DOCSLIB.ORG

S309 Reviewers Guidance for New Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Impact Statements: Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
S309 Reviewers Guidance for New Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Impact Statements: Final Office of Enforcement and Compliance Office of Federal Activities NEPA Compliance Division §309 Reviewers Guidance for New Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Impact Statements Final September 2008 EPA Publication 315-X-08-001 September 2008 §309 Reviewers Guidance for NPP EISs This page intentionally left blank. Final EPA Publication No. 315-X-08-001 September 2008 §309 Reviewers Guidance for NPP EISs §309 Reviewers Guidance for New Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Impact Statements Guidance for EPA Staff Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Activities 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 EPA Publication No: 315-X-08-001 Final EPA Publication No. 315-X-08-001 September 2008 §309 Reviewers Guidance for NPP EISs This page intentionally left blank. Final EPA Publication No. 315-X-08-001 September 2008 §309 Reviewers Guidance for NPP EISs Disclaimer This guidance document does not impose or change any legal requirements. It provides only non-binding policy and procedural guidance, as indicated by the use of non-mandatory language, such as may, should, and can. This guidance is not intended to, and does not, create any legal rights; impose legally binding requirements on EPA, any other federal agency, or the public when applied in particular situations; or contravene any other legal requirements that may apply to particular agency determinations or actions. Final i EPA Publication No. 315-X-08-001 September 2008 §309 Reviewers Guidance for NPP EISs Preparers and Contributors This document was prepared by EPA‘s Office of Federal Activities with support from the Office of Air and Radiation. Technical assistance was provided by Gannett Fleming, Inc. and Labat Environmental, Inc. in fulfillment of EPA Contract 68-W-03-029, Task Order No. 2-019. Robert Hargrove U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Federal Activities Jamie Hurley U.S. EPA, Office of Water Marilyn Kuray U.S. EPA, Office of General Council Brian Littleton U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation Marthea Rountree U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Activities Lingard Knuston U.S. EPA, Region 2 Ramona McConney U.S. EPA, Region 4 Karrie-Jo Shell U.S. EPA, Region 4 James Hanley U.S. EPA, Region 8 Theogene Mbabaliye U.S. EPA, Region 10 Final ii EPA Publication No. 315-X-08-001 September 2008 §309 Reviewers Guidance for NPP EISs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This guidance provides background information to staff within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who review and comment on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in accordance with EPA‘s responsibilities for environmental review under §309 of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, this guidance provides information to assist EPA reviewers to: 1. Prepare scoping comments on environmental impact statements (EISs) related to NRC‘s licensing of new nuclear power plants; 2. Consider those issues most appropriate to a specific type of nuclear reactor presented in an EIS; 3. Support the development of EPA‘s comments under Clean Air Act §309; and 4. Determine the adequacy of an EIS in terms of addressing the requirements pursuant to NEPA, NRC‘s NEPA-implementing regulations, applicable case law, and the threshold of significance for individual resources. After presenting background information on the statutory and policy framework for nuclear power development in the U.S., and technical information on current and future reactor technology, this document highlights the resources and associated impacts on which EPA reviewers may wish to focus their efforts, including lists of questions and highlighted examples. EPA reviewers may particularly want to refer to Appendices F and H of this document. Appendix F compiles the review question lists that are included throughout the document into a single list, and Appendix H presents a list of useful reference tools for reviewers of a nuclear power plant EIS. Final iii EPA Publication No. 315-X-08-001 September 2008 §309 Reviewers Guidance for NPP EISs This page intentionally left blank. Final iv EPA Publication No. 315-X-08-001 September 2008 §309 Reviewers Guidance for NPP EISs Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms and Glossary ................................................................................................................. xi 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Intent of this Document ............................................................................ 1-1 1.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, and Clean Air Act .......................................................................... 1-2 1.1.2. The Energy Policy Act ........................................................................................ 1-3 1.1.3 NRC Authorities Related to NPPs ...................................................................... 1-4 1.1.4 EPA Authorities Related to NPPs ...................................................................... 