Category Archives: spent fuel

Spent fuel at Fukushima Daiichi safer than asserted

Posted on May 16, 2012 by pbowersox| 23 Comments

By Will Davis

In recent days, a number of articles have been printed that assert that a grave danger exists at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear generating station. These articles claim that this danger exists due to the condition of the spent nuclear fuel at the site and the supposedly shaky condition of its storage and care. Two examples:

“The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Is Far From Over” by Robert Alvarez

“Fukushima Daiichi Site: Cesium-137 is 85 times greater than at Chernobyl Accident” by Akio Matsumura

These articles are highly deceptive. The occurrence of a cataclysmic release of radioactive material as surmised is hinged upon the occurrence of so many statistically impossible events that it is certain to be a practical impossibility. Since the assertions continue to gain a wider audience, however, it is necessary to examine them and make a realistic assessment of their likelihood.

Assertion 1: The spent fuel pools, particularly at Fukushima Daiichi No. 4 plant (1F-4), are liable to collapse

Since shortly after the Tohoku quake and tsunami, TEPCO has continually inspected the buildings at the site for physical integrity. More importantly, TEPCO has conducted seismic safety studies of all the reactor buildings; the results of these studies are linked below, which show that the reactor buildings are safe in the event of further (even severe) earthquakes.

“Submission of Reports about the study regarding current seismic safety and reinforcement of reactor buildings at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station”

“Important Report from TEPCO” (particularly items dated April 5)

“At 11:04 pm on April 1, a 5.9-magnitude earthquake centered in the coast of Fukushima Prefecture occurred. Hama-dori of Fukusihma Prefecture registered intensity 5 lower on the Japanese seismic (intensity) scale of 7. No abnormalities were detected at facilities for water injection into the reactors, nitrogen gas injection, cooling of spent fuel pool, and the treatment of highly contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. They all operate normally after the quake. As for the degree of the shake of the reactor buildings, Unit 6′s reactor building’s foundation registered 40.7 gal in horizontal direction and 19.4 gal in vertical direction.

We, TEPCO, evaluate earthquake-proof safety by developing Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion Ss as large-scale quake which would possibly occur in future. For example, the degree of shake of Unit 6′s reactor building’s foundation against the Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion is 448 gal in horizontal direction and 415 gal in vertical direction (which is around 10 times large in horizontal way and around 20 times large in vertical way compared with the quake occurred on April 1, 2012). We assess that the level of this Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion is almost same as the one recorded for the Tohoku–Pacific Ocean Earthquake. Based on the Motion, we simulated the damaged situation of the current reactor buildings of Unit 1 to 4, having implemented quake response analysis for the reactor buildings as well as equipments and pipes which are important in terms of safety. As a result, we confirmed that there are no negative signal, such as shear/twist of quake-proof walls of buildings, the fact that the stress of facilities/piping lowers the standard value, and the fact that buildings collapse and facilities/ piping lose their functions.”

NUREG /CR-4982, “Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools in support of Generic Safety Issue 82,” Brookhaven National Laboratory, indicates that the likelihood of seismically induced spent fuel pool failure may be as low as 1 X 10-10 occurrences per reactor year, which is a statistically insignificant rate of occurrence.

From the above, it can easily be ascertained that further seismic damage to the buildings is not likely. It should be added that TEPCO is continuing to remove material (both debris and structural material) from the upper levels of the damaged reactor buildings—further reducing their mass, and the amount of mass at higher levels that could induce larger swaying moment. Thus, seismically induced collapse of the reactor buildings (as asserted in various articles penned by activists) is very unlikely. Assertion 1: False

Assertion 2: The spent fuel pool at 1F-4 is in particularly dire structural condition

TEPCO has continuously monitored the 1F-4 building for damage (having no damaged reactor in the building, it is the most widely accessible among 1F-1 through 1F-4, and thus most easily examined). TEPCO has also constructed, as a result of structural studies performed on the building, a steel-reinforced concrete support beneath the spent fuel pool at this plant. Photos are available at TEPCO “Completion of Installation of Supporting Structure…”

TEPCO estimates, in fact, that the seismic safety margin of the 1F-4 building’s spent fuel pool is now improved 20 percent over the original condition. Thus, there is no basis to assertions that 1F-4′s spent fuel pool is in a dire condition. Assertion 2: False

 

 

 

 

Assertion 3: The spent fuel in these plants’ spent fuel pools could ignite, leading to a massive radiological release

This assertion is patently false. First, it is important to understand that in order for the fuel to ignite, it has to get hot—and in its present condition, submerged in spent fuel pools with redundant cooling systems and filtration systems, constant remote temperature monitoring, backup generating and pumping systems in mobile units in place (on standby), and high reach concrete pump trucks on site (if necessary), there is no chance of the fuel heating up in any significant way while it is in the pools in the buildings.

We’ve seen already that it’s unlikely that the buildings would be damaged in a quake—and we can surmise, given the manpower and equipment on site, that even if any sort of equipment leak or malfunction temporarily suspended cooling for the spent fuel, that malfunction would be quickly detected and fixed. So, it’s just not likely at all that the fuel would even begin to get noticeably hot in the spent fuel pools as-is now. Temperatures of the water in the spent fuel pools is currently in the ~30 °C and under range.

In order for apocalyptic assertions of a “fuel clad ignition and fire” to occur, moreover, the clad itself would need to be heated to incredible temperatures, which just isn’t possible. Ignition of the cladding (Zircalloy-2) on those fuel elements can occur roughly at 900 ºC in the proper conditions, but it’s important to note that, depending on the surrounding conditions (presence or absence of water vapor and oxygen content of the surroundings), the material may not ignite at that temperature anyway. From NUREG /CR-4982:

“The cladding on such fuel will not ignite until 900 ºC (1652 ºF), while the fuel melting point for UO2 fuel is 2880 ºC (5216 ºF).”

An online video shows Zirc-2 tube being heated with a blow torch (probably over 2000 ºC) and not catching fire. In point of fact, while the chemistry of rapid oxidation /combustion of Zirc cladding is complex, it just would not be possible under the conditions at the site. Further, even under the wild assumption that the buildings somehow collapsed, all of the other resources on site, and remotely off site, are still available to move in and provide cooling for the fuel.

In addition, the rate of heatup of the fuel depends on how long it’s been out of a reactor. According to NUREG /CR-4982, unless the spent fuel is recently discharged from an operating reactor (within 180 days), ignition of the clad is completely impossible in any situation, regardless. Experts have calculated that the heat output presently from the hottest of the spent fuel is only on the order of several hundred watts per element—a very insignificant amount in comparison to heating the material to between 900 ºC–2000 ºC in order to ignite it.

In addition, in order for a “cataclysmic” spread of the radionuclides contained in this spent fuel to occur, we can see that a massive fire is needed to both release the material and provide a driving head (or “loft”) to spread it to the winds. It’s clear that no such fire is possible, given the above information. The assertions simply fall apart.  Assertion 3: False  

Conclusion

In fact, all three assertions, as we’ve seen, fall apart at every turn—there’s no basis to assertions of shaky buildings, or a structurally failed 1F-4 plant, or the chance of zircalloy cladding fire, or billowing of the released material to the entire earth. Realistic, practical analysis, performed by personnel on site (TEPCO/NISA), nuclear professionals here in the United States with decades of experience in both theory and practice, and official peer-reviewed studies and documents (e.g., NUREG /CR-4982) show that the predictions of apocalypse being spread now are just as unlikely to occur as those predictions of apocalypse that were made then at the time of the accident.

___________________________

The author expresses his gratitude for assistance in this analysis provided by John H. Bickel, Meredith Angwin, Margaret Harding, Leslie Corrice, Rod Adams, Cheryl Rofer, Bill Rodgers, Paul Bowersox, Rick Michal, Steve Skutnik, and Dan Yurman.

Will Davis is the author of the nuclear energy blog “Atomic Power Review,” and is a member of the American Nuclear Society.  A former US Navy reactor operator, Davis finds his calling to be presenting the public with information about nuclear energy technology and its history.

