storage casks at the site with Exelon protecting them.

EnergySolutions will begin tearing apart Zion's two nuclear reactors in 2012 and the dismantled parts will be moved by rail to a radioactive waste facility in Clive, Utah, where they will be crushed and compacted. EnergySolutions owns the waste facility. About four million cubic feet of Zion waste is expected to be moved to Utah and encased in clay and rock. (WSJ, 8/21/2010)

Nuclear Commission Examines Reactors & Fuel Cycle

Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) will hold a meeting today and tomorrow on reactor and fuel cycle technology at the Washington Marriott Hotel. The President directed that the Commission be established to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Commission will provide advice and make recommendations on issues including alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

The meeting will primarily focus on commercial technology options for reactor and fuel cycle technologies and what actions could be taken to enable first movers in these technologies. This meeting will also address the role local communities and governments should play in the development and demonstration of new nuclear technologies and the key safety, environmental and security concerns for local communities, and how these concerns should be addressed.

More Information

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985

This Act gives States the responsibility to dispose of low-level radioactive waste generated within their borders and allows them to form compacts to locate facilities to serve a group of States. The Act provides that the facilities will be regulated by the NRC or by States that have entered into Agreements with the NRC under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act. The Act also requires the NRC to establish standards for determining when radionuclides are present in waste streams in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to be "below regulatory concern."

FULL TEXT

Federal Judge Rules Nuke Waste Can Go To Utah

Federal Judge David M. Ebel has ruled a nuclear waste storage project in Utah can go forward, throwing out U.S. Interior Department decisions that had killed the plan. The judge noted that
the department's decision to stop plans for long-term storage of used nuclear reactor fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation was "arbitrary and capricious." Judge Ebel told Interior Department decision-makers to reconsider requests by project proponents, including a consortium of nuclear power companies called Private Fuel Storage LLC. (UPI.com, 7/27/2010)

DOE Seeks Clients for Mixed Oxide (MOX) Nuclear Fuel

The effort by the U.S. Energy Department (DOE) to find clients willing to use mixed oxide reactor fuel to be produced at Savannah River Site has stalled. So DOE is exploring new strategies to market the fuel. The $4.86 billion MOX plant is designed to transform 34 metric tons of plutonium from dismantled bombs into commercial fuel suitable for nuclear power plants. Although the plant has been under construction three years, with projected completion in 2016, commercial utilities have shown little interest in using the fuel.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)is engaging in efforts to market MOX that includes talks with major fuel manufacturers and suppliers. These suppliers include AREVA, Westinghouse and Global Nuclear Fuels -- the main fabricators who supply fuel to utilities -- and NNSA is working with each of them to see if they can supply MOX to them and they would market the fuels to their customers. Having the fuel available through traditional vendors could help make its use more attractive to commercial reactor operators.

The MOX technology is part of the National Nuclear Security Administration's nonproliferation strategy in which weapons-grade materials are permanently eliminated to prevent exploitation by terrorists. It is also part of an agreement in which Russia will dispose of similar amounts of bomb-grade plutonium.

In 2007, Duke Power agreed to use the fuel in its reactors but dropped out of the program in 2009 after two years of testing. Currently, Tennessee Valley Authority, which agreed in February to test -- and possibly use -- MOX in five of its reactors, is the only potential client.
According to DOE, although it is the only current prospect, TVA and its reactors could theoretically use 80 to 100 percent of the MOX plant's eventual production. However, the search remains active to recruit a variety of clients.

Southern Nuclear, which operates Plant Vogtle and two other nuclear plants, will not use MOX. SCANA Corp., which operates the V.C. Summer Plant in South Carolina, doesn't want MOX either.

Further complicating the situation is the uncertainty of where the Energy Department will locate an important facility to dismantle and process plutonium "pits" from surplus warheads. The initial plan was to construct a freestanding Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility adjacent to the MOX complex. An additional alternative in which existing buildings in the K Reactor area would house that process is also being studied. The ultimate site will house a plant where pits will be processed into a powdered oxide form for use in the MOX plant. (DailyMe, 8/12/2010)

Russia To Fuel Iran Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant

Russia will begin loading nuclear fuel into Iran's first atomic power station (Bushehr plant) this month. Russia agreed in 1995 to build the Bushehr plant on the site of a project begun in the 1970s by German firm Siemens. The $1 billion project is opposed by the United States, Israel and other countries in the region because of fears that Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapons program. However, Iran will be importing the fuel from Russia and returning it to them for reprocessing. Russia notes that this should allay fears that its nuclear energy program could be redirected to develop weapons. Moscow and Washington agree that importing fuel makes unnecessary Iran's own enrichment project — the main focus of Western concerns that Tehran is trying to make a nuclear bomb.

According to Moscow, the Bushehr project has been closely supervised by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Russian officials are pointing out that Iran has signed a pledge to ship all the spent uranium fuel from Bushehr back to Russia for reprocessing, excluding a possibility that any of it could used to make nuclear weapons.

Russia has insisted that the Bushehr project is essential for persuading Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and fulfill its obligations under international nuclear nonproliferation agreements.

The U.N. Security Council passed a fourth set of sanctions on Iran in June over its nuclear program. The move followed Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process which can be used for the production of fuel for power plants as well as material for nuclear warheads if enriched to a higher level. Russian is one of the six powers leading international efforts to ensure Iran does not develop an atomic bomb, but is ignoring the latest U.N. sanctions against Iran in fueling the Bushehr project. It has backed U.N. sanctions, but strongly criticized the U.S. and the European Union for following up with separate, even stronger sanctions. (MSNBC.com, 8/13/2010)