Skip to main content

NAS Releases Report on Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Yesterday the National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled, Going the Distance? The Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States.

Here's what NEI's Chief Nuclear Officer, Marv Fertel, had to say about the report:
"Overall, the National Academies report is a strong endorsement of the used nuclear fuel transportation program that has operated well and operated safely in the United States for the past four decades. Specifically, the nuclear energy industry agrees with the three major findings of the National Academies report:

"“First, that there are no fundamental technical barriers to the safe transport of used nuclear fuel. This conclusion is supported by the fact that more than 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel have been made safely in the United States over the past 40 years. Even in the approximately 10 instances where accidents have occurred, no releases of the waste packages'’ radioactive contents have resulted, and public health and safety has been protected.

"Second, that existing international standards and U.S. regulations ensure the effectiveness of shipping containers over a wide range of transport conditions. In short, there's no need to go back to the regulatory drawing board because a program with strong public health and safety protections already is in place.

"And third, that there are opportunities to further implement operational controls and restrictions that will make this program even safer and better than it already is. The use of dedicated trains for rail shipments is a leading example of a safeguard that should be adopted to maximize safety of used fuel shipments.

"The industry also concurs with the National Academies'’ main conclusions with regard to testing of shipping containers --– namely that full-scale testing of shipping containers is worthwhile as part of an integrated testing program that includes scale models and computer simulation, but that full-scale tests are not necessary for regulatory certification of the containers, and that testing of packages to fail, or to destruction, is not warranted for certification. The ability of containers to serve their protective function during severe conditions can be proven without the excessive testing that would cause their destruction.

"There are a few instances where we do not agree with the report. We do not believe there is further value to be gained from additional study of long-duration fire scenarios that the report recommends. Intensive study of long-duration, fully engulfing fires already has been done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"We also disagree with the report'’s call for negotiations or federal legislation to achieve shipment of older used fuel first. Safety measures already are so strong and the risks of harmful impacts already are so low that one cannot justify the burden of additional expenses and potential litigation that this recommendation would cause.

"“The concern voiced by the National Academies that it did not have access to classified or otherwise restricted information does not negate the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy have completed research on the physical security of used fuel containers and of transportation. As a result, the agencies have taken additional steps already to enhance physical security in this area.

"As the federal government'’s nuclear waste management program continues, the industry looks forward to working with Congress, the administration and regulatory bodies and emergency responders at all levels of government to maintain the highest levels of safety in this program."
In addition, NPR did a story on the report that aired yesterday evening. Thanks to reader Paul Primavera for the NPR pointer. You can read more at the Deseret Morning News.

UPDATE: To get a copy of the four page summary of the report, click here. For a combined copy of the summary and the recommendations contained in the report, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Paul said…
The Telegraph/ London, UK

Lorry leaked radioactive beam for three hours
(Filed: 18/02/2006)

A highly radioactive beam was emitted from a protective flask as it was driven 130 miles, for three hours, across northern England on a lorry, a court heard yesterday.

It was "pure good fortune" no one was dangerously contaminated when a "plug" was left off a 2.5 ton container carrying radioactive material on a lorry, Leeds Crown Court was told. The flask belonging to AEA Technology was being used to transport a piece of decommissioned cancer treatment equipment from Cookridge Hospital, Leeds, to the Sellafield complex, Cumbria on March 11, 2002.

A judge was told how the container was "found to be emitting a narrow beam of radiation, of a very high dose rate, vertically down from that package base".

He heard how the leak was present at the hospital and Windscale as well as during the journey between the two.

Mark Harris, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive, said: "Through pure good fortune no one involved in the removal, containment and transfer of the source may have been directly exposed to the beam.

"The risk of such exposure was undoubtedly present - at Cookridge, during the journey and at Windscale.

"That occurred because a shield plug - an integral part of the approved packaging in which the source was required to be carried - had been omitted. We say the incident was serious."

Mr Harris said the radiation dose rates measured at Windscale "were in the order of 100 to 1,000 times above what would normally be considered a very high dose rate and measurement was beyond the capabilities of normal hand-held monitoring equipment."

Mr Harris told the court it was fortunate the beam had gone vertically down. If an accident had caused it to emit horizontally the beam would have emitted dangerous radiation for 980ft.

AEA Technology, a privatised arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, has admitted a series of breaches of Health and Safety regulations, the Ionising Radiations Regulations and the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Regulations.

The firm was due to be sentenced at Leeds Crown Court yesterday, but Judge Norman Jones decided that he needed more time to read papers and postponed setting the level of the fine until Monday. The HSE has already asked for costs of £151,323.

John Hand, QC, defending, said that the company lost £1 million following the incident as it reorganised the subsidiary involved, which it has now sold off.

Mr Hand admitted that employees of the firm had been "relaxed and somewhat cavalier" at the hospital and had even ticked forms to say they had completed tasks which they had not. Judge Jones said: "We have to remember we're dealing with the movement in public areas and long distance movement, with very, very dangerous materials and therefore the greatest of care is demanded of those engaged in that movement."

But Judge Norman Jones decided he needed more time to read papers and postponed setting the level of the fine until Monday.
Anonymous said…
Apples and oranges. The initial article talks about fuel shipment, whereas the UK case was source material. I have shipped both. Requirements for fuel shipment are much more stringent. The stuff I helped package for WIPP would never have had the kind of problem the source material shipment had.

BTW, the headline for the UK story was bogus. You don't have a "leak" of a "radioactive beam". Radiation is simply emitted, no matter what. If there is an exposure hazard from lack of shielding, that is what it is, exposure, not a "leak".

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…