1-4 1.2 NPP Licensing and NEPA ............................................................................................ 1-5 1.2.1 Overview of the NPP Licensing Process ............................................................ 1-5 1.2.1.1 Early Site Permits ................................................................................... 1-6 1.2.1.2 Combined Operating Licenses ............................................................... 1-6 1.2.2 NEPA Documents for NPPs ............................................................................... 1-9 1.2.3 Pre-Construction Activities are Evaluated for Cumulative Impacts Only ....... 1-10 1.2.4 Limited Work Authorizations .......................................................................... 1-11 1.3 Overview of EPA Environmental Review Process ..................................................... 1-11 1.4 Audience ..................................................................................................................... 1-12 1.5 Interagency Coordination and Public Involvement .................................................... 1-12 1.6 Description of Purpose and Need .............................................................................. 1-12 1.7 Organization of this Document ................................................................................... 1-14 Section 1 References ............................................................................................................ 1-16 2 Plant Description .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Boiling Water Reactors ................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2 Pressurized Water Reactors .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Other Reactor Designs .................................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 Overview of Generation IV Concepts........................................................................... 2-4 Section 2 References .............................................................................................................. 2-6 3 Environmental Description (Affected Environment) ............................................................. 3-1 3.1 Requirements for the Environmental Description Section of an EIS .......................... 3-3 3.2 Considerations when Reviewing the Environmental Description Section ................... 3-3 3.3 Key Affected Resource Issues for New NPPs .............................................................. 3-4 3.3.1 Meteorology and Air Quality ............................................................................. 3-5 3.3.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 3-5 3.3.3 Ecological Resources ......................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.4 Cultural and Historic Resources ......................................................................... 3-6 3.3.5 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3.6 Geology and Seismology .................................................................................... 3-7 Section 3 References .............................................................................................................. 3-9 Final v EPA Publication No. 315-X-08-001 September 2008 §309 Reviewers Guidance for NPP EISs 4 Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope ............................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Site Layout and Plant Description ................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 PPE Concept and Issues ................................................................................................ 4-2 Section 4 References .............................................................................................................. 4-4 5 Construction Impacts ............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nondestructive Examination Guidance for Dry Storage Casks
    PNNL-24412 Rev. 1 Nondestructive Examination Guidance for Dry Storage Casks September 2016 RM Meyer S Suffield EH Hirt JD Suter JP Lareau JW Zhuge A Qiao TL Moran P Ramuhalli PNNL-24412 Rev. 1 Nondestructive Examination Guidance for Dry Storage Casks RM Meyer S Suffield EH Hirt JD Suter JP Lareau JW Zhuge A Qiao TL Moran P Ramuhalli September 2016 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a Related Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Abstract This report reviews nondestructive examination (NDE) methods and their applicability to aging effects in concrete overpack and metal canister components to support U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff with review of renewal applications for welded canister-type dry storage systems (DSSs). In the United States, several DSSs for commercial spent nuclear fuel are approaching the end of their initial licensed or certified term. Many of these systems have originally been licensed or certified for 20 years, after which they may be renewed for periods up to 40 years, according to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High- Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste.” An analysis of implementation of NDE methods to concrete horizontal storage modules (HSMs) in Transnuclear NUHOMS 80 and 102 DSSs is provided as an example to illustrate factors that should be considered when reviewing NDE methods proposed by applicants for welded canister-type DSSs in general.
