DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Power Assessment Study Final Report 4 February 2015 Released on 1 June 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Power Assessment Study Final Report 4 February 2015 Released on 1 June 2015 Nuclear Power Assessment Study–Final TSSD-23122 JHU/APL Work Performed Under Task: NNN13AA17T NASA Contract NNN06AA01C Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office: Radioisotope Power Systems Program Office Location: Glenn Research Center Nuclear Power Assessment Study Final Report 4 February 2015 Released on 1 June 2015 The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 11100 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel MD 20723 Prepared for: June F. Zakrajsek 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland OH 44135 Phone: (216) 977-7470 E-mail: [email protected] JHU/APL POCs: Dr. Ralph L. McNutt, Jr. (Study Chair) Dr. Paul H. Ostdiek (Program Manager) Mail Stop: 200-E258 Mail Stop: 200-E520 Phone: (240) 228-5435 Phone: (240) 228-8698 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] This technical study was intended to identify strategies and issues to the provisioning of safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power systems for potential consideration by NASA's Science Mission Directorate. It is not intended to represent NASA policy or planning. Nuclear Power Assessment Study–Final NUCLEAR POWER ASSESSMENT STUDY Final Report Radioisotope Power Systems Program Nuclear Power Assessment Study–Final TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 1 NASA Nuclear Power Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 6 Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Fission Power System Possibilities for SMD ........................................................................................................................ 8 Technical ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Fuel availability ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Fuel and security costs of FPS versus RPS ............................................................................................................ 9 Flight FPS costs remain unknown ............................................................................................................................ 9 PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 14 1 | INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 15 1.1 | Study Objectives and Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................... 15 1.2 | Study Organization ................................................................................................................................................ 15 1.3 | Study Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 16 2 | DESIGN REFERENCE MISSIONS .................................................................................................................. 17 2.1 | Mission Study Goals and Methodology .............................................................................................................. 17 2.1.1 | DRM Selection Overview ....................................................................................................................... 18 2.1.2 | Decadal Survey TSSM Concept Overview ......................................................................................... 18 2.1.3 | Decadal Survey UOP Concept Overview ........................................................................................... 20 2.1.4 | DRM Ground Rules .................................................................................................................................. 21 2.2 | NPAS DRM Results ................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.2.1 | Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.2.2 | NPAS TSSM RPS Study Results .............................................................................................................. 22 2.2.2.1 | NPAS TSSM RPS Study Ground Rules and Method .................................................... 22 2.2.2.2 | NPAS TSSM RPS Study – Questions Answered ........................................................... 23 2.2.2.3 | NPAS TSSM RPS Study Options Summary .................................................................... 23 2.2.3 | NPAS UOP RPS Study Results ............................................................................................................... 23 2.2.3.1 | NPAS UOP RPS Study Approach, Challenges, Constraints, and Assumptions ....... 24 2.2.3.2 | NPAS UOP RPS Study - Questions Answered .............................................................. 25 2.2.3.3 | 2014 UOP Replacement Options Summary ................................................................. 25 2.2.4 | NPAS TSSM FPS Study Results .............................................................................................................. 26 2.2.4.1 | NPAS TSSM FPS Study Approach, Ground Rules and Assumptions ......................... 27 2.2.4.2 | Mission Accommodations .................................................................................................. 29 2.2.4.3 | NPAS TSSM FPS Study – Questions Answered ............................................................ 29 2.2.4.4 | NPAS TSSM FPS Study Options Summary .................................................................... 30 2.2.5 | NPAS UOP FPS Study Results ................................................................................................................ 31 2.2.5.1 | NPAS UOP FPS Study Approach, Constraints, and Assumptions .............................. 