→ 23 Comments

Posted in accident, Earthquake, engineering, Fukushima, Natural disasters, nuclear opponents, Radiation, spent fuel

Federal judge: State can’t shut down Vermont Yankee over spent fuel

Posted on March 20, 2012 by dyurman| 1 Comment

The plant dodges another bullet at least for now

Federal District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha ordered on Monday, March 19, that the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) cannot use the issue of spent nuclear fuel as a mechanism to deny a certificate of public good to the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

Murtha wrote that the PSB cannot prevent the plant, owned and operated by Entergy (NYSE:ETR), from continuing to operate because of the necessity of continuing to store its current inventory and new spent fuel.

Last January, Murtha ruled that the State of Vermont’s legal efforts to shut down the plant were improperly driven by issues involving nuclear safety. He said that state law in this area is preempted by federal law and that regulation of nuclear reactor safety is the province of the federal government.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed the license in 2011 for the Vermont Yankee plant to operate for another 20 years. (See also Tamar Cerafici’s February 10 legal review of Judge Murtha’s decision here on ANS Nuclear Cafe.)

On February 27, Entergy filed an appeal of the ruling claiming that the PSB should not be able to stop Vermont Yankee from operating over the spent fuel issue. The judge concurred with the appeal saying that any effort to do so by the PSB would fall under the umbrella of nuclear safety regulation and was outside the jurisdiction of the state agency.

The Vermont Yankee plant on the banks of the Connecticut River in southern Vermont (file photo)

Murtha wrote that any act by the PSB to deny Entergy the authority to store new spent fuel on-site would force the reactor to shut down, thus slamming the door shut on revenue for Entergy and with it the loss of the workforce without the possibility of recovery.

The key part of the judge’s ruling this week is that Entergy can continue to operate past March 21 while its petition for a certificate of public good is pending before the PSB. He pushed back on Entergy’s request to set aside the requirement to have one at all.

The PSB told the Vermont news media that it would allow continued operation of Vermont Yankee for the time being, not because it agreed with the reactor operator’s issues, but because the federal court gave it no choice. It is not clear when the PSB will complete its work. One possible outcome is that it will wait until the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals rules on the State of Vermont’s legal action in response to Judge Murtha’s ruling last January.

Legal experts say that the twin legal processes, an appeal by the State of Vermont to Judge Murtha’s January ruling, and the PSB’s deliberations are likely to take some time to work themselves out. In the meantime, the reactor will continue to operate, which shows that Entergy’s big bet to complete a fuel outage in 2011 is likely to pay off.

Separately, anti-nuclear activists say that they are planning protest demonstrations in Vermont, which may involve civil disobedience at the reactor plant’s front gate. A pro-nuclear demonstration last week brought out about 70 people.

__________________

→ 1 Comment

Posted in BWRs, Economic benefits of nuclear, Electricity generating capacity, Entergy, lawsuit, licensing, News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, spent fuel

Back to the Vermont Public Service Board: Square One – or Before!

Posted on March 13, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

By Howard Shaffer

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant received a 20-year extension of its operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 21, 2011. Vermont Yankee also is required to be issued a renewed Certificate of Public Good (CPG) from Vermont’s Public Service Board to continue operating.

The Vermont legislature, however, has passed a law stating that the board could release its findings only if the Senate passed a resolution allowing release. In 2010, the Senate voted against the board releasing its findings. Soon after receiving the NRC license extension i9n March 2011, Entergy, the owner and operator of Vermont Yankee, sued the State of Vermont in federal court over the state legislature’s blocking of Vermont Yankee’s operation through refusing to allow the board to release its findings. In January 2012, the court ruled in Entergy’s favor, and issued three injunctions barring the shutdown of the plant. The court found that the state was attempting to regulate nuclear safety issues, which is reserved for the federal government by law. The decision also stated that the Public Service Board retains its authority to regulate the plant in non-safety areas.

The conference

Since the Public Service Board retains some authority, the docket for the Certificate of Public Good was resumed. On March 9, the Public Service Board held a prehearing conference. The board sent out a list of questions to the parties to the docket, and the parties were asked to file responses. The conference was to address all the legal and procedural issues, so that the board could proceed with the hearing on the docket.

The conference was moved from the board’s own hearing room to a larger hearing room across the street in the State House. The State House was practically empty because the legislators go home for the week when it is town meeting day. The hearing room was packed with the board, lawyers and representatives, and media and the public (anti- and pro-nukes). There was a long table in front of the board for the parties to the docket, but they spilled over into the audience. Meredith Angwin and I arrived 45 minutes early to be sure that we got seats!

The State House meeting on Vermont Yankee (AP / Toby Talbot)

In reviewing the media coverage and my notes of the meeting, the best description of what the meeting revealed is a “legal thicket” built by the legislature and the board over the years. One side is trying to find a way through; the other is looking for “chinks in the armor to run in a sword.” Isn’t this what lawyers do? The Public Service Board started by asking the questions that it sent out. As revealed in the discussion, there were two things in the “thicket” that had been overlooked.

The issues

The first and most immediate question was, “Can Vermont Yankee operate after March 21?” This is the date that the CPG expires (it is the same date that the original NRC license expired). Entergy said yes, because there is a provision in the law that if a CPG application for extension is in progress when the original CPG expires, operation may continue under the old certificate. The opposing parties in the proceedings said no, and pointed to other laws and board orders. Entergy asked for assurances from the board on continued operation, and the board asked, “Why haven’t you applied to us for what you want?” The reply was we’re doing that now, and the board said that it should be formalized. Entergy said that it would comply.

The second question was, “How do we proceed in regard to the federal court ruling?” Do we scrub the hearing record produced so far, to remove anything that has been struck down by the federal court? Or do we start over? One board member asked what would be the fastest overall option. It wasn’t clear, but it seemed that scrubbing the record might be better. Or it might be worse. As the board member said: Scrubbing would be less work for the board at first, but if it wasn’t done right, there would be the possibility of a lot of time in court. This could lead to a longer time to completion.

The third question concerned storage of spent (used) nuclear fuel. State laws and CPG provisions allow storage only of spent fuel generated up until the end of the original CPG on March 21, 2012. The board did recognize that there won’t be any more spent fuel to store until the next refueling outage. The plant has some used fuel in dry casks, on a pad built to hold all the fuel from 40 years of operation, so that decommissioning could remove the reactor building and the fuel pool. Nevertheless, the board asked several times in several ways, “By what authority would you store more spent fuel after March 21?” The board also asked what authority they have to approve the storage of additional fuel. State law addresses storage of spent fuel up to the end of the current CPG, and the board stated it has only the authority given to it by the legislature.

Overlooked issues

A board member asked, “What about the open docket on the tritium leak?” During the tritium leak that was discovered at Vermont Yankee in January 2010, the board opened a separate docket (which has not yet been closed) to investigate the leak. There was a question about “who has the ball” on this issue. The board thought that Entergy does, but an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union representative at the conference pointed out that the IBEW had asked the board for a schedule for the next hearing on the tritium leak docket and been turned down. There was no direct response from anyone at the conference, but Entergy said that it had been waiting for the NRC license to be resolved before acting to resolve the tritium leak docket schedule.

A second stumbling block is a reported provision in a board order that the plant may operate beyond March 21, 2012, only for decommissioning. This was gleefully brought up by an opposition lawyer.

Tone

Meredith Angwin’s article at the “Yes Vermont Yankee” blog, written after we returned from the meeting, gives a good idea of the “tone” of the prehearing conference. To put things into perspective, however, the Public Service Board has been dealing with Vermont Yankee issues almost continually for about 12 years. The issues include the sale of the facility in 2002, a power uprate, dry cask storage, the ill-fated ENEXUS spin-off proposal, the tritium leak, and license renewal. The board may possibly be tiring of having to settle an issue that is fallout from the political arena. The fallout is as follows:  Congress decided that the United States should have nuclear power and have it safely. Congress appointed regulators to ensure this. Some citizens don’t want nuclear power and have been unable to change the policy of Congress. These citizens have been using all the rights and powers given them by law, to try to derail the regulatory process, on the national and state level.