    [Show full text]
  • Radioactive Waste Management Programmes in NEA Member Countries
    RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMES IN OECD/NEA MEMBER COUNTRIES HUNGARY NATIONAL NUCLEAR ENERGY CONTEXT Commercial utilisation of nuclear power in Hungary goes back to several decades. The four VVER 440/213 nuclear units of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant were connected to the electricity grid between 1983 and 1987. In 2015 the NPP generated 15.8 TWh of electricity which accounted for 52.7% of the total electricity generated in that year in Hungary. These data are characteristic for the period of time around 2015. In January 2014 the Government of Hungary and the Government of the Russian Federation concluded an agreement on the cooperation in the field of peaceful use of nuclear energy, which was promulgated in the Act II of 2014. Among others, the Agreement includes the cooperation on the establishment of two VVER-1200 type nuclear power plant units at the Paks site, to be commissioned in 2025, and 2026 respectively. The present country profile of Hungary does not cover the spent fuel and radioactive waste management issues of the new units. Components of Domestic Electricity Production 2015 Source: MAVIR Hungarian Independent Transmission Operator Company Ltd. SOURCES, TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF WASTE Waste classification Most of the radioactive waste in Hungary originates from the operation of the Paks NPP, and much smaller quantities are generated by other (rather institutional, non-NPP) users of radioactive isotopes. The following classification scheme is based on Appendix 2 in the Decree 47/2003 (VIII. 8.) of the Minister of Health on certain issues of interim storage and final disposal of radioactive wastes, and on certain radiohygiene issues of naturally occurring radioactive materials concentrated during industrial activity.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003/09/17-LES Hearing
    -O - ENERGY "RAS 'V87 RESOURCES 3L INTERNATIONAL, INC. , : _ _ ERI-21 29-0301 Market for Uranium Enrichment Services 0 2003 Energy Resources International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. II II Prepared For: I Cz) C-oC Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. * - C- C-, Ir' Cf. -v" I. Ln U) September 17, 2003 5s 0CRIM by: Appflcantkonqit~- NRC SWaf Oler______ IDnesslnaae4!501 WA A~mbkat FECTED VW1D0M1111 (j 6o 1015 18t Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20036 , , _ . USA Telephone: (202) 785-8833 FacsImile: (202) 785-8834 LES-04940 iemP/a7Le-- Sl cy- 16g2 Se Cvo,-e - NOTICE ERI believes the information in this report to be accurate. However, ERI does not make any w arranty, e xpress or i mplied, n or a ssume any l egal I iability o r r esponsibility for t he accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informay ntained herein, nor for any consequent loss or damage of jrWit clf this information. * , w * n - LES-04941 ERI-129030203 /Setemer ii nerg Reourcs IteratioalInc ERI-2129-0301/September 2003 .. Energy Resources Internatignal, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Forecast of Installed Nuclear Power Generating Capacity 2 3. Uranium Enrichment Requirements Forecast 7 4. Current and Potential Future Sources of Uranium Enrichment Services 11 5. Market Analysis of Supply #nd Requirements 21 5.1. Scenario A - LES and USEC Centrifuge Plants Are Built in the U.S. 21 5.2. Scenario B - No LES; USEC Deploys Centrifuge Plant and Continues to Operate Paducah GDP 24 5.3. Scenario C - No LES; USEC Deploys Centrifuge Plant and Increases Centrifuge Plant Capability 25 5.4.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-15-141, SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT: Outreach
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters October 2014 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT Outreach Needed to Help Gain Public Acceptance for Federal Activities That Address Liability GAO-15-141 D October 2014 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT Outreach Needed to Help Gain Public Acceptance for Federal Activities That Address Liability Highlights of GAO-15-141, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found DOE is responsible for disposing of Spent nuclear fuel—the used fuel removed from nuclear power reactors—is commercial spent nuclear fuel. DOE expected to accumulate at an average rate of about 2,200 metric tons per year in entered into contracts with owners and the United States. This spent nuclear fuel is mostly stored wet, submerged in generators of spent nuclear fuel to pools of water. However, since pools have been reaching their capacities, begin disposing of it beginning in 1998, owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel (typically utilities and reactor with plans for disposal in a national operators) have been transferring it to canisters that are placed in casks on repository. DOE, however, was unable concrete pads for dry storage—which is an expensive and time-consuming to meet the 1998 date and, as a result process. When operating reactors’ licenses begin to expire in the 2030s, the rate of lawsuits, the federal government has of spent nuclear fuel accumulation is expected to decrease, but the amount in dry paid out about $3.7 billion for storage storage will increase as the pools are closed and all spent nuclear fuel is costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Cycle Flexibility in CANDU P.G