31 2.2.5.2 | NPAS UOP FPS Study Summary ..................................................................................... 32 2.2.6 | Mission Opportunities with Higher Power ........................................................................................... 32 2.3 | Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations (ATLO) for Nuclear-enabled Missions at Kennedy Space Center: RPS and FPS .................................................................................................................................. 33 2.3.1 | Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 33 2.3.2 | Nuclear Mission ATLO Team’s Objectives ........................................................................................... 33 2.3.3 | ATLO Assessment Development Process .............................................................................................. 34 2.3.4 | ATLO Assessment Approach .................................................................................................................. 34 2.3.5 | New RPS Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 34 i Nuclear Power Assessment Study–Final 2.3.5.1 | Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators ..................................................................... 34 2.3.5.2 | Stirling Radioisotope Generator Systems ..................................................................... 35 2.3.6 | FPS Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 36 2.3.6.1 | Compare or Contrast with Existing RPS Experience ................................................... 36 2.3.6.2 | Security Considerations .................................................................................................... 36 2.3.6.3 | Operations Analysis .......................................................................................................... 37 2.4 | Instrument Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 39 2.4.1 | Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 39 2.4.2 | Objectives, Approaches, and Assumptions ......................................................................................... 39 2.4.3 | Reference Radioisotope Systems .......................................................................................................... 40 2.4.4 | Impact of RPS Implementations on TSSM and UOP Payloads
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the US
    Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Risks of Storage front cover WITH SUPPORT FROM: WITH SUPPORT FROM: By Robert Alvarez 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600, Washington DC 20036 - www.ips-dc.org May 2011 About the Author Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as a Senior Policy Advisor to the Secre- tary of Energy during the Clinton administration. Institute for Policy Studies (IPS-DC.org) is a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. We work with social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated wealth, corporate influence, and military power. Project On Government Oversight (POGO.org) was founded in 1981 as an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government. Institute for Policy Studies 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 http://www.ips-dc.org © 2011 Institute for Policy Studies [email protected] For additional copies of this report, see www.ips-dc.org Table of Contents Summary ...............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................4 Figure 1: Explosion Sequence at Reactor No. 3 ........................................................4 Figure 2: Reactor No. 3
    [Show full text]
  • Table 2.Iii.1. Fissionable Isotopes1
    FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES Charles P. Blair Last revised: 2012 “While several isotopes are theoretically fissionable, RANNSAD defines fissionable isotopes as either uranium-233 or 235; plutonium 238, 239, 240, 241, or 242, or Americium-241. See, Ackerman, Asal, Bale, Blair and Rethemeyer, Anatomizing Radiological and Nuclear Non-State Adversaries: Identifying the Adversary, p. 99-101, footnote #10, TABLE 2.III.1. FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES1 Isotope Availability Possible Fission Bare Critical Weapon-types mass2 Uranium-233 MEDIUM: DOE reportedly stores Gun-type or implosion-type 15 kg more than one metric ton of U- 233.3 Uranium-235 HIGH: As of 2007, 1700 metric Gun-type or implosion-type 50 kg tons of HEU existed globally, in both civilian and military stocks.4 Plutonium- HIGH: A separated global stock of Implosion 10 kg 238 plutonium, both civilian and military, of over 500 tons.5 Implosion 10 kg Plutonium- Produced in military and civilian 239 reactor fuels. Typically, reactor Plutonium- grade plutonium (RGP) consists Implosion 40 kg 240 of roughly 60 percent plutonium- Plutonium- 239, 25 percent plutonium-240, Implosion 10-13 kg nine percent plutonium-241, five 241 percent plutonium-242 and one Plutonium- percent plutonium-2386 (these Implosion 89 -100 kg 242 percentages are influenced by how long the fuel is irradiated in the reactor).7 1 This table is drawn, in part, from Charles P. Blair, “Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons,” in Gary A. Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, ed., Jihadists and Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Growing Threat (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009), pp. 196-197. See also, David Albright N 2 “Bare critical mass” refers to the absence of an initiator or a reflector.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nuclear Waste Primer September 2016 What Is Nuclear Waste?