Coming up

The parties must file responses with the board by March 15. The board will respond by March 20. On March 17, the American Nuclear Society’s Vermont Pilot Project and the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute are sponsoring another rally outside the Vermont Yankee plant gates, to show support for the plant and its people. Naturally, the opponents have also planned many events, including non-violent civil disobedience with likely arrests.

The next two weeks will be interesting.

Some recent news coverage of the Public Service Board prehearing conference and associated Vermont Yankee developments:

Brattleboro Reformer: “VY Future Could Be Determined by One Line in PSB Memo”  March 10, 2012

Brattleboro Reformer: “State Responds to Entergy’s Appeal”  March 10, 2012

Burlington Free Press: “Midlife Crisis: Approaching 40, Vermont Yankee’s Ability to Keep Operating Debated”  March 9, 2012

Vermont Digger: “Entergy to PSB: Don’t Shut Us Down”  March 9, 2012

____________________

Shaffer

Howard Shaffer has been an ANS member for 35 years. He has contributed to ASME and ANS Standards committees, ANS committees, national meeting staffs, and his local section, and was the 2001 ANS Congressional Fellow. He is a current member of the ANS Public Information Committee and consults in nuclear public outreach. 

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project.  Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

 

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, News, spent fuel, View from Vermont

NRC/Fukushima hearing in US Senate on Thursday

Posted on March 12, 2012 by pbowersox| 3 Comments

A hearing titled “Lessons from Fukushima One Year Later: NRC’s Implementation of Recommendations for Enhancing Nuclear Reactor Safety in the 21st Century” will be held in the U.S. Senate on Thursday, March 15, at 10:00 AM EDT. The hearing will be a joint session of the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety.

NRC Commissioners Magwood, Svinicki, Chairman Jaczko, Apostolakis, Ostendorff

Featured testimony will come from NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko and fellow NRC commissioners Kristine Svinicki, George Apostolakis, William Magwood, and William Ostendorff.  The hearing will be webcast at the website for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

In the aftermath of the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, the NRC formed a task force to reevaluate the safety and security of the 104 nuclear power plants in the United States, and develop a series of recommendations based on the lessons learned from Japan. The March 15 hearing will concern the orders, rules, and other actions from the NRC intended to enhance reactor safety and protect public health based on those task force recommendations.

The hearing is a follow-up to the Senate committee’s hearing 0n December 15, 2011, titled “Review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Near-Term Task Force Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century,: which is archived here. The prepared opening statement of Chairman Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) for that hearing is here. The prepared opening statement of Ranking Minority Member James Inhofe (R., Okla.) is here.

Jaczko and the other commissioners have not always been in agreement on regulatory decisions facing the NRC, notably including a recent 4-1 vote to grant a license to build and operate two reactors at the Vogtle nuclear facility in Georgia.

__________________

→ 3 Comments

Posted in accident, Earthquake, Fukushima, lessons learned, licensing, Meetings, News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Radiation, spent fuel

ANS’s Loewen visits local sections

Posted on February 20, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Eric Loewen, president of the American Nuclear Society, kept up his rapid pace last week as he visited the ANS local section in Aiken, S.C., on February 15, and the one in Charlotte, N.C., on February 16. Loewen, as the featured speaker at the meetings of the two sections, presented his personal talk titled “Plutonium: Promise or Peril”.

During the morning on the 15th, Loewen toured the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility on the Savannah River Site, in South Carolina. The facility,which is being built by the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, will convert surplus nuclear weapon-grade plutonium into reactor fuel for use in commercial nuclear power plants starting in 2016. Under a 2000 agreement, the United States and Russia will dispose of 68 metric tons of surplus plutonium, enough material for many thousands of nuclear weapons (see Shaw Areva MOX Services for more info).

Later on the 15th, Loewen was hosted by Stephen Sheetz of the Savannah River National Laboratory for a tour of the lab and other facilities on the Savannah River Site.

At the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility: Zachary Kosslow (ANS), Amanda Bryson (Shaw Areva MOX Services), Eric Loewen (ANS-president), and Kevin Hall (NNSA).

 

NNSA-MOX Federal Project Director Clay Ramsey illustrates with ANS's Loewen how a fuel pellet boat will be used in the MOX fuel fabrication process.

The dinner meeting that featured Loewen on the 15th was attended by about 160 people. The dinner was hosted by Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, in cooperation with ANS. “Dr. Loewen’s presentation was very well received by all in attendance,” said Amanda Bryson, chair of the Savannah River ANS local section. “The event brought together professionals at all stages of their careers from all over the Central Savannah River Area, representing many facets of the nuclear industry in the area. This was one of the best-attended events for ANS–Savannah River in the past year, and provided the opportunity for lively and thought-provoking interaction among our membership and the membership of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness. It was a pleasure and a privilege to have Dr. Loewen visit.”

The next day, in Charlotte,  Loewen was interviewed on WFAE NPR Radio Charlotte. Click the “Listen” button at the WFAE webpage to tune in to the interview via the Comments page, or tune in to the interview directly.

Dr. Clint Wolfe (Exec. Dir. CNTA), Dr. Loewen, Karen Bonavita (CNTA)

“Dr. Loewen had over 100 attentive local section members as an audience,” said Thomas Doering, chair of the Piedmont-Carolinas ANS local section, regarding Loewen’s talk in Charlotte on the 16th. “The Peidmont-Carolinas section historically has drawn nearly 100 local members for over two years; the greater Charlotte area is considered the energy capital of the nation. Dr. Loewen’s talk focused on the misconceptions of plutonium and how other energy sources suffered from a similar beginning.”

When asked about his trip, Loewen said, “I’m just so impressed with the vibrancy and vitality of these sections. They really are greater than the sum of their parts, and their parts are pretty great.”

Carolinas Section Officers James Bakke, Thomas Doering - chair, ANS President Loewen, Myron Koblansky, Andrew Sowder.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Local Sections, Meetings, MOX Fuel, NASA, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, plutonium, spent fuel

The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report

Posted on February 6, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

By Jim Hopf

Soon after declaring that it would end the Yucca Mountain repository project, the Obama administration created the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to reevaluate the nation’s nuclear waste program and policies. The commission was asked to recommend improvements to the waste program and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and to make general recommendations on the path forward. The commission was specifically instructed to not address the Yucca Mountain project, or any specific project or site. The commission’s final report was released this month.

Primary recommendations

The main recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) are as follows:

• A repository (or long-term storage facility) should be sited using a “consent-based” approach, as opposed to having the federal government select a site and then impose it on the state and/or local community. The government would offer incentives to a large number of communities, whose locations are potentially suitable as a repository site, and let communities (and states) come forward voluntarily. (In essence, this implies that Yucca Mountain should be abandoned and the process should start over.)

• Responsibility for siting, licensing, building, and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities should be shifted from the Department of Energy to a new, independent single-purpose organization (most likely a federal corporation). Most experts agree that such an organization would offer more focus, stability, and credibility than the DOE, which has lost credibility with many stakeholders.

• The waste program must have full access to the nuclear waste fund that has been paid for by the 0.1 cent/kW-hr fee levied on nuclear-generated electricity. In the short term, the administration should amend the DOE’s standard contract so that only the money appropriated (i.e., spent) that year is transferred from the waste fund to the federal government. Remaining funds would be placed in a trust account that is managed by an independent organization. Over the longer term, legislation should be passed that transfers the entire balance of the nuclear waste fund to the new waste management organization.

• A prompt effort to develop a geologic disposal facility is necessary. There is scientific consensus that deep geologic disposal is the best option for final disposal of nuclear waste, and that a geologic repository will be necessary for any type of fuel cycle. The BRC did recommend further research and development of advanced fuel cycles and reactor designs, but stated that committing to a specific fuel cycle option or technology at this point in time would be premature.