    IAEA-SM-353-5P Fuel Cycle Flexibility in CANDU P.G. Boczar XA9949933 Director, Fuel and Fuel Cycle Division, AECL Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario, Canada No single fuel-cycle path is appropriate for all countries. Many local and global factors will affect the best strategy for an individual country. Fuel-cycle flexibility is an important factor in an ever-changing, and unpredictable world. CANDU is an evolutionary reactor, offering a custom fuel cycle to fit local requirements. Its unsurpassed fuel-cycle flexibility can accommodate the widest range of fuel-cycle options in existing CANDU stations. In the short term, the CANFLEX® bundle is nearing power reactor implementation. The demonstration irradiation of 26 bundles in the Pt. Lepreau power station in New Brunswick, Canada, started this September, and a water-CHF test will take place later this year that will confirm the improvement in thermalhydraulic performance. CANFLEX provides enhanced operating and safety performance through a reduction in peak linear element ratings, and a significant increase in critical channel power. CANFLEX will be the near-term carrier of advanced fuel cycles. While natural uranium fuel provides outstanding advantages, the use of slightly enriched uranium (SEU) in CANDU offers even lower fuel cycle costs and other potential benefits, such as uprating capability through flattening the radial channel power distribution. Recycled uranium (RU) from reprocessing spent PWR fuel is a subset of SEU that has significant economic promise. The use of SEU/RU is the first logical step from natural uranium in CANDU. For countries having LWR reactors, the ability to use low-fissile material in CANDU reactors offers a range of unique synergistic fuel cycle opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 145/Monday, August 2, 2021/Notices
    41540 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE III. Investigation Process Producers Will Face Increasing Import A. Initiation of Investigation Competition Bureau of Industry and Security B. Public Comments VIII. Conclusion C. Site Visits and Information Gathering A. Determination RIN 0694–XC078 Activities B. Economic Impacts of 25 Percent U.S.- D. Interagency Consultation Origin Requirement Publication of a Report on the Effect of E. Review of the Department of Commerce C. Public Policy Proposals Imports of Uranium on the National 1989 Section 232 Investigation on Security: An Investigation Conducted Uranium Imports Appendices Under Section 232 of the Trade IV. Product Scope of the Investigation Appendix A: Section 232 Investigation Expansion Act of 1962, as Amended V. Background on the U.S. Nuclear Industry Notification Letter to Secretary of Defense A. Summary of the U.S. Uranium Fuel James Mattis, July 18, 2018 AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Cycle Appendix B: Federal Register Notices— Security, Commerce. B. Summary of U.S. Nuclear Power Notice of Requests for Public Comments on Generation Industry ACTION: Publication of a report. Section 232 National Security Investigation VI. Global Uranium Market Conditions of Imports of Uranium, July 25, 2018; SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and A. Summary of the Global Uranium Market Change in Comment Deadline for Section Security (BIS) in this notice is B. Uranium Transactions: Book Transfers 232 National Security Investigation of and Flag Swaps publishing a report that summarizes the Imports of Uranium, September 10, 2018 C. The Effect of the Fukushima Daiichi Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments findings of an investigation conducted Incident on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Spent Nuclear Fuel at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station
    Spent Nuclear Fuel at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station Robert Alvarez Institute for Policy Studies October 10, 2019 Why we should be concerned about spent power reactor fuel. The U.S. Government Accountability Office informed the U.S. Congress in April 2017 that “spent nuclear fuel can pose serious risks to humans and the environment ..and is a source of billions of dollars of financial liabilities for the U.S. government. According to the National Research Council and others, if not handled and stored properly, this material can spread contamination and cause long-term health concerns in humans or even death. ” Because of these extraordinary hazards spent nuclear fuel is required under federal law ( the Nuclear Waste Policy Act) to be disposed in a geological repository to prevent it from escaping into the human environment for tens-of-thousands of years. For these reasons, GAO concludes that spent power reactor fuel is “considered one of the most hazardous substances on Earth….” Sources: GAO- http://www.yuccamountain.org/pdf/gao-0517-684327.pdf, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653731.pdf When it closes by 2021, the Indian Point Nuclear Station in Buchanan, New York is estimated to have generated about 4,242 spent nuclear fuel assemblies (~1,951mt) containing approximately 865,368 spent fuel rods. The rods contain about 208 million ceramic uranium fuel pellets. After bombardment with neutrons in the reactor core, about 5 to 6 percent of the fuel is converted to a myriad of radioactive elements, with half-lives ranging from seconds to millions of years.
