DOCSLIB.ORG

Headlines,” Radwaste Solutions, Jan./Feb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Headlines,” Radwaste Solutions, Jan./Feb Industry news ▼ Yucca Mountain Updates (see “Headlines,” Radwaste Solutions, Jan./Feb. 2006, p. 8). Headlines ● The U.S. Department of Energy will be spending its ● In late December, the Bureau of Land Management fiscal 2006 budget of $450 million for the Yucca Moun- withdrew some 308 000 acres of federal land in Nevada tain high-level waste repository on license application from public use. This land withdrawal prohibits any new preparation, science and technology, and improving drilling or mining claims along a mile-wide, 319-mile-long safety infrastructure, not on license application defense, corridor between Caliente and Yucca Mountain for 10 leading industry experts to conclude that the depart- years, which gives the U.S. Department of Energy time to ment does not plan to submit the license application to evaluate the land for the potential construction and oper- the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal 2006, ation of a rail line through the state to the high-level waste which ends September 30 of this year. The application repository at Yucca Mountain. The rail line would be used was originally to have been submitted by the end of De- to transport spent fuel and government HLW to the cember 2004, but problems with certifying materials to repository site. A new cost estimate for the proposed rail be posted on the NRC’s Licensing Support Network line has been put at $2 billion. (LSN), among other things, have pushed the application ● The peak radiation dose from a high-level waste repos- back into unknown territory. An additional cause for itory at Yucca Mountain would most likely occur some delay, according to the DOE, has been the department’s 125 000 to 150 000 years after the facility closes, the U.S. recent policy shift to operating the repository as a Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said. Therefore, the “clean” facility, with no spent fuel handling at the site agency acknowledged, it would make sense to have a 6 Radwaste Solutions March/April 2006 Industry news ▼ 200 000-year regulatory period for the repository at Yucca Mountain. of Energy’s Office of Civilian Ra- the facility, but the agency maintains The proposed legislation, introduced dioactive Waste Management an- that analyses would have to go out to by Sens. Harry Reid (D) and John nounced plans to reorganize and one million years to make sure that a Ensign (R), would amend the Nu- streamline the Yucca Mountain higher radiation release does not oc- clear Waste Policy Act to require project. The reorganization will re- Department Headlines cur later. The NRC radiation protec- commercial nuclear facilities to sult in a “flatter” organization, ac- tion proposal for Yucca Mountain has transfer spent nuclear fuel into dry cording to DOE officials, that will a one million year regulatory period, storage casks within six years after also focus on the transportation as does the Environmental Protection enactment of the legislation or after plan needed to move spent fuel and Agency standard it is based on. the fuel is removed from the reactor, high-level waste from its current lo- ● The U.S. Chamber of Commerce whichever occurs first. The U.S. De- cations to the Yucca Mountain site. has named ensuring adequate Yucca partment of Energy would be re- No federal layoffs were planned at Mountain funding as among its pri- quired to take title of all spent fuel the Office of Repository Develop- orities for 2006. The chamber will now in onsite dry cask storage and ment sites in either Nevada or work with the nuclear industry to get also to take responsibility for the Washington, D.C., the DOE said. full funding for the repository proj- spent fuel at reactor sites after it has About 170 federal employees of the ect, according to the organization’s been transferred to dry cask storage. project work in Nevada and Wash- executive vice president for govern- The state of Nevada and its elected ington, D.C. In addition, about ment affairs. officials, including its two senators, 2000 other Yucca Mountain em- ● Nevada’s two senators have pro- are vehemently opposed to the Yuc- ployees work for project contractor posed Senate Bill S.2099, which re- ca Mountain repository. Bechtel SAIC Co., as well as four quires onsite storage of spent nuclear ● In early January, according to national laboratories and a few oth- fuel, thereby eliminating the need for press reports, the U.S. Department er companies. 8 Radwaste Solutions March/April 2006 Industry news ▼ DOE Cancels Procurement for mode. The DOE expects the remaining deactivation work FFTF Cleanup to be completed by the end of 2006. “Given the current budget constraints, we had to take a Headlines Citing higher priority cleanup work at the Hanford hard look at where we are with this project compared to the site, in late December the U.S. Department of Energy higher priority work remaining to be done at Hanford,” notified three affected offerors that it is canceling the so- said James Rispoli, DOE assistant secretary for Environ- licitation of work for the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) mental Management. “We will focus on completing the key cleanup at Hanford. Original proposals for the work at risk reduction activities at FFTF over the next year and FFTF were received in February 2004; an award was placing the facility in a long-term low-cost surveillance and