• There should be a prompt effort to develop one or more consolidated used fuel storage facilities. This would allow the government to meet its contractual obligation to take the used fuel from utilities much sooner than if it waited for a final repository to be developed. It may also reduce the (small) risks associated with fuel storage somewhat, by reducing the number of sites where fuel is stored. Removing the fuel from decommissioned nuclear sites would free those sites up for other uses.

• Preparations for the eventual shipment of large amounts of used fuel should begin soon. A large number of stakeholders should be involved in the planning of the waste transportation program.

• The government should support research and development into advanced reactors and fuel cycles, as well as nuclear workforce development programs. The BRC stated that the general direction of the DOE’s current R&D is appropriate.

• The United States should maintain its leadership role in the international community in the area of nuclear technology. It should provide aid, advice, and technical and regulatory assistance to other countries, particularly those who are starting new nuclear programs.

NWPA changes

The BRC’s recommended path forward involves specific changes to the NWPA:

• The NWPA currently specifies Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be evaluated as a repository. The law would have to be changed to allow other sites to be evaluated.

• The NWPA currently allows only one centralized used fuel storage facility with limited capacity, and this storage facility may only be developed after a repository is licensed. The NWPA would have to be amended to allow multiple centralized storage facilities, and to remove any linkage with repository licensing.

• The NWPA would be amended to broaden the number of jurisdictions that could receive funding and technical assistance in support of the fuel transportation campaign.

• The NWPA would have to be amended to create the independent waste management organization discussed earlier, and to shift the DOE’s current responsibilities (for siting, licensing, building and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities) to that organization.

• The NWPA would also have to be amended to remove the nuclear waste fund from the congressional appropriations process, and to allow the independent nuclear waste management organization to have full access to the fund.

• Some NWPA changes may be required in order to allow the United States to provide a broader range of support to other nations in the area of nuclear waste management.

ANS response

The American Nuclear Society has responded to the BRC’s final report. ANS concurs with the BRC’s recommendation to create a new, independent agency to manage the nation’s nuclear waste in the future. ANS also agrees with the recommendation to create one or more centralized used fuel storage facilities, to accommodate much of the nation’s used fuel until a final repository is finally sited, licensed, and constructed. ANS also supports the BRC’s call for continued R&D on advanced (closed) fuel cycles.

One area of disagreement between ANS and the BRC, however, concerns the Yucca Mountain repository. While ANS acknowledged that the BRC was explicitly instructed not to address Yucca Mountain, it reiterated its position that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should conclude the licensing process for the repository (at a minimum).

My perspective

I largely concur with ANS’s point of view on the BRC recommendations. Almost everyone believes that having an independent organization, as opposed to the DOE, manage the waste program would be helpful. Allowing full access to the nuclear waste fund (for its intended purpose) is absolutely essential, given the history of Congress in hijacking the waste funds for other uses or for political reasons. Right now, the fund is little more than a (punitive) 0.1 cent/kW-hr tax on nuclear electricity.

I also agree that R&D into advanced fuel cycles and reactors is important. The BRC stated that they do not believe that fuel cycle technology that would significantly alter the nuclear waste situation is anywhere on the horizon. ANS thought that this was overly pessimistic, and I’m inclined to agree. Fuel cycle technologies such as “UREX+” are a few decades away at most. Such fuel cycles have the potential to significantly reduce the bulk and heat generation level for the final waste stream, which should greatly reduce the number of final repositories required (to one, probably). This is enormously important.

I also agree with ANS on the subject of Yucca Mountain. It is imperative that the NRC complete the evaluation and licensing process, and formally rule on whether the Yucca Mountain repository would have been acceptable from a scientific and technical perspective. (Virtually all observers believe that NRC staff had concluded that the repository met the requirements.) This should be demanded as part of any “compromise”, in exchange for accepting the BRC’s recommendation that we start the repository siting, evaluation, and licensing process all over again (largely wasting the ~$15 billion that has been spent).

I believe that the single largest drawback of starting the repository program over, and delaying final resolution of the waste issue by decades, is that it will result in a large fraction of the public continuing to believe—falsely—that there is no technical solution to the nuclear waste problem. This in turn will measurably increase public resistance to nuclear power, which will result in greater fossil fuel use in the future. The public health risks and negative environmental impacts of this increased fossil fuel use will utterly dwarf any risks and/or impacts associated with any nuclear waste repository.

Although it wouldn’t be as good (or effective) as having an actual repository in place, having the NRC formally rule that the Yucca Mountain repository met all of the (impeccable) requirements would go a long way toward convincing the public that we do have acceptable scientific/technical solutions to the nuclear waste problem.

I would go on to insist that the government make sure that NRC’s ruling is highly publicized. The government should inform the public that an adequate technical solution to the waste problem has been found, but that we are electing to wait awhile to see if “even better” solutions can be found. Waiting is justifiable and prudent, given the very small risks and economic costs of storing nuclear waste. Those “better” solutions may include the use of advanced fuel cycles that result in a smaller, colder, or shorter-lived waste stream, or simply a final repository that has a greater level of political support from the surrounding state and local communities.

_____________________

Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, licensing, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, position statements, Radwaste Solutions, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

Ballot initiative to close California’s nuclear plants

Posted on January 30, 2012 by lscheele| 6 Comments

By Jim Hopf

There’s not much new happening in DC right at the moment, so this month I’ll discuss something that’s going on in the state of California. That is, a proposed ballot initiative to shut the two remaining nuclear power plants—the two-unit Diablo Canyon and the two-unit San Onofre—in the state.

The Initiative

The initiative proposal has been filed by Ben Davis, a delivery driver, self-taught legal professional, and long-time anti-nuclear activist who lives in Santa Cruz, Calif. He tried (unsuccessfully) to pass a similar initiative in 1988. More than 500,000 signatures are required by April 16 in order for the initiative to qualify for the November 2012 ballot.

The language of the initiative is similar to that of previous initiatives. It would require the state’s nuclear power plants to close until “there exists a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.” The plants in question generate 16 percent of California’s electricity.

Response from Legislative Analyst

Like all of California’s legislation and ballot initiatives, this proposal was evaluated by the state’s legislative analyst, an objective, non-partisan office that is tasked with evaluating the impacts (economic impacts in particular) of all proposed policy initiatives. The analyst’s conclusions regarding this initiative were very strong, and almost entirely negative.

Diablo Canyon

The legislative analyst requested an evaluation of the impact of the plants’ closure on grid stability and reliability from the states independent system (grid) operator (ISO). The ISO stated that the plants’ closure “would reduce the capacity to deliver electricity in the Los Angeles Basin area to below state and local standards for reliability”, and that it would significantly increase the risk of rolling blackouts in the area.

The analyst went on to say that the plants’ closure could result in economic damages/costs of tens of billions of dollars to the state. These economic impacts would be due to:

  • Increased cost of power in the short term due to scarcity.
  • Economic costs due to blackouts and reduced reliability in the short term.
  • Loss of jobs and industries due to the above power cost and lack of reliability.
  • Higher power costs (and associated job losses) over the long term due to higher costs of replacement power sources.
  • Cost to the taxpayer from compensation that will have to be paid to the utilities.

Other Reactions

Probably due, in part, to the very negative conclusions of the non-partisan legislative analyst, the initiative has garnered little political support (from state newspapers, etc.). No major paper has taken a position in favor of the initiative, and many papers have come down strongly against it. Even the article about the initiative in the (formally anti-nuclear) LA Times took a negative tone, focusing primarily on the negative conclusions of the legislative analyst.

Most independent observers believe that the initiative has little chance of passing.

My Perspective

It’s clear that Mr. Davis is filing this initiative (again) in response to the event at the Fukushima plant in Japan last March. He believes that this will increase his chances of passing an initiative that he has failed to pass before.

Initiative’s Purpose?

I find it ironic, and telling, that the initiative itself does not talk about nuclear plant safety features at all, but instead only refers to the waste issue, even though it is trying to take advantage of Fukushima fears. It does not require the plants to install any safety upgrades (e.g., earthquake and/or tsunami defenses) as a condition for being allowed to operate. It only requires that the waste problem be resolved.