    [Show full text]
  • STORING SPENT FUEL UNTIL TRANSPORT to REPROCESSING OR DISPOSAL the Following States Are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency
    IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-3.3 Basic Storing Spent Fuel Principles until Transport to Reprocessing or Objectives Disposal Guides Technical Reports INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA ISBN 978–92–0–100719–3 ISSN 1995–7807 @ IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation. Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more detailed information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series. The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows: NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive waste management and decommissioning. In addition, the publications are available in English on the IAEA Internet site: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/index.html For further information, please contact the IAEA at PO Box 100, Vienna International Centre, 1400 Vienna, Austria.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium 2005 – Resources, Production and Demand Summary in English
    Uranium 2005 – Resources, Production and Demand Summary in English Uranium 2005 – Resources, Production and Demand, presents the results of the most recent review of world uranium market fundamentals and provides a statistical profile of the world uranium industry as of 1 January 2005. First published in 1965, this, the 21st edition of what has become known as the “Red Book”, contains official data provided by 43 countries on uranium exploration, resources, production and reactor- related requirements. Projections of nuclear generating capacity and reactor-related uranium requirements through 2025 are provided as well as a discussion of long-term uranium supply and demand issues. Exploration Worldwide exploration expenditures in 2004 totalled over USD 133 million, an increase of almost 40% compared to 2002 expenditures as the market strengthened. Most major producing countries reported significant increases in exploration expenditures, perhaps best exemplified by the United States, where exploration expenditures in 2002 amounted to much less than USD 1 million but by 2004 had jumped to over USD 10 million. Global exploration activities remained concentrated in areas with potential for unconformity-related and ISL-amenable sandstone deposits, primarily in close proximity to known resources. However, the rising price of uranium has also stimulated “grass roots” exploration, as well as exploration activities in regions known to have good potential based on past work. About 50% of the exploration expenditures in 2004 were devoted to domestic activities. Non-domestic exploration expenditures, although reported by only Australia, Canada, France and Switzerland, rose to over USD 70 million in 2004, more than four times the non-domestic exploration expenditures reported in 2002, with only Canada and France reporting data for 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary and Secondary Sources [PDF]
    Primary and secondary sources in Global Nuclear Fuel Supply; focus on Uranium Georges CAPUS AREVA VP Front-End Marketing Seminar on Global Nuclear Fuel Supply Permanent Mission of Japan to the IAEA VIC January 26, 2009 Contents 1. Projected nuclear reactor fleet; from fuel demand to uranium demand scenarios and uncertainty 2. Supplying the uranium demand 1. Primary and secondary sources 2. Primary uranium outlook 1. Countries and security of supply 2. Types of mines and potential cost trend 3. Producers 3. Secondary sources 1. uranium stocks 2. Mox and RepU 3. re-enriched tails 4. downblended HEU 3. Balancing Supply and Demand: will future market equilibrium differ from past? 4. Focus on long term Security of Supply 5. Conclusions 3 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 1) Projected nuclear reactor fleet; from fuel demand to uranium demand scenarios and uncertainty X Warning: predicting the future is nonsense, forecasting is risky! X Pros: Global population growth Global economy growth Global warming Energy crisis X Cons: Ongoing financial crisis and impacts Public acceptance, technical and manpower bottlenecks… X We, at AREVA, are confident many new reactors will be added in the coming decade, significantly helping at limiting CO2 emissions ( we are still expecting around 635 GWe by 2030 and working at turning it into reality…) 4 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Projected nuclear reactor fleet; from fuel demand to uranium demand scenarios and uncertainty Key parameters and sources of uncertainty in U demand forecast X Short term: the fleet is slowly evolving 1) availability of major secondary sources (mostly U market insensitive) 2) NPPs availability factor and load factor (mostly bound to technical issues or natural events, thus highly unpredictable) 3) Enrichment tails assays (Uranium feed v.s.
