| Previous Part of This Section | Top of This Section | Next Section
Maps of locations of Nuclear Power Reactors: WORLD MAP

A. United States Nuclear Power Plants

  1. Maine Yankee
  2. Connecticut Yankee
  3. Three Mile Island
  4. Other Citations about U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
  5. Safety Issues at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
      a. Reactor Embrittlement
      b. Spent Fuel Cladding Failure
      c. Steam Generator Degradation Mechanisms
      d. LORCAs and Spent Fuel Cooling
      e. Hot Particles
      f. Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal (Dry Casks/Multi Purpose Casks, etc.)
      g. MOX
  1.  Nuclear Regulatory Commission Publications (if not listed in any of the above categories)
B. Canadian Nuclear Power Plants
C. Russian Nuclear Power Plants
D. Japanese Nuclear Power Plants
E. European Nuclear Power Plants
G. Biological Monitoring (see extensive citations in RAD7: Plume Pulse Pathways)

A. United States Nuclear Power Plants

Maps of locations of Nuclear Power Reactors: NORTH AMERICA
1. Maine Yankee

MYAPC: Case Study of an Aging Pressurized Water Reactor
(see RADNET Section 12)

Click on Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company for information on a case study devoted to the many safety, legal, economic, and decommissioning issues surrounding the operation of a specific U.S. nuclear power generating station at Wiscasset, Maine. Recent developments at MYAPC include the following:

  • The discovery of circumferential cracking in 60% of MYAPC steam generator tubes in 1995 as well as the confirmation of allegations of fraudulent computer codes for emergency core cooling systems and containment analyses have opened a floodgate of NRC inspection reports, safety assessments and investigative reports which dramatically illustrate a multiplicity of problems associated with aging pressurized water reactors.
  • RADNET Section 12 organizes Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company citations into four categories: safety, economic, legal and decommissioning issues. Of particular interest is the startling NRC documentation of:
    • Ongoing generic safety issues (steam tube degradation, fire barrier deficiencies, crossed cables, etc.)
    • Inherent design flaws in U.S. pressurized water reactors not previously noted.
    • The inability of NRC inspectors to observe existing long-standing safety defects which were only discovered via extensive repairs or stepped up inspections.
    • The complicity of the NRC and licensee employees in a series of illegal for-profit power up-rates based on fraudulent computer codes.
    • The difficulties of collecting sufficient funds for decommissioning in an era of energy deregulation and the current predicament of a closed nuclear power station with 169 million dollars on hand for decommissioning (plus an additional 60 million dollars in the mill rate fund for spent fuel disposal). MYAPC waste storage, disposal and decommissioning costs are expected to be in excess of 1 billion dollars excluding 152 million dollars spent on the attempt to revive this aging facility.
    • The recent decision to terminate repair attempts completes the collapse of the MYAPC pyramid scheme into economic, legal and technological chaos.
  • The primary documentation of the MYAPC debacle derives from NRC inspections, reports and investigations despite NRC complicity in the problems at this plant. The positive role played by the NRC in following up allegations made by the whistleblower's letter of Dec. 4, 1995 raises hope that the NRC will follow through on its most important obligation of the 21st century: closing unsafe, uneconomical and aging U.S. nuclear energy generating stations.
  • The citations pertaining to MYAPC as an aging nuclear facility should be of interest to anyone concerned with the public safety implications and economic impact of pressurized water reactors (as well as boiling water reactors) as long as even a single one of these technological dinosaurs remains in service. The MYAPC debacle marks the twilight of the nuclear energy era in America.
  • The MYAPC facility closed in May of 1997. Post-closure decommissioning developments are listed in a fifth section of RAD 12: "Twilight of a Nuclear Era: The Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Company". The decommissioning of the MYAPC facility along with the Connecticut Yankee facility provide an excellent opportunity to examine NRC and licensee attempts to deal with the dilemmas of dismantling typical pressurized water reactors. The MYAPC decommissioning plan may be accessed at the NRC-OPA: Maine Yankee Documents link in RADLINKS: Part II: D-5. 
  • The MYAPC Reactor Vessel Inventory including reactor vessel GTCC internal components (+/- 4,170,000 Ci at 2 years cooling) are now posted in RADNET Section 12: Part 5: Decommissioning Debacle and are of particular interest to anyone concerned with decommissioning costs, scenarios or the issue of what actually will be sited in a "low-level" radioactive waste landfill.
  • Note that NRC generated reports published after mid-1998 that do not relate directly to MYAPC will be cited and annotated below in this section.  Those prior to mid-1998 may be found in RAD12 under the sections: public safety bibliography, economic issues bibliography, legal issues bibliography and decommissioning debacle bibliography.

