Friday, January 14, 2022
Wednesday, January 12, 2022
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 22-003 January 11, 2022
CONTACT: Office of Public Affairs, 301-415-8200
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Operator Licensing Retake Examination Report 05000277/2022302 and 05000278/2022302
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Operator Licensing Retake Examination Report 05000277/2022302 and 05000278/2022302ADAMS Accession No. ML22010A177
PB RETAKE EXAM REPORT.pdf
Monday, January 10, 2022
January 10, 2022
For Immediate Release
The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (Board) will hold a virtual public meeting on Tuesday, March 1, 2022, and Wednesday, March 2, 2022, to review information on the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) activities related to spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and highlevel radioactive waste (HLW). Specifically, the meeting will cover research and development (R&D) on SNF and HLW storage, transportation, non-site-specific disposal, DOE’s integrated waste management system, and its consent-based siting process to identify federal interim storage facilities. The Board is an independent federal agency established by Congress to conduct ongoing technical and scientific evaluation of activities undertaken by DOE to manage and dispose of SNF and HLW.
Details for joining and viewing the meeting will be available on the Board’s website (www.nwtrb.gov) approximately one week before the meeting.
approximately one week before the meeting.
The meeting will be open to the public and there will be opportunities for public comments. Public comments can be submitted during the meeting via the online meeting viewing platform, using the “Comment for the Record” form. Comments submitted during each day of the meeting will be read into the record by Board staff during the public comment period just prior to adjournment. A time limit on comments may be set. However, written comments of any length may be submitted to the Board staff by mail or electronic mail. All comments received in writing will be included in the meeting record, which will be posted on the Board’s website after the meeting. An archived recording of the meeting will be available on the Board’s website following the meeting, and a transcript of the meeting will be available on the website by May 3, 2022.
For information on the meeting agenda, contact Bret Leslie at firstname.lastname@example.org or by phone 703-235-9132; or Hundal Jung at email@example.com or by phone 703-235-9135. For information on logistics, or to request copies of the meeting agenda or transcript, contact Davonya Barnes at firstname.lastname@example.org or by phone 703-235-9141. All three may be reached by mail at 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300, Arlington, VA 22201-3367; or by fax at 703-
Communiqué – Statement – January 6, 2022
Nuclear is not a Practicable Means to Combat Climate Change.
Former Heads of Nuclear Regulation and
Governmental Radiation Protection Committees:
Dr. Greg Jaczko,
former Chairman of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg,
former Head of
Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Waste,
Federal Environment Ministry, Germany.
Dr. Bernard Laponche,
former Director General,
French Agency for Energy Management,
former Advisor to French Minister of Environment, Energy and Nuclear Safety.
Dr. Paul Dorfman,
former Secretary of the UK Government
Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters.(CERRIE)
The climate is running hot. Evolving knowledge of climate sensitivity and polar ice melt-rate makes clear that sea-level rise is ramping, along with destructive storm, storm surge, severe precipitation and flooding, not forgetting wildfire. With mounting concern and recognition over the speed and pace of the low carbon energy transition that’s needed, nuclear has been reframed as a partial response to the threat of global heating. But at the heart of this are questions about whether nuclear could help with the climate crisis, whether nuclear is economically viable, what are the consequences of nuclear accidents, what to do with the waste, and whether there’s a place for nuclear within the swiftly expanding renewable energy evolution.
As key experts who have worked on the front-line of the nuclear issue, we’ve all involved at the highest governmental nuclear regulatory and radiation protection levels in the US, Germany, France and UK. In this context, we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change.
The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction. The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm. Nuclear isn't cheap, but extremely costly. Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design.
In short, nuclear as strategy against climate change is:
• Too costly in absolute terms to make a relevant contribution to global power production
• More expensive than renewable energy in terms of energy production and CO2 mitigation, even taking into account costs of grid management tools like energy storage associated with renewables roll-out.
• Too costly and risky for financial market investment, and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and loan guarantees.
• Unsustainable due to the unresolved problem of very long-lived radioactive waste.
• Financially unsustainable as no economic institution is prepared to insure against the full potential cost, environmental and human impacts of accidental radiation release – with the majority of those very significant costs being borne by the public.
• Militarily hazardous since newly promoted reactor designs increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
• Inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents from human error, internal faults, and external impacts; vulnerability to climate-driven sea-level rise, storm, storm surge, inundation and flooding hazard, resulting in international economic impacts.
• Subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems associated with newer unproven concepts, including 'Advanced' and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
• Too unwieldy and complex to create an efficient industrial regime for reactor construction and operation processes within the intended build-time and scope needed for climate change mitigation.
• Unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation needed by the 2030’s due to nuclear's impracticably lengthy development and construction time-lines, and the overwhelming construction costs of the very great volume of reactors that would be needed to make a difference.
Friday, January 7, 2022
NRC Denies Oklo Combined License Application for Lack of Information; Company May Reapply in the Future
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 22-002 January 6, 2022
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200
Wednesday, January 5, 2022
Technical Review: Susquehanna River Basin Commission Docket Numbers: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 - Well A - 2021-054; Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 - Well B - 2021-055; and, Three Mile Island Nuclear
TMI's Request for Water to Cleanup Nuclear Plants, (1_3_22).pdf