Perhaps this is because Mr. Davis knows that the waste requirement will not be met for decades, whereas the plants would be able to install any required safety improvements and restart. Thus, the waste requirements are better if your real goal is to permanently shut the plants. Perhaps the waste issue is the real reason Mr. Davis is opposed to nuclear power, and the initiative language reflects that. In any event, it seems clear that the initiative is trying to use the Fukushima event in pursuit of another agenda.

California Plants’ Safety

As for the actual safety of the California plants, it should be noted that the earthquake and tsunami risks at the California plant sites are nothing like those that existed for the Fukushima plant. The Diablo Canyon plant sits on a high bluff, 85 feet above the water. The San Onofre plant sits 50 feet above the water, with a 30-foot tsunami wall for additional protection. Thus, neither plant would have been inundated by a tsunami as high as the one that struck Fukushima. As for earthquakes, the California plants are actually designed to withstand ground acceleration levels roughly twice those that were experienced by the Fukushima plant.

In addition to the greater levels of protection (discussed above), the maximum earthquake and tsunami that could occur at the California plant sites is far smaller than that which occurred in northern Japan. The (thrust) type of fault that can produce earthquakes and tsunamis of that size does not exist near Southern California. Furthermore, California has relatively few off-shore fault lines that could produce tsunamis.

San Onofre

Finally, some of the issues and weaknesses that apply for the old boiling water reactor plants at Fukushima are less severe or not applicable to the more modern pressurized water reactor plants in California. On top of that, the U.S. plants had already made several safety and security upgrades in response to September 11, and will make further upgrades as a result of the lessons learned from Fukushima. All this adds up to a severe release risk that is much smaller than that which was present at Fukushima.

Economic Impacts of Plants’ Closure

I concur with the legislative analyst’s conclusions regarding the impact of closing California’s two nuclear plants, but I believe that they do not go far enough. I believe that there would be additional negative impacts that the analyst failed to mention, or clarify.

The analyst was right about the short term (scarcity) costs and blackout risks, but it failed to clarify the magnitude of the impact on long-term power costs. Continuing to operate an existing nuclear plant is extremely inexpensive, with going-forward operational costs of ~2 cents/kW-hr or less. Building and operating new natural gas and/or renewable generation (to replace the nuclear plants’ output) would be much more expensive. These costs will be passed down to consumers in the form of higher power costs, and tax bills related to compensation the state will have to pay the utilities (for forcing them to close perfectly good nuclear plants with decades of life left).

Whereas continued operation of the nuclear plants costs ~2 cents//kW-hr, construction and operation of renewable sources will cost ~10 cents/kW-hr or more, even before costs related to grid upgrades and fossil backup capacity are considered. New natural gas generation may cost somewhat less (6-7 cents/kW-hr) in theory, it may not be that simple in practice.

A RAND Corporation study was performed to evaluate the impact of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard policies. The study concluded that the renewables could reduce overall energy costs even though their per kW-hr generation costs were higher than that of natural gas plants. The reasoning was that the cost of gas is very sensitive to the balance between supply and demand. Thus, any reduction in gas demand (for power generation) would result in a reduced cost for gas, which in turn would reduce the cost of the (remaining) gas-fired power generation, as well as the cost of all other applications that use gas (e.g., space heating, industrial use, etc.). Another argument they gave was that the gas pipelines into California were near their limit, and therefore any measure that would reduce or avoid any further increase in gas use could prevent a large cost associated with upgrading the pipeline infrastructure.

Well, what’s good for the goose (renewables) is good—or perhaps even better—for the gander (nuclear). If the two nuclear plants are shut down, most of the generation will be replaced by gas-fired generation. This will result in a significant increase in demand for natural gas in California, which will in turn measurably increase the price of gas. If the new level of gas demand is beyond the capacity of the existing gas pipeline infrastructure, the economic impacts will be even greater. This will have a significant effect on the overall economy.

Employment Impacts

The legislative analyst talked about job losses as a result of higher power costs and reduced reliability, and their impacts on electricity-using industries. They did not, however, sufficiently discuss employment impacts in the power generation sector itself.

The plants’ closure will have a significant, negative jobs impact, particularly in the local area around the plants. Any new gas or renewable generation used to replace the plants’ capacity will not create as many jobs as those lost at the plant; not in California, anyway.

Gas-fired power plants employ far fewer people, for a given level of capacity. Most of the cost of gas generation is in the fuel, and therefore many if not most of the jobs associated with gas generation are those associated with fuel extraction and transport. These jobs, however, occur elsewhere in the country, or in other nations.

A similar (jobs) situation exists for renewables. Most of the cost, and jobs, associated with renewable generation is in the fabrication of the wind turbines and solar panels, etc. Relatively few are employed at the generation site. Suffice it to say that such jobs are offshore-able (unlike the jobs at the nuclear plant). These components can be manufactured anywhere; in other states or even other countries. In fact, it is well known that most renewable component construction has been moving to China.

With nuclear power, on the other hand, most of the jobs are associated with on-site plant construction and plant operation, both of which occur in the local area. Nuclear plant jobs are not offshore-able. Local (or state) employment, per unit of generation, are much higher for nuclear than they would be for either gas or renewables.

Environmental Impacts

In addition to higher power costs, the retirement of California’s nuclear plants will have a significant negative impact on the environment and public health. In the short-term, the nuclear plants’ capacity will be replaced by firing up old, relatively dirty fossil (gas, and perhaps oil) fired power plants. These plants will emit significant amounts of CO2 and other harmful pollutants. Over the longer term, new and more efficient combined cycle gas plants may be constructed, but even those plants will emit significant amounts of CO2 and measurable amounts of air pollution. This will significantly impact California’s ability to meet its CO2 emissions reduction goals.

It is unlikely that the nuclear plants’ closure will result in a significant amount of additional renewable generation. This is because the amount of renewable generation that will be built in California is almost entirely governed by the state’s aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements. Many, including myself, believe that the (33 percent) renewable generation goal is already unrealistic and impractical. Given this, it seems pretty clear that utilities will struggle to meet those requirements, and will not be building any renewable capacity beyond what is required by the policy. The closure of the nuclear plants will do nothing to change this. Getting one third of overall generation using intermittent sources is probably already beyond what can be done (practically, let alone economically). Even with the increased gas costs that occur as a result of the nuclear plants’ closure, it will not be economic to build renewable generation beyond the state’s requirements. Thus, it seems clear that most if not all of the generation used to replace the nuclear plants will be gas-fired.

Summary

The proposed initiative to close California’s nuclear power plants (until the nuclear waste problem is “solved”) is an attempt by a long-time anti-nuclear activist to take advantage of the Fukushima event to further a pre-existing agenda. It does not acknowledge the fact that overall risks, particularly risks associated with earthquake and tsunami, are much smaller for the California plants. The initiative does not even require, or refer to, plant safety upgrades to further reduce these vulnerabilities.

Closure of California’s nuclear plants would have very large negative economic impacts on the state, as well as significant negative impacts on public health and the environment (due to the firing up or construction of fossil fuel power plants for replacement power). Power costs will rise significantly, and taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars of utility compensation. Over the short term, grid reliability will suffer, and the risk of rolling blackouts will increase significantly. The plants’ closure will also result in the loss of thousands of non-offshore-able jobs in the local area. These job losses will not be offset by jobs associated with (gas or renewable) replacement generation. The plants’ closure will also make it much harder for California to meet its CO2 emissions reduction goals.

This initiative does not deserve serious consideration, let alone passage.  Fortunately, most experts believe its chances of passage are slim.

________________________________________

Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in BWRs, Education, Electricity generating capacity, Fukushima, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Natural disasters, News, nuclear opponents, PWRs, spent fuel

ANS statement on BRC’s final report

Posted on January 27, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future released its final report on Thursday, January 26. The report contains recommendations for a comprehensive U.S. strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Please click here for the American Nuclear Society‘s statement on the report.