Churchill, J.H., Hess, C.T. and Smith, C.W. (1980). Measurement and computer modeling of radionuclide uptake by marine sediments near a nuclear power reactor. Health Physics. 38. pg. 327-340.

Division of Health Engineering. (1996). Maine Yankee environmental monitoring: Summary of other media. Unpublished, publicly available research, Augusta, ME. England, R.W. and Mitchell, E. (1987). Estimates of environmental accumulations of radioactivity resulting from routine operation of New England nuclear power plants (1973-84). (Report No. 1). A report of the Nuclear Emissions Research Project, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. Hess, C.T. and Smith, C.W. (1976). Radioactive isotopic characterization of the environment near Wiscasset, Maine using pre and post-operational surveys in the vicinity of the Maine Yankee nuclear reactor. Technical Note ORP/EAD-76-3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Lutz, R.A., Incze, L.S., and Hess, C.T. (1980). Mussel culture in heated effluents: Biological and radiological implications. In: Mussel culture and harvest: A North American perspective (ed. R.A. Lutz). Elsevier, Amsterdam.
June 1977-Jan. 1978 Bailey's Cove, Wiscasset Maine Mytilus edulis, soft tissue 134Cs 320 pCi/kg mean
June 1977-Jan. 1978 Bailey's Cove, Wiscasset Maine  Mytilus edulis, shells 54Mn 150 pCi/kg mean
June 1977-Jan. 1978 Bailey's Cove, Wiscasset Maine  Mytilus edulis, shells 95Zr 211 pCi/kg mean
McCarthy, W.J., Ryder, D.L. and Antonitis, J.D. (1978). Radionuclide concentrations in New England seaweeds following the Chinese nuclear bomb test of March, 1978. Report No. 342. U.S. Department of Energy,Washington D.C. pg. 57-77. Yankee Atomic Electric Company. (1991). Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company: Annual radiological environmental monitoring report: January - December 1990. Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Bolton, MA.
2. Connecticut Yankee
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Decommissioning Plan

In early September 1997, Connecticut Yankee filed a decommissioning plan with the NRC, which the NRC has posted in its entirety at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/cy97075.htm. Decommissioning this facility, which recently closed, is estimated to cost 426.7 million 1996 dollars and be completed by 2004. This decommissioning plan allegedly includes decontamination and removal of all plant structures and systems except for the spent fuel storage building. The site is supposed to be available for unrestricted use in 2004. Recent revelations of extensive on-site contamination (see New York Times article on contamination at Connecticut Yankee) due to leaking spent fuel in the early years of operation may complicate this decommissioning plan. This 13 page proposal is extremely brief and provides only a sketchy description of decommissioning activities. One particularly interesting component of this brief proposal is that the reactor vessel may be removed with the highly active GTCC internals intact and then disposed of as low-level waste because the radioactivity in the entire vessel package averages out to a class C category. "This allows the vessel including the internals to be qualified for normal conditions of transport" i.e. as low-level waste. This is a good example of possible shortcuts to be used in getting rid of orphan GTCC wastes which are too radioactive to put in a low-level waste site by themselves: mix the GTCC wastes with enough low-level waste and presto, you have low-level waste.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (March 1998). Haddam Neck Historical Review Team Report. US NRC, Washington, DC. http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/hnhistm.htm.