    The Nuclear Waste Primer September 2016 What is Nuclear Waste? Nuclear waste is the catch-all term for anything contaminated with radioactive material. Nuclear waste can be broadly divided into three categories: • Low-level waste (LLW), comprised of protective clothing, medical waste, and other lightly-contaminated items • Transuranic waste (TRU), comprised of long-lived isotopes heavier than uranium • High-level waste (HLW), comprised of spent nuclear fuel and other highly-radioactive materials Low-level waste is relatively short-lived and easy to handle. Currently, four locations for LLW disposal exist in the United States. Two of them, Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah and Waste Control Specialists in Andrews, Texas, accept waste from any U.S. state. Transuranic waste is often a byproduct of nuclear weapons production and contains long-lived radioactive elements heavier than uranium, like plutonium and americium. Currently, the U.S. stores TRU waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. High-level waste includes spent nuclear fuel and the most radioactive materials produced by nuclear weapons production. Yucca Mountain is the currently designated high-level waste repository for the United States. 1 | What is Spent Nuclear Fuel? Spent nuclear fuel (SNF), alternatively referred to as used nuclear fuel, is the primary byproduct of nuclear reactors. In commercial power reactors in the U.S., fuel begins as uranium oxide clad in a thin layer of zirconium-aluminum cladding. After several years inside of the reactor, around fi ve percent of the uranium has been converted in some way, ranging from short-lived and highly radioactive fi ssion products to long-lived actinides like plutonium, americium, and neptunium.
    [Show full text]
  • FT/P3-20 Physics and Engineering Basis of Multi-Functional Compact Tokamak Reactor Concept R.M.O
    FT/P3-20 Physics and Engineering Basis of Multi-functional Compact Tokamak Reactor Concept R.M.O. Galvão1, G.O. Ludwig2, E. Del Bosco2, M.C.R. Andrade2, Jiangang Li3, Yuanxi Wan3 Yican Wu3, B. McNamara4, P. Edmonds, M. Gryaznevich5, R. Khairutdinov6, V. Lukash6, A. Danilov7, A. Dnestrovskij7 1CBPF/IFUSP, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2Associated Plasma Laboratory, National Space Research Institute, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil, 3Institute of Plasma Physics, CAS, Hefei, 230031, P.R. China, 4Leabrook Computing, Bournemouth, UK, 5EURATOM/UKAEA Fusion Association, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, UK, 6TRINITI, Troitsk, RF, 7RRC “Kurchatov Institute”, Moscow, RF [email protected] Abstract An important milestone on the Fast Track path to Fusion Power is to demonstrate reliable commercial application of Fusion as soon as possible. Many applications of fusion, other than electricity production, have already been studied in some depth for ITER class facilities. We show that these applications might be usefully realized on a small scale, in a Multi-Functional Compact Tokamak Reactor based on a Spherical Tokamak with similar size, but higher fields and currents than the present experiments NSTX and MAST, where performance has already exceeded expectations. The small power outputs, 20-40MW, permit existing materials and technologies to be used. The analysis of the performance of the compact reactor is based on the solution of the global power balance using empirical scaling laws considering requirements for the minimum necessary fusion power (which is determined by the optimized efficiency of the blanket design), positive power gain and constraints on the wall load. In addition, ASTRA and DINA simulations have been performed for the range of the design parameters.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Transmutation Strategies for Management of Long-Lived Fission
    PRAMANA c Indian Academy of Sciences Vol. 85, No. 3 — journal of September 2015 physics pp. 517–523 Nuclear transmutation strategies for management of long-lived fission products S KAILAS1,2,∗, M HEMALATHA2 and A SAXENA1 1Nuclear Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400 085, India 2UM–DAE Centre for Excellence in Basic Sciences, Mumbai 400 098, India ∗Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.1007/s12043-015-1063-z; ePublication: 27 August 2015 Abstract. Management of long-lived nuclear waste produced in a reactor is essential for long- term sustenance of nuclear energy programme. A number of strategies are being explored for the effective transmutation of long-lived nuclear waste in general, and long-lived fission products (LLFP), in particular. Some of the options available for the transmutation of LLFP are discussed. Keywords. Nuclear transmutation; long-lived fission products; (n, γ ) cross-section; EMPIRE. PACS Nos 28.41.Kw; 25.40.Fq; 24.60.Dr 1. Introduction It is recognized that for long-term energy security, nuclear energy is an inevitable option [1]. For a sustainable nuclear energy programme, the management of long-lived nuclear waste is very critical. Radioactive nuclei like Pu, minor actinides like Np, Am and Cm and long-lived fission products like 79Se, 93Zr, 99Tc, 107Pd, 126Sn, 129I and 135Cs constitute the main waste burden from a power reactor. In this paper, we shall discuss the management strategies for nuclear waste in general, and long-lived fission products, in particular. 2. Management of nuclear waste The radioactive nuclei which are produced in a power reactor and which remain in the spent fuel of the reactor form a major portion of nuclear waste.