__________________

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, News, position statements, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

Priorities for 2012 in Vermont Politics

Posted on January 24, 2012 by lscheele| Comments Off

By Howard Shaffer

Vermont’s “Citizen Legislature” meets from January to May/June. During this term, the major issue is Hurricane Irene and its aftermath. The hurricane caused major devastation, but, thankfully, few lives were lost.

Vermont’s geography of steep mountains and narrow valleys makes heavy rains destructive. Many roads and bridges were washed out during the hurricane.  Homes, trailers, and propane tanks were carried away. Rivers changed courses, which changed some property lines. A few town halls and their records were flooded. Federal disaster assistance and private help were provided. Heroic efforts by citizens restored the roads and bridges by winter, and the economy picked up. Governor Peter Shumlin rightfully acknowledged these efforts in his Vermont State of the State speech.

The Legislature and Governor

Shumlin

The governor is working with a legislature dominated by his Democratic party, 22 to 8 in the Senate and 102 to 48 in the House. In the 2010 election, he credited 14 percent of his vote to the anti-nuclear power/Vermont Yankee vote, in his slim victory margin. An Associated Press local writer wrote a January 17  article “Vermont Settles in To One-Party Government.”

With all the major issues the legislature must face, and with the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant’s fate in the hands of the federal courts, it might be thought that there would be no time to devote to the “Great Anti-Nuclear Crusade,” local version. Not a chance of that happening in Vermont, however.

Another Lawsuit

The two privately-owned electric utilities in Vermont that are purchasing power from Vermont Yankee are now suing the plant for their extra costs. They claim reimbursement for the replacement power they had to purchase when the plant had to reduce power in 2007 and 2008. One cell in one of two eleven-cell forced draft towers collapsed, and the next year there was a problem with areas that had been repaired.

Vermont Yankee, with the forced draft cooling towers in the foreground.

Apparently, these two companies had no insurance for power lost in these events, nor did their contracts with Vermont Yankee call for reimbursement. The companies say that the contracts did call for “good utility practice.” There was no report of negotiations, or if there is a statute of limitations.

In a change in course, the local AP writer’s story on this lawsuit described how the towers work, and how they use river water. The story finally reports that the infamous picture of the collapsed cell, with water pouring on the debris from the collapse, was leaked to the New England Coalition, an opponent of the plant. The coalition passed the picture to the media, and it is on the internet and used nationally in articles about Vermont Yankee. The plant’s opponents trot it out at every opportunity, and use it in their literature, trumpeting the dangers of nuclear power.

Keeping the Money Flowing

In order to store used fuel in dry casks on its site, Vermont Yankee had to apply to the state’s Public Service Board for a Certificate of Public Good. In the Memorandum of Understanding signed to obtain the certificate, the plant agreed to contribute to the state’s Clean Energy Development Fund. Per the memorandum, the contribution will stop on the date when the plant’s original 40-year license, now extended for 20 years, ends.

Dry cask storage

A new revenue stream is needed. Bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to tax the used fuel from nuclear power plants stored in the state. Vermont Yankee is the only nuclear plant in the state, and the representative introducing the bill, who chairs the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, is an ardent anti-nuke. It is not likely that he is contemplating any more nuclear plants in the state. If the tax targeted just one entity, however, it is believed it would be found illegally discriminatory.

The House version calls for an annual $2 million per dry cask. It also calls for an equivalent tax on the fuel in the storage pool, determined by a formula. This formula appears to have been originated by someone with limited knowledge of the plant and fuel details, and it is incorrect. It says to “divide $2 million by the volume of a dry cask and multiply by 50 percent.” The text implies this figure would be used to apportion the volume of used fuel in the pool (i.e. multiply by), but this is not in the formula. Engineers would use a logical per fuel assembly basis to easily achieve a correct answer.

Re-greening the Green Mountain State

The House bill taxing used fuel also initiates a “Postclosure Funding Tax” of $25 million per year. This tax starts when the bill becomes law. The purpose of the fund is to restore nuclear plant sites, which are “well-suited for electric generation and transmission” to “greenfield” condition, “without a long delay.” Greenfield is defined as “removal of all above- and below-grade structures, equipment, and foundations.”

The bill assumes decommissioning as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will take place first. It prohibits use of the funds for decommissioning unless all other funds have been exhausted. Just as with decommissioning, funds reimburse activities completed. The fund draws interest, and excess funds are returned to the owners. The tax stops when the Public Service Board determines that greenfield conditions have been met.

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit and the tax bill fare.

Meanwhile the Vermont Yankee plant has been operating very well.

___________________________________

Shaffer

Howard Shaffer has been an ANS member for 35 years. He has contributed to ASME and ANS Standards committees, ANS committees, national meeting staffs, and his local section, and was the 2001 ANS Congressional Fellow. He is a current member of the ANS Public Information Committee and consults in nuclear public outreach. 

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project.  Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Comments Off

Posted in accident, BWRs, cooling towers, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, Entergy, Fellows, financing, lawsuit, lessons learned, Natural disasters, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reactor designs, spent fuel, View from Vermont

A win for Vermont Yankee

Posted on January 20, 2012 by dyurman| 3 Comments

Federal District Court rules against efforts by the State of Vermont to assert regulatory authority over radiological safety issues

By Dan Yurman

Efforts by the State of Vermont to regulate a nuclear reactor within its borders were struck down on January 19 by U.S. District Court Judge J. Gavan Murtha in Brattleboro, Vt. Murtha ruled in three instances against the state, which had sought to shut down Entergy’s (NYSE:ETR) Vermont Yankee reactor, located on the banks of the Connecticut River.

Murtha’s ruling follows a three-day trial last September. The decision was fast tracked to insure it would be handed down prior to the expiration of the current license on March 12, 2012.

Murtha wrote in his 102-page decision that the State of Vermont could not use the legislature’s refusal to issue a Certificate of Public Good as a basis to force the reactor to shut down. He said that state law is preempted by the Atomic Energy Act, which assigns radiological safety regulation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The judge emphasized that the legislature was focused on “radiological safety concerns” that are the province of the NRC.

A second item in the judge’s ruling enjoined the State of Vermont from using its assertion that it has authority over management of spent fuel at the site as a means to force the plant to shut down.

Finally, the judge said that the legislation could not make a condition of continued operation contingent on the existence of a below-wholesale-market power purchase agreement between Plaintiffs and Vermont utilities, or requiring Vermont Yankee to sell power to Vermont utilities.

Immediate and irreparable harm

“The harm to the public interest from even a temporary shutdown of the Vermont Yankee Station would be significant, immediate, and irreparable,” the judge wrote.

Entergy claimed in its filing with the court that the state’s plans to shut down the reactor would cause the utility to lose highly trained employees, cost jobs both at the plant and in the community, make the electric grid in New England less reliable, force electricity prices to rise, increase greenhouse gas emissions, and hurt state tax revenues.

Vermont likely to appeal ruling

The court ruling will likely be appealed by the State of Vermont to the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York, but in the meantime, the reactor will continue to operate and supply electricity to Vermont ratepayers.

The 605-MW plant provides about one-third of the electricity used in Vermont.  Rates for electricity in Vermont are significantly lower than in surrounding states due to the low cost of producing it by the reactor.

Vermont Gov Peter Shumlin

Despite the economic advantages the plant provides, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin said in a statement he was “disappointed” with the ruling.

“I continue to believe that it is in Vermont’s best interests to retire the plant,” he said.

Entergy said in a statement issued by its corporate offices that “the ruling is good news.”

Background to litigation

Vermont has  attempted to assert regulatory authority over reactor operations, management of spent fuel, and to attempt to use economic leverage on rates as a contingency for allowing the plant to stay open.

The NRC granted a 20-year extension to Vermont Yankee’s initial 40-year license in March 2011. Vermont’s State Senate had previously voted in 2010 by 26-4 against allowing the Vermont Public Service Board to issue a Certificate of Public Good. There was no corresponding vote in the State House.