3. Three Mile Island

The Three Mile Island accident is a model of the misinformation pertaining to NRC operated nuclear facilities, and provides a preview of the deceptions that can be expected in the documentation of future nuclear accidents in the U.S.A.

Immediately after the Three Mile Island accident, supposedly knowledgeable officials released a statement, prior to any understanding of the release dynamics of the accident within the Three Mile Island reactor core, that the only radioisotope released, other than inert gases was 15 Ci of 131I. After a year or more of intense study, it was discovered that most of the fuel had melted into the lower reactor vessel core support area. Conditions which allow such melting would necessarily lead to a substantial vaporization and release of volatile radioisotopes such as cesium-137. In view of the liquefaction of the reactor fuel during the TMI accident, it is extremely unlikely that the source term release for TMI was limited to only 15 Ci of 131I.

Harold Denton, director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for the NRC during the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, has donated his personal papers regarding his involvement with the accident to the Pennsylvania State Archives.  They will be made available to the public sometime in 1999.

Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island.  An on-line version of this report posted by a concerned citizen.
4. Other Citations about U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

Bedford, Henry F. (1990). Seabrook Station: Citizen politics and nuclear power. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. IS.

Biewald, Bruce and White, David. (January 15, 1999). Stranded nuclear waste: Implications of electric industry deregulation for nuclear plant retirements and funding decommissioning and spent fuel. Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA. http://www.citact.org/nucrep.html.

Linsalata, P., Wrenn, M.E., Cohen, N. and Singh, N.P. (1980). 239,240Pu and 238Pu in sediments of the Hudson River estuary. Environmental Science and Technology. 14(2). pg. 1519-1523.
1976 Indian Point, NY River sediments 239,240Pu 236 pCi/kg dry sediment

Makhijani, A. and Saleska, S. (1996). The nuclear power deception: U.S. nuclear mythology from electricity "too cheap to meter" to "inherently safe" reactors. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Tacoma Park, MD. Makhijani, A. and Makhijani, A. (1995). Fissile materials in a glass, darkly: Technical and policy aspects of the disposition of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Tacoma Park, MD.

Nuclear Waste News. (November 5, 1998). Decommissioning:  NRC oks Trojan reactor shipment; state, DOT approval pending. IAC-ACC-NO:  53200310 ND. Nuclear Waste News. 45(18).

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (1995). Integrated Data Base Report 1994 U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, projection and characteristics. Report No. DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 11. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN http://cid.em.doe.gov/. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (December 1997). Integrated Data Base Report, 1996: U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, projections, and characteristics (revision 13). Report No. DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 13. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Riccio, Jim and Brooks, Lisa. (1996). Nuclear lemons an assessment of America's worst commercial nuclear power plants. Fifth edition. Public Citizen: Critical Mass Energy Project.

Smeloff, Ed and Asmus, Peter. (1997). Reinventing electric utilities: Competition, citizen action, and clean power. Island Press, Washington, DC. IS.

Stellfox, David. (May 20, 1999). First-cycle fuel at River Bend affected by mystery corrosion. Nucleonics Week. 40(20). pg. 2.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (December 1998). Report on waste burial charges.  NUREG-1307.  U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.  http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1307/r8/index.html

Weil, Jenny and Stellfox, David. (January 4, 1999). AEOD abolished, research office expanded under reorganization plan. Inside N.R.C. 21(1). pg. 1.

Yankee Nuclear Power Station. (1993). Decommissioning Plan. Yankee Atomic Power Company, Rowe, MA.

Yankee Nuclear Power Station. (1993). Supplement to Applicant's environmental report post operating license stage: Decommissioning environmental report. Yankee Atomic Power Company, Rowe, MA.

5. Safety Issues at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

Government Accounting Office. (March 19, 1999). Nuclear regulation: Strategy needed to regulate safety using information on risk. GAO/RCED-99-95. GAO, Washington, DC.

