slides - Transportation Readiness
slides - Transportation Readiness
Presented at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference, St. Petersburg, FL, May 7-9, 2013
Presented at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference, St. Petersburg, FL, May 7-9, 2013
The Blue Ribbon Commission staff requested this paper cataloging innovative stakeholder involvement programs within the Department of Energy (DOE). I reviewed a variety of material on public involvement, including papers and presentations on stakeholder involvement in DOE programs, published presentations and comments to the BRC, and research reports on stakeholder and public involvement.
After more than 20 years of commercial nuclear power, the Federal Government has yet to develop a broadly supported policy for fulfilling its legal responsibility for the final isolation of high-level radioactive waste. OTA's study concludes that until such a policy is adopted in law, there is a substantial risk that the false starts, shifts of policy, and fluctuating support that have plagued the final isolation program in the past will continue.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, established a statutory basis
for managing the nation’s civilian (or commercially produced) spent nuclear
fuel. The law established a process for siting, developing, licensing, and constructing
an underground repository for the permanent disposal of that waste.
Utilities were given the primary responsibility for storing spent fuel until it is
accepted by the Department of Energy (DOE) for disposal at a repository —
originally expected to begin operating in 1998. Since then, however, the repository
At the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Academies assessed the safety and
security of spent nuclear fuel stored in pools and dry casks at commercial nuclear power
plants in the United States. The public report can be viewed on the National Academies
Press website at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11263.html.
This is the Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation Project Director's presentation on Near Term Planning for Stroage and Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel presented to the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management on January 14, 2013 in Arlington Va.
Background To determine whether current and former construction workers are at
significant risk for occupational illnesses from work at the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
nuclear weapons facilities, screening programs were undertaken at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation, Oak Ridge Reservation, and the Savannah River Site.
The Used Fuel Disposition (UFD) Transportation Task commenced in October 2010. As its first task, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) compiled a list of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of transportation systems and their possible degradation mechanisms during extended storage. The list of SSCs and the associated degradation mechanisms [known as features, events, and processes (FEPs)] were based on the list of used nuclear fuel (UNF) storage system SSCs and degradation mechanisms developed by the UFD Storage Task (Hanson et al. 2011).
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act), established a
step-by-step process for the siting of the nation's first repository for
high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel. The Act gave the Department of
Energy (DOE) the primary responsibility for conducting this siting process.
The first step in the process laid out in the Act was the development by
the DOE, with the concurrence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), of
general guidelines to be used by the Secretary of the DOE (the Secretary) in
The purpose of this document is to provide the requirements rationale for the current version of the Preliminary Transportation, Aging and Disposal Canister System Performance Specification; WMO-TADCS-000001.
The Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013 discussion draft is intended to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to establish a nuclear waste administration and create a consent-based process for siting nuclear waste facilities. The bill enables the federal government to fulfill its commitment to managing nuclear waste, ending the costly liability the government bears for its failure to dispose of commercial spent fuel.
Dear Tim:
As we work to complete our final recommendations to the Secretary by January 29, 2012,
we have determined that our efforts would be aided by the formation of an ad hoc
subcommittee to investigate the issue of co‐mingling of defense and commercial wastes.
Specifically, the ad hoc subcommittee would review and make a recommendation to the
Commission on the issue of whether the 1985 Presidential decision to co‐mingle defense
and commercial wastes for disposal should be revisited in light of changes that have
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) asked us to study whether
occupational safety and health conditions in today's U.S. nuclear industry are reasonably safe,
and if those conditions have improved since the Three Mile Island event in 1979. The BRC also
asked us to look to the future, to try to anticipate worker safety and health risks that should be
addressed by the industry, its government regulators and private watchdogs.
Over the eight weeks allotted, we performed a limited review of the literature and spoke with
Dear Mr. Frazier:
At our request, the Commission staff is in the process of assembling information on the costs and financing of the US program to manage used fuel and high-level nuclear wastes. To assist in the completion of this effort, it would be most helpful if the Department could provide the information listed int the attachment.
...
Approximately 54,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are stored at operating nuclear power plants and several decommissioned power plants throughout the country. Spent fuel storage at these sites was never intended to be permanent. The current Federal plan is to place the fuel in a repository for permanent disposal in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.
At the request of the staff to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (“BRC”), we have reviewed whether certain recommendations in the BRC’s July 29, 2011 Draft Report respecting near-term actions by the Department of Energy (“DOE”) or other officers or agencies in the Executive Branch can be implemented under existing law. These recommendations relate to:
(1) Initial steps to site, license and construct consolidated interim storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel (“spent fuel”);
An Account of the Programs of Federal Agencies and Events That Have Led to the Selection of a Potential Site for a Geologic Repository for High-Level Radioactive Waste
Gentlemen,
In accordance with the charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future and as the Secretary's designee, I approve your request to establish an ad hoc subcommittee to review and make a recommendation to the Commission regarding the co-mingling of defense and commercial waste.
This letter also serves to appoint Dr. Allison Macfarlane as the chair of the subcommittee and the membership of the subcommittee as identified in your letter to me dated October 31, 2011.
Construction workers were and are considered temporary workers at many construction sites. Since WWII, large numbers of construction workers were employed at US DOE nuclear weapons sites for periods ranging from a few days to over 30 years. These workers performed tasks during new construction and maintenance, repair, renovation, and demolition of existing facilities.
This briefing paper is a component of the comprehensive briefing package developed for the Negotiator, and describes previous DOE experience in its attempt to site an MRS facility. The Background section highlights, in chronological order, significant events in DOE's MRS siting history from enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to the issuance of the "Report to Congress on Reassessment of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program" in November 1989.
Presented at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference, St. Petersburg, FL, May 7-9, 2013
Presented at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference, St. Petersburg, FL, May 7-9, 2013
The means to prevent and control criticality must be addressed as part of the Preclosure Safety Analysis (PCSA) required for compliance with 10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 180319], where the preclosure period covers the time prior to permanent closure activities. This technical report presents the nuclear criticality safety evaluation that documents the achievement of this objective.
US policy for management of used nuclear fuel (UNF) and high level radioactive wastes (HLRW) is at a crossroads, and the success of new policy directions will depend in part on broad public acceptance and support. In this paper I provide an overview of the evidence concerning the beliefs and concerns of members of the American public regarding UNF and HLNW. I also characterize the evidence on American’s policy preferences for management of these materials.
How to dispose of highly radioactive wastes from commercial nuclear power plants is a question that has remained unresolved in the face rapidly changing technological, economic, and political requirements. In the three decades following WWII, two federal agencies -- the Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration -- tried unsuccessfully to develop a satisfactory plan for managing high level wastes.