    [Show full text]
  • NPR81: South Korea's Shifting and Controversial Interest in Spent Fuel
    JUNGMIN KANG & H.A. FEIVESON Viewpoint South Korea’s Shifting and Controversial Interest in Spent Fuel Reprocessing JUNGMIN KANG & H.A. FEIVESON1 Dr. Jungmin Kang was a Visiting Research Fellow at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (CEES), Princeton University in 1999-2000. He is the author of forthcoming articles in Science & Global Security and Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology. Dr. H.A. Feiveson is a Senior Research Scientist at CEES and a Co- director of Princeton’s research Program on Nuclear Policy Alternatives. He is the Editor of Science and Global Security, editor and co-author of The Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-alerting of Nuclear Weapons (Brookings Institution, 1999), and co-author of Ending the Threat of Nuclear Attack (Stanford University Center for International Security and Arms Control, 1997). rom the beginning of its nuclear power program could reduce dependence on imported uranium. During in the 1970s, the Republic of Korea (South Ko- the 1990s, the South Korean government remained con- Frea) has been intermittently interested in the cerned about energy security but also began to see re- reprocessing of nuclear-power spent fuel. Such repro- processing as a way to address South Korea’s spent fuel cessing would typically separate the spent fuel into three disposal problem. Throughout this entire period, the constituent components: the unfissioned uranium re- United States consistently and effectively opposed all maining in the spent fuel, the plutonium produced dur- reprocessing initiatives on nonproliferation grounds. We ing reactor operation, and the highly radioactive fission review South Korea’s evolving interest in spent fuel re- products and transuranics other than plutonium.
    [Show full text]
  • OECD-IAEA Paks Fuel Project Was Established in 2005 As a Joint Project Between the IAEA and the OECD/NEA
    spine: 5.455 mm 81 pages OECD–IAEA Paks Fuel Project Final Report INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA 09-2210-PUB-1389-cover.indd 1 2010-06-29 10:12:33 OECD–IAEA PAKS FUEL PROJECT The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN GHANA NIGERIA ALBANIA GREECE NORWAY ALGERIA GUATEMALA OMAN ANGOLA HAITI PAKISTAN ARGENTINA HOLY SEE PALAU ARMENIA HONDURAS PANAMA AUSTRALIA HUNGARY PARAGUAY AUSTRIA ICELAND PERU AZERBAIJAN INDIA PHILIPPINES BAHRAIN INDONESIA POLAND BANGLADESH IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PORTUGAL BELARUS IRAQ QATAR BELGIUM IRELAND REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA BELIZE ISRAEL ROMANIA BENIN ITALY RUSSIAN FEDERATION BOLIVIA JAMAICA SAUDI ARABIA BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA JAPAN SENEGAL BOTSWANA JORDAN SERBIA BRAZIL KAZAKHSTAN SEYCHELLES BULGARIA KENYA SIERRA LEONE BURKINA FASO KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE BURUNDI KUWAIT SLOVAKIA CAMEROON KYRGYZSTAN SLOVENIA CANADA LATVIA SOUTH AFRICA CENTRAL AFRICAN LEBANON SPAIN REPUBLIC LESOTHO SRI LANKA CHAD LIBERIA SUDAN CHILE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA SWEDEN CHINA LIECHTENSTEIN SWITZERLAND COLOMBIA LITHUANIA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC CONGO LUXEMBOURG TAJIKISTAN COSTA RICA MADAGASCAR THAILAND CÔTE D’IVOIRE MALAWI THE FORMER YUGOSLAV CROATIA MALAYSIA REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA CUBA MALI TUNISIA CYPRUS MALTA TURKEY CZECH REPUBLIC MARSHALL ISLANDS UGANDA DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC MAURITANIA UKRAINE OF THE CONGO MAURITIUS UNITED ARAB EMIRATES DENMARK MEXICO UNITED KINGDOM OF DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONACO GREAT BRITAIN AND ECUADOR MONGOLIA NORTHERN IRELAND EGYPT MONTENEGRO UNITED REPUBLIC EL SALVADOR MOROCCO OF TANZANIA ERITREA MOZAMBIQUE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ESTONIA MYANMAR URUGUAY ETHIOPIA NAMIBIA UZBEKISTAN FINLAND NEPAL VENEZUELA FRANCE NETHERLANDS VIETNAM GABON NEW ZEALAND YEMEN GEORGIA NICARAGUA ZAMBIA GERMANY NIGER ZIMBABWE The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957.
    [Show full text]