This report accompanies the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Only page 44 is included in this PDF.
This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program. The report describes the AFCI cost basis development process, reference information on AFCI cost modules, a procedure for estimating fuel cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models.
The amount of spent fuel stored on-site at commercial nuclear reactors will continue to accumulate—increasing by about 2,000 metric tons per year and likely more than doubling to about 140,000 metric tons—before it can be moved off-site, because storage or disposal facilities may take decades to develop. In examining centralized storage or permanent disposal options, GAO found that new facilities may take from 15 to 40 years before they are ready to begin accepting spent fuel. Once an off-site facility is available, it will take several more decades to ship spent fuel to that facility.
The purpose of these calculations is to characterize the criticality safety concerns for the storage of Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) nuclear fuel in a Department of Energy spent nuclear fuel (DOE SNF) canister in a co-disposal waste package. These results will be used to support the analysis that will be done to demonstrate concept viability related to use in the Monitored Geologic Repository (MGR) environment.
Performance objectives for the geologic repository operations area through permanent closure in 10 CFR 63.111 identify compliance with regulatory dose limits for workers and members of the public as a design objective. The purpose of this design calculation is to determine direct radiation dose consequences for Category 1 and 2 event sequences. It does not include worker dose assessment for recovery operations following Category 1 event sequences.
The Law of 30 December 1991 [1] confers to Andra the mission of assessing the feasibility of a repository of high-level and long-lived (HLLL) waste in a deep geological formation.
The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (Board) is tasked by the amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to independently evaluate U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) technical activities for managing and disposing of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This report was prepared to inform DOE and Congress about the current state of the technical basis for extended dry storage1 of used fuel and its transportation following storage.
This document is the main report from the safety assessment project SR-Can. The SR-Can project is a preparatory stage for the SR-Site assessment, the report that will be used in support of SKB’s application for a final repository. The purposes of the safety assessment SR-Can are the following:
1. To make a first assessment of the safety of potential KBS-3 repositories at Forsmark and Laxemar to dispose of canisters as specified in the application for the encapsulation plant.
This paper is DOE's response to Wyoming Governor Mike Sullivan's decision to decline moving forward with hosting an MRS.
In response to Section 141 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Department of Energy hereby submits a proposal for the construction of a facility for monitored retrievable storage (MRS). The approval of this proposal by the Congress would specifically--
• Approve the construction of an MRS facility at a site on the Clinch River in the Roane County portion of Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
• Limit the storage capacity at the MRS site to 15,000 metric tons of uranium.
The Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management prepared this document to report plans for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, whose mission is to manage and dispose of the nation’s spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a manner that protects the health and safety of the public and of workers and the quality of the environment. The Congress established this program through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (see Appendix A), though efforts to solve the waste-disposal problem go back several decades.
Since the DOE developed the MRS proposal for the Congress, a number of questions have been raised by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the State of Tennessee, and others concerning the need for the MRS facility and the feasibility of achieving comparable performance for the overall waste—management system without an MRS facility. This report was prepared to provide additional information to address these questions.
The Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), Department of Energy (DOE), has identified the Clinch River Breeder Reactor site, the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Hartsville Nuclear Plant site as preferred and alternative sites, respectively, for development of site-specific designs as part of the proposal for construction of an integrated Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) Facility. The proposal, developed pursuant to Section 141(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, will be submitted to Congress in January 1986.
Waste management operation began in France in 1969. Created in 1979 as an agency within the CEA, ANDRA was established by the December 1991 Waste Act as an independent public body in charge of the long-term management of all radioactive waste, under the supervision of the Ministries in charge of Energy, Ecology, and Research. Its 3 basic missions were extended and their funding secured through the 2006 Planning Act (www.andra.fr).
Dealing with the problems posed by nuclear waste management is a major issue confronting continued use of the nuclear fuel cycle. Large amounts of radioactive wastes have already been generated as a result of past nuclear reactor operations, but these wastes are being temporarily kept in aboveground storage facilities awaiting a government policy decision on final disposition. Although research on various technologies to dispose of radioactive wastes is given high priority, a commercial waste disposal facility is not expected to be in operation before 1985.
The destructive examination results of five light water reactor rods from the Turkey Point Unit 3 reactor are presented. The examinations included fission gas collection and analyses, burnup and hydrogen analyses, and a metallographic evaluation of the fuel, cladding, oxide, and hydrides. The rods exhibited a low fission gas release with all other results appearing representative for pressurized water reactor fuel rods with similar burnups (28 GWd/MTU) and operating histories.
This report describes the characterization plan, methods, and results for light water reactor (LWR) Materials Characterization Center (MCC) spent fuel Approved Testing Material (ATM)-101. ATM-101 is spent fuel from H. B. Robinson, Unit 2, Assembly B0-5, a moderate-burnup, pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel that released very small quantities of fission products and fission gas from the fuel during commercial operation.
In the November 1989 Report to Congress on Reassessment of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (DOE/RW-0247), the Secretary of Energy announced an initiative for developing a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility that is to start spent-fuel acceptance in 1998. This facility, which will be licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), will receive spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and provide a limited amount of storage for this spent fuel.
This report has been produced at the request of Congress. The House Appropriations Committee Print that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, requests that the U.S. Department of Energy (the Department):<br/>…develop a plan to take custody of spent fuel currently stored at decommissioned reactor sites to both reduce costs that are ultimately borne by the taxpayer and demonstrate that DOE can move forward in the near term with at least some element of nuclear waste policy.
EPA held a 90-day public comment period for the proposed radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain (August 27, 1999 through November 26, 1999). Sixty-nine (69) sets of written comments were submitted to EPAÕs Air Docket regarding the proposed standards, although some commenters submitted more than one set of written comments. In addition, the Agency received oral testimony on the proposed standards from 28 speakers during public hearings that were held in Washington, DC; Las Vegas, NV; Amargosa Valley, NV; and Kansas City, MO.
Siting any nuclear waste facility is problematic in today's climate of distrust toward nuclear agencies and fear of nuclear waste. This study compares and contrasts the siting and public participation processes as two citizen task forces dealt with their difficult responsibilities. Though one dealt with a high level waste (Monitored Retrievable Storage - MRS) proposal in Tennessee in 1985-6 and the other with a proposed low level waste facility in Illinois (1988 and still ongoing), the needs of citizen decision makers were very similar.
We, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are promulgating public health and safety standards for radioactive material stored or disposed of in the potential repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Section 801 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EnPA, Pub. L. 102Ð486) directs us to develop these standards. Section 801 of the EnPA also requires us to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study to provide findings and recommendations on reasonable standards for protection of the public health and safety.
Explanation of Radioactivity and Radioactive waste
The position of the Department of Energy (DOE) on the facility for monitored retrievable storage (MRS) can be summarized as follows: · ·<br/>• The DOE supports: the development of an MRS facility as an integral part of the waste-management system because an MRS facility would allow the DOE to better meet its strategic objectives of timely disposal, timely and adequate waste acceptance, schedule confidence, and system flexibility.