made to SEC Closure Alliance in September 2004, but a maintenance mode—freeing up critical funding to invest protest of the award by an unsuccessful bidder was up- in higher priority work at Hanford in the years ahead.” held by the Government Accountability Office, and re- vised proposals were submitted to the DOE in June 2005. D&D Progress Reports The deactivation work currently under way at the FFTF, including cleaning and removing fuel, draining liq- ● On December 30, the last fuel element was removed uid sodium from the facility’s coolant and storage systems, from the Bradwell-2 nuclear power reactor in the United and shutting down all remaining systems, will be com- Kingdom, marking the completion of reactor defueling pleted by the current contractor, Fluor Hanford, and the three months early. The 33-month defueling program be- facility will transition to a surveillance and maintenance gan in March 2003, after the unit shut down in March 2002. 10 Radwaste Solutions March/April 2006 Industry news ▼ Defueling of Unit 1 at the Bradwell plant was completed ● The U.K. Atomic Energy Authority has completed de- in mid-September 2005. Staff at the plant will now begin to commissioning of the Zebra research reactor at the Win- concentrate on sending fuel stored in the site’s pools to the frith site. Zebra, the Zero Energy Breeder Reactor As- reprocessing plant at Sellafield. In addition, verification sembly, served to simulate the properties of fast reactor Headlines checks to confirm that all fuel has been removed have to cores. The reactor was shut down in 1982; it was placed be completed and verified by the U.K. Nuclear Installa- under care and maintenance from 1989 to 2001, when de- tions Inspectorate. These checks should be completed by commissioning and dismantlement began. mid-2006. Once all nuclear fuel has been removed, 99 per- ● Cleanup of the Rocky Flats Site is complete, the U.S. cent of the radioactivity at the site will be gone as well. Department of Energy certified in December. In 2006, the ● BNG America Savannah River Corp. has successfully DOE said, it will transfer most of the site property to the completed shipping more than 5.5 million pounds of con- Interior Department for use as a national wildlife refuge. taminated soils and debris from the TNX Closure Project at ● In December, the U.K. Nuclear Installations Inspec- the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site for torate formally cleared the implementation of the Post permanent disposal offsite. The cleanup work and shipping Operation Safety Case for the United Kingdom’s Chapel- campaign involved the use of 123 waste containers and 21 cross power station, which marks the true start of de- railcars and occurred over a five-month period, beginning in commissioning work at the site. Modifying safety equip- July 2005 and concluding in December. The TNX facility ment on the site to develop the safety case required a team was first used in the 1950s as a research and development fa- of 20 people working on the project full time for two cility to demonstrate and test equipment and systems in sup- years, with up to 100 people involved during the peak pe- port of key SRS missions. The cleanup and shipment of this riod of work. Major steps ahead include emptying the fuel waste offsite allows TNX to prepare for capping. storage pools and defueling the reactors, demolishing the 12 Radwaste Solutions March/April 2006 Industry news ▼ cooling towers, and removing the huge heat exchangers the protective action guide is 5 rem (or greater—up to 25 that stand at the corners of each reactor building. The first rem—under extraordinary circumstances) for emergency of the Chapelcross units started operation in 1959. Elec- worker exposure, and 1 to 5 rem for sheltering and evac- tricity production at the site formally ended in June 2004. uation of public. In the Intermediate Phase, which could be hours or Headlines days later, during which officials begin to work on such items as restoring infrastructure and recovering from the Homeland Security Dept. Issues incident, worker exposure is limited to 5 rem/year, while RDD, IND Protective Action Guides those members of the public who are relocated should not The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Jan- be exposed to more than 2 rem the first year, and 500 mil- uary 3 published its draft guidelines for responses to ra- lirem thereafter.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site
    PNNL-13909 Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site A Ten-Year Trend Report 1991 Through 2000 B. G. Fritz G. W. Patton May 2002 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 This document was printed on recycled paper. (8/00) PNNL-13909 Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site A Ten-Year Trend Report 1991 through 2000 B. G. Fritz G. W. Patton May 2002 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Summary This report describes the air pathway effects of Hanford Site operations from 1991 through 2000 on local air quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation
    Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues that Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues That Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Jean M. Bahr, Ph.D., Chair University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Steven M. Becker, Ph.D. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia Susan L. Brantley, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania Allen G. Croff, Nuclear Engineer, M.B.A. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Efi Foufoula-Georgiou, Ph.D. University of California Irvine, Irvine, California Tissa Illangasekare, Ph.D., P.E. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado Kenneth Lee Peddicord, Ph.D., P.E. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Paul J. Turinsky, Ph.D. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Mary Lou Zoback, Ph.D. Stanford University, Stanford, California Note: Dr. Linda Nozick of Cornell University served as a Board member from July 28, 2011, to May 9, 2019. During that time, Dr. Nozick provided valuable contributions to this report. iii This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Staff Executive Staff Nigel Mote Executive Director Neysa Slater-Chandler Director of Administration Senior Professional Staff* Bret W.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Reactor and Small Modular Reactor Licensing
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is managed and operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy. PNNL Points of Contact: Tara O’Neil Nuclear Regulatory Sub-Sector Manager [email protected] (541) 738-0362 PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL Bruce McDowell Advanced Reactors Program Manager [email protected] LABORATORY’S EXPERIENCE IN (509) 375-6668 ADVANCED REACTOR AND nuclearenergy.pnnl.gov PNNL-SA-138133 | September 2018 SMALL MODULAR REACTOR LICENSING INFRASTRUCTURE or more than 30 years, • Supported the development of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) High Priority Regulatory Topical the Nuclear Regulatory Reports related to NGNP Licensing (see SECY-10- 0034, Potential Policy, Licensing, And Key Technical Commission has reached Issues for Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Designs). out to Pacific Northwest National • Provided recommendations to NRC on modifications F of health physics codes for SMRs, and to update the Laboratory at critical stages of Gaseous And Liquid Effluent (GALE) codes. nuclear plant design for assistance • Supported development of American Nuclear Society (ANS) 53.1 Nuclear Safety Criteria and Safety Design in developing and applying new Process for Modular Helium-Cooled Reactor Plants, and ASME/ANS S1.4, Standard for Probabilistic Risk standards for safety reviews of Assessment for Advanced Non-Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants. new plant designs. • Prepared “High Temperature Gas Reactors: Assessment of Applicable Codes and Standards” (PNNL-20869, October 2011) in support of NRC’s Advanced
    [Show full text]
  • Fast-Spectrum Reactors Technology Assessment
    Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 4: Advancing Clean Electric Power Technologies Technology Assessments Advanced Plant Technologies Biopower Clean Power Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Value- Added Options Carbon Dioxide Capture for Natural Gas and Industrial Applications Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies Crosscutting Technologies in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Fast-spectrum Reactors Geothermal Power High Temperature Reactors Hybrid Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems Hydropower Light Water Reactors Marine and Hydrokinetic Power Nuclear Fuel Cycles Solar Power Stationary Fuel Cells U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle ENERGY Wind Power Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Fast-spectrum Reactors Chapter 4: Technology Assessments Background and Current Status From the initial conception of nuclear energy, it was recognized that full realization of the energy content of uranium would require the development of fast reactors with associated nuclear fuel cycles.1 Thus, fast reactor technology was a key focus in early nuclear programs in the United States and abroad, with the first usable nuclear electricity generated by a fast reactor—Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I)—in 1951. Test and/or demonstration reactors were built and operated in the United States, France, Japan, United Kingdom, Russia, India, Germany, and China—totaling about 20 reactors with 400 operating years to date. These previous reactors and current projects are summarized in Table 4.H.1.2 Currently operating test reactors include BOR-60 (Russia), Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) (India), and China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) (China). The Russian BN-600 demonstration reactor has been operating as a power reactor since 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options
    Order Code RL34579 Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options July 11, 2008 Mark Holt Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options Summary Current U.S. nuclear energy policy focuses on the near-term construction of improved versions of existing nuclear power plants. All of today’s U.S. nuclear plants are light water reactors (LWRs), which are cooled by ordinary water. Under current policy, the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from LWRs is to be permanently disposed of in a deep underground repository. The Bush Administration is also promoting an aggressive U.S. effort to move beyond LWR technology into advanced reactors and fuel cycles. Specifically, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), under the Department of Energy (DOE) is developing advanced reprocessing (or recycling) technologies to extract plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel, as well as an advanced reactor that could fully destroy long-lived radioactive isotopes. DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative is developing other advanced reactor technologies that could be safer than LWRs and produce high-temperature heat to make hydrogen. DOE’s advanced nuclear technology programs date back to the early years of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1940s and 1950s. In particular, it was widely believed that breeder reactors — designed to produce maximum amounts of plutonium from natural uranium — would be necessary for providing sufficient fuel for a large commercial nuclear power industry. Early research was also conducted on a wide variety of other power reactor concepts, some of which are still under active consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a of Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Lev
    Appendix A Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A. Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials ................................................................................................................................. A-1 A.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Inventory Data Summary .................................................................................................... A-2 A.1.1.1 Sources ......................................................................................................................... A-2 A.1.1.2 Present Storage and Generation Status ........................................................................ A-4 A.1.1.3 Final Waste Form ......................................................................................................... A-6 A.1.1.4 Waste Characteristics ................................................................................................... A-6 A.1.1.4.1 Mass and Volume ................................................................................................. A-6 A.1.1.4.2 Radionuclide Inventories ...................................................................................... A-8 A.1.1.4.3
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Technology Development Plan Sodium Fast Reactor Mechanistic Source Term – Metal Fuel Radionuclide Release
    ANL-ART-38 Regulatory Technology Development Plan Sodium Fast Reactor Mechanistic Source Term – Metal Fuel Radionuclide Release Nuclear Engineering Division About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Online Access: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991 and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available free via DOE’s SciTech Connect (http://www.osti.gov/scitech/) Reports not in digital format may be purchased by the public from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS): U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd Alexandria, VA 22312 www.ntis.gov Phone: (800) 553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 Fax: (703) 605-6900 Email: [email protected] Reports not in digital format are available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI): U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P. O . B o x 6 2 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 www.osti.gov Phone: (865) 576-8401 Fax: (865) 576-5728 Email: [email protected] Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • RETHINKING the CHALLENGE of HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE Strategic Planning for Defense High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal
    RETHINKING THE CHALLENGE OF HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE Strategic Planning for Defense High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal Prepared by The Yakama Nation Russell Jim, Project Manager Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies Brian Barry, Environmental Scientist Sponsored by a Grant from the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund RESOLVE, Inc. Grant Number: MTA-05-001 1 RETHINKING THE CHALLENGE OF HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE Strategic Planning for Defense High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal May 10, 2007 I. Nuclear Waste Disposal Challenges Recognizing that spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste is among the planet’s most dangerous material, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) in 1982. The law required all such nuclear waste to be disposed of in a deep geologic repository so as to protect humans for at least hundreds of millennia. Under the Act, intact spent fuel rods from power reactors were to be sent directly to a repository -- a “once through” nuclear fuel cycle. High level waste from nuclear weapons production, much of which requires processing before disposal, was also designated for permanent burial deep underground. Twenty-five years after the NWPA was signed into law, the government's nuclear waste disposal program is being impacted by legal challenges, technical problems, scandal and congressional funding cuts. The Department of Energy is in the midst of yet another contentious impasse over the disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel. Legal and policy uncertainty have left the high level waste disposal program with uncertain goals and diminishing prospects for success. Delays in deciding the scientific feasibility of permanent disposal at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada continue.