    [Show full text]
  • 小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category
    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC １．DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体／海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software ２．Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
    [Show full text]
  • Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material Radioactive Other Traffickingand Illicit Nuclear Combating in 6 No
    8.8 mm IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 6 Technical Guidance Reference Manual IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 6 in Combating Nuclear Illicit and Trafficking other Radioactive Material Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and other Radioactive Material This publication is intended for individuals and organizations that may be called upon to deal with the detection of and response to criminal or unauthorized acts involving nuclear or other radioactive material. It will also be useful for legislators, law enforcement agencies, government officials, technical experts, lawyers, diplomats and users of nuclear technology. In addition, the manual emphasizes the international initiatives for improving the security of nuclear and other radioactive material, and considers a variety of elements that are recognized as being essential for dealing with incidents of criminal or unauthorized acts involving such material. Jointly sponsored by the EUROPOL WCO INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA ISBN 978–92–0–109807–8 ISSN 1816–9317 07-45231_P1309_CovI+IV.indd 1 2008-01-16 16:03:26 COMBATING ILLICIT TRAFFICKING IN NUCLEAR AND OTHER RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL REFERENCE MANUAL 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. The Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’. IAEA NUCLEAR SECURITY SERIES No. 6 TECHNICAL GUIDANCE COMBATING ILLICIT TRAFFICKING IN NUCLEAR AND OTHER RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL REFERENCE MANUAL JOINTLY SPONSORED BY THE EUROPEAN POLICE OFFICE, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INTERNATIONAL POLICE ORGANIZATION, AND WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA, 2007 COPYRIGHT NOTICE All IAEA scientific and technical publications are protected by the terms of the Universal Copyright Convention as adopted in 1952 (Berne) and as revised in 1972 (Paris).
    [Show full text]
  • Depleted Uranium Technical Brief
    Disclaimer - For assistance accessing this document or additional information,please contact [email protected]. Depleted Uranium Technical Brief United States Office of Air and Radiation EPA-402-R-06-011 Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 December 2006 Depleted Uranium Technical Brief EPA 402-R-06-011 December 2006 Project Officer Brian Littleton U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Radiation Protection Division ii iii FOREWARD The Depleted Uranium Technical Brief is designed to convey available information and knowledge about depleted uranium to EPA Remedial Project Managers, On-Scene Coordinators, contractors, and other Agency managers involved with the remediation of sites contaminated with this material. It addresses relative questions regarding the chemical and radiological health concerns involved with depleted uranium in the environment. This technical brief was developed to address the common misconception that depleted uranium represents only a radiological health hazard. It provides accepted data and references to additional sources for both the radiological and chemical characteristics, health risk as well as references for both the monitoring and measurement and applicable treatment techniques for depleted uranium. Please Note: This document has been changed from the original publication dated December 2006. This version corrects references in Appendix 1 that improperly identified the content of Appendix 3 and Appendix 4. The document also clarifies the content of Appendix 4. iv Acknowledgments This technical bulletin is based, in part, on an engineering bulletin that was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), with the assistance of Trinity Engineering Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Spent Fuel Reprocessing