The vote against the plant came following a low point for the reactor. Entergy’s plant managers in testimony before a legislative committee said that the reactor did not have underground pipes that carried tritium.

It was later found that not only did the plant have the pipes, but that they were leaking tritium into the ground within the plant boundaries. The amounts turned out not to be a threat to public health and safety, but the damage was done to the company’s credibility.

The ruling in Vermont is significant elsewhere as neighboring New York state has been trying to shut down the two operating reactors at Entergy’s Indian Point power station. Reactor relicensing actions are pending with the NRC.

______________

________________________

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, BWRs, Entergy, lawsuit, licensing, News, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reactor designs, spent fuel, View from Vermont

Nuclear News and the new year

Posted on January 17, 2012 by rmichal| Comments Off

The January issue of Nuclear News magazine is available in hard copy and electronically for American Nuclear Society members (must enter ANS user name and password in Member Center). The issue contains the following stories:

  • The year ahead: This time for sure? by E. Michael Blake
  • 2012 Preview: Impact of Fukushima Daiichi on global prospects for nuclear, by Dick Kovan
  • 10-year D&D program under way at Zion plant, by Rick Michal
  • The index to 2011 Nuclear News content

There is also an in-depth report on the 2011 ANS Winter Meeting, along with side coverage of two topicals at the meeting: the first ANS Small Modular Reactor conference, and the Young Professionals Congress 2011 meeting.

Other news in the January issue:  NRC commissioner Jaczko votes to publish AP1000 certification final rule; revised emergency plan rule published in final form; study sees potential for small modular reactors to compete with gas-fired generation; is yellow inspection finding at Oconee an old design issue? Davis-Besse restart allowed while concrete studies continue; special inspection at Brunswick; NRC takes no significant action on four petitions; a status report on license renewal and power uprates; Fukushima-related motions in licensing proceedings continue to be denied; Levy site tour, limited statements scheduled; power reactor stress tests in the European Union said to be on track; European Union proposes additional €500 million to close Soviet-era reactors; fuel loading begins at Canada’s long-idled Bruce-1; Vietnam’s pact with Japan upheld, and new pact made with South Korea; three sites on short list for Poland’s first nuclear plant; United Kingdom chooses reuse as MOX to manage plutonium stock; nuclear research center opens in West Cumbria; and much more.

Past issues of Nuclear News are available here.

______________________

Comments Off

Posted in accident, American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Earthquake, Education, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, Fukushima, IAEA, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Meetings, Natural disasters, News, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Literacy Project, Nuclear News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PWRs, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, spent fuel, Vietnam

GE-Hitachi proposes to burn U.K. plutonium stockpile

Posted on December 22, 2011 by dyurman| 4 Comments

An advanced reactor could be used to consume 112 tonnes of weapons grade material

By Dan Yurman

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has proposed to the U.K. government to build an advanced nuclear reactor that would consume the country’s stockpile of surplus plutonium.

The technology is called PRISM, which stands for Power Reactor Innovative Small Module. If accepted, it would be very different than the other proposals to process plutonium, including those that would turn it into mixed oxide fuel (MOX).

According to GE Hitachi, the PRISM reactor disposes of a great majority of the plutonium as opposed to simply reusing it over again. This process takes it out of circulation forever.

PRISM cutaway (Source: GE Hitachi)

Fuel for the PRISM reactor is created by converting the plutonium from powder form mixing it with uranium and zirconium to make a metal fuel. The resulting spent fuel contains plutonium in a form that cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

Eric Loewen, chief engineer on the project (and president of the American Nuclear Society), said that the waste form is much the same as what comes out of light water reactors. Once the plutonium has been in the PRISM reactor for five years, it is mixed with other nuclear materials that make it nearly impossible to retrieve the metal for the purpose of making a weapon.

The PRISM reactor is a so-called “fast reactor” because it uses liquid metal sodium rather than water to cool the system. The sodium allows the neutrons to maintain higher energies and to cause fission in elements such as plutonium more efficiently than light water reactors.  (large image)

Heritage of EBR-II

Based on the design of the Integral Fast Reactor (EBR-II) developed at the Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho, the PRISM reactor uses passive safety features that cause it to shut down automatically. In the event of a complete loss of electrical power, it simply stops working and passively dissipates residual heat. EBR-II was canceled in 1994, but not before a safety analysis showed that there were no technical barriers to getting a license and safely operating one.

The Argonne National Laboratory as it appeared in the 1990s when work was stopped on EBR-II.

According to a fact sheet from GE Hitachi, the PRISM reactor’s relatively small size and simpler design would allow it to be built in modules and transported for assembly on site. Another benefit of the reactor is that while it is disposing of weapons materials, it is also generating electricity.

According to the proposal, there would be two PRISM reactors each generating 300 MW of electrical power. It would take about five years to burn through the 112 tonnes of material. The reactors could be used for up to 60 years.

The UK government had considered building a MOX plant at the Sellafield site where the plutonium is stored, but it canceled those plans as the Japanese government stopped orders for MOX following the Fukushima earthquake.

Total life-cycle costs

GE Hitachi contends that the PRISM reactor will cost less to build than a new MOX plant. It is costing the U.K. government £2 billion (about $3.1 billion) a year to maintain the plutonium inventory.

In the United States, the government is building a MOX plan that will process 34 short tons of plutonium, turning it into the equivalent of 1,700 PWR MOX fuel assemblies for light water reactors at a cost of $4.5 billion.

MOX fuel burnup process. (Image: World Nuclear News)

If an assumption is made that the delivered cost of the PRISM reactor is $4,500/Kw, then 600 MW of power would cost $2.7 billion or about the cost of one year of storing the plutonium in its current form.

Additional costs would include a fuel fabrication facility, the fuel itself, and spent fuel disposal. Life-cycle costs would have to be taken into account to get a true comparison.

The U.K. government hasn’t said what it thinks of the GE Hitachi proposal, but it has talked about what it needs to know to make a decision.

Feasibility and safety issues

In addition to financial feasibility, U.K. energy minister Charles Hendry told parliament that the government needs to know the work can be done safely and securely. He said U.K.’s Department of Energy & Climate Change would examine the PRISM proposal. He also said that the government is considering converting 28 tonnes of foreign-owned plutonium at the Sellafield site into MOX.

GE Hitachi VP Danny Roderick

GE Hitachi vice president Danny Roderick told financial wire services that while the government is looking at the plutonium as a security risk, his firm sees it as an asset that can be burned to make electricity.

The plutonium was created as a result of nuclear spent fuel reprocessing, which took place at the Sellafield site starting in the 1950s.

In October 2010, GE Hitachi signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site to investigate the feasibility of constructing a prototype of the PRISM reactor there.

Coincidentally, the proposal to use the technology from EBR-II comes almost 60 years to the week that electricity was first generated on the Idaho desert in its predecessor EPR-I.

At 1:23 p.m. on December 20, 1951, Argonne National Laboratory director Walter Zinn scribbled into his log book, “Electricity flows from atomic energy. Rough estimate indicates 45 kw.” At that moment, scientists from Argonne and the National Reactor Testing Station watched four light bulbs glow, powered by the world’s first nuclear reactor.

