It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The $20 million cost of dry cask storage thus far has been paid by the U.S. Department of Energy because of a June 2006 settlement to a lawsuit in which OPPD sued to recover its cost in handling nuclear waste.
The costs for storing and disposing of high-level nuclear waste are paid for by a federal nuclear waste fund. The fund was established in 1983 by the national Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and is financed by a 1/100 of a cent per kilowatt-hour charge on utilities for the electricity generated at their nuclear power plants. Since the fund was established, $17 billion has been collected for future nuclear waste storage.
Since no permanent storage repository is yet authorized, nuclear plants have been running out of spent fuel capacity. It is estimated that by the end of 2006, approximately 60 facilities will have no more storage space in their spent fuel pools.
The limits on how much dry cask storage each nuclear plant can have is determined by the type of NRC operating license. The NRC places an upper limit of fuel assemblies that can be stored on-site for plants with a site-specific license. Plants operating under a general license for dry storage do not have an upper limit for the number of fuel assemblies that can be stored.
The NRC must approve every dry cask container design, and it regulates the testing, manufacture, and maintenance of the casks. Several dry cask storage systems have been approved by the NRC and each system is licensed for 20 years. As of February 2001, 16 nuclear sites in the nation have 230 dry storage casks on the ground.4 In neighboring Wisconsin, Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission had limited the Wisconsin Electric Power Company station at Point Beach to 12 dry casks, but recently approved 24 more.
The NRC did also note that criticality was possible if the racks were knocked over or a spent fuel assembly were to be dropped on top of a full rack if there was a crane malfunction or the like.
Along with all the other issues it has faced so far, VT Yankee has had problems with each of these key systems that the NRC notes as being crucial to safety: Inventory control, The main crane, and the cooling system.
Vt Yankee "lost" a couple hunks of fuel rods that were broken in an earlier accident, and they were storing in a special rack. During an inventory spurred by another plant losing some fuel rods, VT yankee twice bungled their count and on the third time,when they were actually forced to physically check, they found that the fuel was not where they thought it was. They did eventually found it, but it is unclear exactly how long the fuel was missing before they admitted it. If they were to lose a rack again couldn't they accidentally place a spent fuel rod on top of an already full rack, potentially causing criticality?
During dry casking they dropped a 88 ton fully loaded dry- cask when their 100 ton rated crane, which is the crane they use in fuel movement, malfunctioned. What was it again that the NRC said could happen if they drop a fuel assembly on top of a full rack or knock a rack over?
Originally posted by qmantoo
Another problem concerns the areas or 'regions' that USGS uses to break up the world and to classify the earthquake events across the globe. These regions describe the area where the earthquake event happens. So, for example when an earthquake event happens near Japan then the region could be one of a number (see below). There are 23 different USGS regions around Japan and if you are analysing the data, then it is likely that you use the descriptions supplied by USGS. Doing it this way, the earthquakes in one area have no obvious connections to the earthquakes in the adjacent areas - even though the events themselves may be just a few hundred metres apart. You do not get the full picture due to earthquake events being split over more than one defined region.
Originally posted by rbrtj
Feel free to view my collection of photos and stuff I have gleaned and pass along to anyone who can help stop the nuclear madness.
Again, thanks for being ahead of the curve!!!
Originally posted by thorfourwinds
Is the true Achilles Heel of nuclear power the fact that when the EMP hits later this year we have over a hundred nukes in the United States without cooling power?
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The government asked its nuclear policy commission to set up a body to consider medium- to long-term steps for handling the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after the current crisis is over, such as how to remove melted fuel and decommission the crippled reactors, a Cabinet minister said Tuesday.
The remarks came as plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. is expected to realize the stable cooling of troubled reactors later this month and move toward the next goal of stabilizing them by so-called cold shutdown, although the plant's key water treatment system again saw a leakage problem Tuesday.
Several teams of scientists have been studying the soil and say that most of the fallout is in the top two inches of soil. It has remained there despite rainfall without washing into the groundwater. If it can be scooped up, Tomoko Nakanishi, a plant readiophysiologist at the University of Tokyo, said in a report, the remaining soil appears sound for agricultural use.
The Japanese government is weighing a deactivation schedule for the crippled Fukushima Daiichi atomic energy plant that calls for withdrawal of nuclear fuel from reactor pressure vessels beginning in fiscal 2021, Kyodo News reported on Tuesday
...The plant operator has hit additional setbacks in its effort to prevent additional radioactive material releases from the plant, the Asahi Shimbun reported on Tuesday. An effort by the company to remove radiation-tainted debris with robotic equipment failed to reduce radioactivity as expected, and the firm prepared steel shielding to help protect plant personnel.
The firm late last month began inserting nitrogen gas into the facility's No. 2 reactor, but it has yet to start a similar hydrogen explosion prevention operation at the No. 3 reactor. The No. 1 reactor has been receiving nitrogen for roughly three months.
The company has so far failed to deploy a circulation heat removal mechanism at the No. 4 reactor's cooling pond, which holds around 1,500 fuel assemblies. The operator intends to activate such equipment this month for the pool, where the temperature has remained around 85 degrees Celsius despite continued insertion of coolant
Originally posted by bmbsqd
I'm Russ Shattles. What is the question?
reply to post by SFA437
Originally posted by apacheman
Looking at the photos, and all the priors, a very simple question suddenly struck me:
WHY IS THE WHOLE AREA STILL TRASHED?