    Spent Fuel Reprocessing Robert Jubin Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is undertaken for several reasons. These include (1) recovery of the valuable fissile constituents (primarily 235U and plutonium) for subsequent reuse in recycle fuel; (2) reduction in the volume of high-level waste (HLW) that must be placed in a geologic repository; and (3) recovery of special isotopes. There are two broad approaches to reprocessing: aqueous and electrochemical. This portion of the course will only address the aqueous methods. Aqueous reprocessing involves the application of mechanical and chemical processing steps to separate, recover, purify, and convert the constituents in the used fuel for subsequent use or disposal. Other major support systems include chemical recycle and waste handling (solid, HLW, low-level liquid waste (LLLW), and gaseous waste). The primary steps are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Aqueous Reprocessing Block Diagram. Head-End Processes Mechanical Preparations The head end of a reprocessing plant is mechanically intensive. Fuel assemblies weighing ~0.5 MT must be moved from a storage facility, may undergo some degree of disassembly, and then be sheared or chopped and/or de-clad. The typical head-end process is shown in Figure 2. In the case of light water reactor (LWR) fuel assemblies, the end sections are removed and disposed of as waste. The fuel bundle containing the individual fuel pins can be further disassembled or sheared whole into segments that are suitable for subsequent processing. During shearing, some fraction of the radioactive gases and non- radioactive decay product gases will be released into the off-gas systems, which are designed to recover these and other emissions to meet regulatory release limits.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty N I T E D Understanding the Critical Issues N A
    U N I D I R A F i s s i l e M a A mandate to negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material t e r i for nuclear weapons has been under discussion in the Conference of a l Disarmament (CD) in Geneva since 1994. On 29 May 2009 the Conference C u on Disarmament agreed a mandate to begin those negotiations. Shortly t - o afterwards, UNIDIR, with the support of the Government of Switzerland, f f T launched a project to support this process. r e a t This publication is a compilation of various products of the project, y : that hopefully will help to illuminate the critical issues that will need to U n be addressed in the negotiation of a treaty that stands to make a vital d e r contribution to the cause of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. s t a n d i n g t h e C r i t i c a l I s s u e s UNITED NATIONS INSTITUTE FOR DISARMAMENT RESEARCH U A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty N I T E D Understanding the Critical Issues N A Designed and printed by the Publishing Service, United Nations, Geneva T I GE.10-00850 – April 2010 – 2,400 O N UNIDIR/2010/4 S UNIDIR/2010/4 A Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty Understanding the Critical Issues UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Geneva, Switzerland New York and Geneva, 2010 Cover image courtesy of the Offi ce of Environmental Management, US Department of Energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Quick Reference Guide Recommend Contacting Your State Fusion Center
    Domestic Nuclear Detection Office If you encounter something suspicious follow your specific local protocols. Radiation Quick Reference Guide Recommend contacting your state fusion center. DNDO is available 24/7 to assist at 1-877-DNDO-JAC / 1-877-363-6522 JAC Information Line 202-254-7179 Email: [email protected] Nuclear Concerns/ Threats 1. Nuclear Weapon - a device that releases nuclear energy in an ex- Isotopes of Concern for use in RDDs - with common uses plosive manner. Uses Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and/or 1. Cobalt-60 – cancer treatment, level/ Plutonium. density gauge, teletherapy, radiography, 2. Improvised Nuclear Device (IND) - a nuclear weapon fabricated food sterilization/irradiation, by a terrorist organization or rogue nation. brachytherapy 2. Iridium-192 – Radiography/non- destructive testing, flaw detection, brachy- therapy “cancer seed”, skin cancer Cobalt 60 sources Uranium “superficial” brachytherapy Plutonium 3. Uranium a. Uranium exists naturally in the earth’s crust. Of the different “isotopes” of uranium, U-235 is the one required to produce a Iridium sentinel and nuclear weapon. gamma camera b. Natural uranium contains a small amount of U-235 (<1%) which Cesium Seeds must be separated in complex extraction processes to create HEU. The predominant uranium isotope is U-238. 3. Cesium-137 - Gauge/level gauge, industrial radiography, brachyther- c. Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) refers to uranium usable in weap- apy/teletherapy, well logging/density gauges ons due to its enrichment in U-235. 4. Strontium-90 – Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), fis- d. Approximately 25 kg of HEU is required for a nuclear weapon. sion product, industrial gauges, medical treatment e.
    [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]