________________

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

 

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Department of Energy, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, integral fast reactor, National Laboratories, News, Nonproliferation, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear pioneers, physics, PRISM reactor, PWRs, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, spent fuel, Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, United Kingdom

“I&C” in Nuclear News

Posted on December 20, 2011 by rmichal| Comments Off

The December issue of Nuclear News magazine, which contains a special section on instrumentation and control, is available in hard copy and electronically for American Nuclear Society members (must enter ANS user name and password in Member Center). The special section contains the following stories:

  • Duke upgrades to digital I&C at Oconee
  • The role of I&C technology in enabling the deployment of small modular reactors, by Dwight Clayton and Richard Wood
  • Digital I&C for research reactors

Other news in the December issue: Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff sends AP1000 final rule package to the commissioners and the Office of Management and Budget; U.S. EPR’s digital I&C system gets first NRC approval; US-APWR design certification now scheduled for October 2014; NRC reschedules work on Turkey Point-6 and -7 into 2014; Entergy submits Grand Gulf license renewal application to the NRC; Comments on Fermi-3 draft EIS accepted through January 11.; Robinson-2 moves higher, Sequoyah-1 lower in NRC’s ROP action matrix; stolen sodium diuranate traced to Areva’s Trekkopje mine in Namibia; regulatory control of USEC’s Portsmouth plant being returned to the Department of Energy; NRC issues final environmental assessment for Nuclear Fuel Services’ fuel fabrication facility; NRC investigates yellowcake incident at Wyoming site; ORISE report shows shifts in career opportunities for nuclear engineering grads; University of Pittsburgh hosts Nuclear Night; Czech utility ČEZ invites vendor bids for new Temelin reactors; Taiwan’s new energy policy calls for nuclear power phaseout; commercial start of Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 may be delayed again; UAE’s Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation requests approval for site preparation work at Braka; dome of China’s first EPR, Taishan-1, is put in place; Russia applies for membership in OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; IAEA mission team issues preliminary report on Fukushima Daiichi; and much more.

Past issues of Nuclear News are available here.

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, BWRs, China, Department of Energy, I&C, IAEA, National Laboratories, Nuclear News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PWRs, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, spent fuel

MIT nuclear fuel expert has new economic ideas to deal with it

Posted on December 1, 2011 by dyurman| 2 Comments

Colocating all back-end facilities will increase community acceptance because of job creation

By Dan Yurman

Charles Forsberg, executive director, MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Project

A nationally recognized expert says that colocating a reprocessing plant with a waste disposal facility can improve the economics, efficiency, and public acceptance of both.

Charles Forsberg, executive director of the MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study, writes in the November 2011 issue of the Amercian Nuclear Society’s Nuclear News magazine that a new business model is needed to manage spent nuclear fuel and repositories for long-term storage of highly radioactive waste.

In an interview with Forsberg at the ANS Winter Meeting held in November in Washington, D.C., Forsberg said that there is an opportunity to borrow from the business model of an airport authority. For instance, an airport authority owns the runways, and colocated with them are public and private airline terminals and freight handling warehouses. All of these facilities, which generate user fees for the airport authority, benefit from colocation with the high-value runways.

The issue related to spent fuel, Forsberg said, is whether the Secretary of Energy’s Blue Ribbon Commission asked the right questions. A key issue is how to make a spent fuel repository, and colocated reprocessing center, an attractive economic asset for a community that hosts them. Such a strategy would also save 30 percent of the costs of building the plants at separate locations, according to Forsberg.

By harnessing the idea of an airport authority to the concept of a federal off-the-books corporation to manage spent fuel, Forsberg said that he sees a path forward that benefits the nuclear industry and local communities.

Forsberg pointed out that spent fuel is a very valuable material because of the energy value inside it. He suggested that the way to get states to accept a colocated repository, interim storage, and a spent fuel reprocessing facility is for the federal government to offer two huge economic incentives.

Revenue and jobs for states

The first incentive is to allow states to reap some of the revenues from sales of the reprocessed spent fuel. The second is to offer the state that accepts such colocated facilities the opportunity to reap a huge benefit from hundreds of jobs at these sites and the resulting payroll taxes. Forsberg said that state governors readily understand the airport authority business model and could use it to accept a spent fuel repository and reprocessing center.

The airport authority would be the economic development mechanism a state would put in place to manage its role relative to the facility. Facilities on-site would be tenants and could include privately operated fuel reprocessing centers to handle low-enriched uranium or government/defense plants to downblend high-enriched uranium from naval nuclear reactors. Presumably, the tenants would be responsible for environmental protection and safety of operations at these facilities.

The key to this business model is that a repository has an interim storage capability that makes it possible to retrieve the spent fuel when facilities are ready to reprocess it. Forsberg pointed out that public opinion strongly supports holding open the option of reprocessing spent fuel and not simply burying it in the ground as part of a once-through cycle.

Is spent fuel a waste or a resource?

One finding of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology study is that light water reactor spent nuclear fuel is not yet formally defined as a waste or a resource. Forsberg noted that as a resource it will enable the development of fast reactors, which use uranium 20 to 50 times more efficiently than LWRs. Regardless of whether a plant is reprocessing LWR or fast reactor spent fuel assemblies, a repository will be needed for residuals from the process.

Forsberg’s enthusiasm isn’t shared by the government. The Blue Ribbon Commission said in its draft report that it didn’t see a near-term opportunity for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. It wrote that it could be decades or longer for technologies to develop what would “fundamentally alter the waste management challenge.” This is why, Forsberg said, any fuel put into a repository must be retrievable to preserve options for the future to reprocess it and reap the resulting economic benefits.

GAO study on nuclear fuel cycle options

The U.S. General Accountability Office agrees that it may be some time before anyone decides on the technologies that are best, in terms of economics and efficiency, to reprocess spent fuel in the United States. According to an October report (GAO-12-70), the Department of Energy’s R&D plan has not yet explained the readiness of technologies to answer this question. Further, the GAO noted that the DOE has not yet established the necessary collaborative agreements to carry out this work.

The GAO’s main complaints are that while the DOE has cataloged the technologies, it doesn’t have a preferred choice, nor has it identified gaps in technology development or roadmaps to close them.

The GAO recommended that the DOE revise its R&D plan to include collaboration with the National Nuclear Security Administration, the nuclear industry, and international entities to identify those technologies that are ready to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in the United States or how much more R&D work is needed to get them to that point.

Upcoming deficit reduction plans for the federal government may mean it will take longer for the DOE to address the issue. A November 15 report by the DOE’s Inspector General predicted that deep cuts in the agency’s funding by Congress could significantly set back many energy-related R&D programs.

European Commission nuclear fuel/fast reactor roadmap

Click to enlarge thumbnail of nuclear energy roadmap

An industrial initiative by the European Commission has produced a roadmap involving reprocessing of spent fuel and development of fast reactors.

The goal is to achieve a vast increase in the sustainability of nuclear energy. This outcome would be achieved through demonstrating the technical, industrial, and economic viability of Generation-IV fast neutron reactors (FNRs). (large roadmap image)

It would demonstrate that nuclear energy can remain a long-term contributor to the low carbon economy and building on the safety, reliability, and competitiveness of current reactors.

The objective is to enable the commercial deployment of Generation-IV FNRs by 2040. In the meantime, the plan is to maintain at least a 30-percent share of EU electricity from currently available reactors with an expansion toward the cogeneration of process heat for industrial applications when such markets develop.

Japan reaffirms commitment to spent fuel reprocessing

Makoto Yagi, chairman, FEPC

At a November 25 press conference, Makoto Yagi, president of Kansai Electric Power and chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC), said that the group will “make unremitting efforts to promote the establishment of the nuclear fuel cycle.”

He said that it was irrational to discard such a valuable resource as nuclear fuel. He added that the government should reconsider its plans to terminate the Monju fast breeder reactor project, and said that such a decision would have a “grave impact” on the FBR fuel cycle.

Yagi also noted that direct disposal of spent fuel would require more land than the reprocessing approach. Japan has no high level waste repository to support direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

—-

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe

→ 2 Comments

Posted in News, Nuclear News, spent fuel

Radwaste Solutions: Products, materials, services

Posted on November 16, 2011 by rmichal| 2 Comments

The November/December issue of Radwaste Solutions is available in hard copy and electronically for American Nuclear Society members (must enter ANS user name and password in Member Center).

The issue is the “2012 Products, Materials, and Services Directory,” with almost 400 companies listed in more than 150 categories.

The issue also contains the feature article, “The Benefits of International Cooperation on Decommissioning: U.S. and U.K. Contributions to the Decommissioning of Kazakhstan’s BN-350 Reactor,” along with other industry news.

Past issues of Radwaste Solutions are available here.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, News, Radiation, Radwaste Solutions, spent fuel