    [Show full text]
  • Neutron Fluxes in Test Reactors
    INL/EXT-17-40962 Revision 0 Preliminary Options Assessment of Versatile Irradiation Test Reactor: Neutron Fluxes in Test Reactors Gilles J. Youinou January 2017 The INL is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory operated by Battelle Energy Alliance u Idaho National Laboratory DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. INL/EXT-17-40962 Revision 0 Preliminary Options Assessment of Versatile Irradiation Test Reactor: Neutron Fluxes in Test Reactors Gilles J. Youinou January 2017 Idaho National Laboratory INL ART TDO Program Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 http://www.inl.gov Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 INL ART TDO Program Comparison of Neutron Fluxes in Selected High Power Test Reactors INLIEXT-17-40962 Revision 0 January 2017 Author: 1/30/2017 Gilles J.
    [Show full text]
  • Spent Fuel Lessons Learned, Sandra Birk
    INL Spent Fuel Management Observations Sandra Birk Idaho National Laboratory January 2011 INMM Spent Fuel Management Seminar XXX January 2015 Business Sensitive INL Spent Fuel Storage Facilities (~290MTHM) • CPP-666 –Fuel Storage Area (Basin) • CPP-603 –Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility • CPP-1774 –TMI-2 Independent Spent fuel Storage Installation (NRC licensed) • Ft. St. Vrain, Independent Spent fuel Storage Installation (NRC licensed), Colorado • CPP-2707 –Cask Storage Pad • CPP-749 –Underground Fuel Storage Facility • MFC Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility • Advanced Test Reactor Canal • Inventory includes 2lb-1/2ton specimens; Al, SS, Zr clad; sodium- bonded, epoxy-bonded; Be and carbon matrix fuels; intact and damaged fuel; various enrichment 1 Path Forward for SNF Management • Inventory is expected to grow slightly – Domestic and Foreign Research Reactor (D/FRR) receipts will continue – ATR will continue to generate SNF – DOE-NE – Some fuel may be received and stored for research • Idaho will continue to safely manage SNF in existing facilities – Authorization basis through 2035 (continuous surveillance and maintenance) – Ft. St. Vrain (CO) and TMI NRC regulated facilities continue operation – License renewal for TMI ISFSI will be submitted in 2019 – Storage of fuels for research will continue • Focus on aging management and management alternatives 3 Key State Drivers/Court Order • 1991 - Idaho files suit asserting DOE violated NEPA by not analyzing environmental impacts of spent fuel storage and transportation • 1995 – 1995 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0203) and RODs • October 1995 – Lawsuit settled. DOE, Navy, and State of Idaho execute a Settlement Agreement [Consent Order in United States of America v.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery of Information from the Fast Flux Test Facility for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
    Recovery of Information from the Fast Flux Test Facility for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Reactor Campaign/Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative D. L. Nielsen B. J. Makenas D. W. Wootan S. Butner R. P. Omberg Pacific Northwest National Laboratory September 2009 AFCI-TIO-PMO-QA-FM-2009-00052 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency. Recovery of Information from the Fast Flux Test Facility September 2009 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative iii Summary The Fast Flux Test Facility is the most recent Liquid Metal Reactor to operate in the United States. Information from the design, construction, and operation of this reactor was at risk as the facilities associated with the reactor are being shut down. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative is a program managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]