Lochbaum, David. (June 1998). A report on safety in America's nuclear power industry. Union of Concerned Scientists. Stellfox, David. (February 15, 1999). Database suggests electrical fires more common as plants age. Inside N.R.C. 21(4). pg. 3.
a. Reactor Embrittlement

Curran, D. (August 1, 1991). Testimony of Diane Curran: Subject: Embrittlement of the reactor vessel at the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant. Before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Pollard, R.D. and Curran, D. (June 4, 1991). Petition for emergency enforcement action and request for public hearing. Before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Union of Concerned Scientists. Pollard, R. (September 1995). US nuclear power plants -- showing their age: Case study: core shroud cracking. Union of Concerned Scientists. Pollard, Robert. (December 1995). U.S. nuclear power plants -- showing their age: Case study: Reactor pressure vessel embrittlement. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1993). Aging nuclear power plants: Managing plant life and decommissioning.
b. Spent Fuel Cladding Failure

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (August 5, 1992). IE information notice no. 82-27:  Fuel rod degradation resulting from baffle water-jet impingement.  IN 82-27. Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/GENACT/GC/IN/1982/in82027.txt.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (October 12, 1993). NRC information notice 93-82: Recent fuel and core performance problems in operating reactors. IN 93-82. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. NRC, Washington, DC. http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/GENACT/GC/IN/1993/in93082.txt. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (April 1998). Proceedings of U.S. NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting on Reactor Fuels, Onsite Fuel Storage, and Decommissioning, Friday, April 24, 1998. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. http://www.nrc.gov/ACRS/rrs1/Trans_Let/index_top/ACRS_sub_tran/Reactor_Fuels/rf980424. See the latest on CBM's work on this subject in Section 12: Maine Yankee:  Part 5-E: Decommissioning Chronicle.
c. Steam Generator Degradation Mechanisms

Barbito, Karin and Rogosky, Donna. (January 31, 1999). Steam generators; remote visual inspection; an eye for steam generator maintenance. Nuclear Engineering International. pg. 21.

Stellfox, David. (March 1, 1999). Staff search in vain for regulatory vehicle for steam generator plans. Inside N.R.C. 21(5). pg. 2. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (September 1993). Boiling-water reactor internals aging degradation study. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (April 28, 1995). Generic Letter 95-03: Circumferential Cracking of Steam Generator Tubes. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (February 3, 1997). Region IV morning report, page 9, Subject: pressure test of ANO, unit 2, steam generator tubes. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (February 6, 1997). Proposed generic communication: Degradation of steam generator internals. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (December 1998). Draft regulatory guide DG-1074:  Steam generator tube integrity.  Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/RG/DG/1074/DG-1074.html.
d. LORCAs and Spent Fuel Cooling

Ford et. al. (1974). An assessment of the emergency core cooling systems rule making hearings.

Ibarra, J.G., Jones, W.R., Lanik, G.F., Ornstein, H.L. and Pullani, S.V. (July-September, 1996). Assessment of spent fuel cooling. Nuclear Safety: Technical Progress Journal. 37(3). pg. 237-255.
e. Hot Particles

Airozo, Dave. (January 18, 1999). Agency staff says 'hot particle' rules do more harm than good. Inside N.R.C. 21(2). pg. 4.

f. Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal (Dry Casks/Multi Purpose Casks, etc.)

Many controversial issues are part of the current debate on how and where to dispose of reactor-derived spent fuel assemblies.  Among the most important controversies, aside from the final location of spent fuel, involves the design of dry casks to hold spent fuel when reactor spent fuel pools become filled to capacity as is now the case at a number of U.S. reactors.  As MYAPC, Connecticut Yankee and other facilities undergo decommissioning, spent fuel now stored underwater in fuel pools will be transferred to independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) while awaiting the unlikely construction of a final repository at Yucca Mt.  One of the most important stages in this process of storing and/or disposing of spent fuel is the development of appropriate "dry casks" to replace wet storage, reactor spent fuel pools not being designed to hold spent fuel for long periods of time.  A number of new dry cask designs are now being considered by the NRC for licensing.  This new model of dry cask is called a multi-purpose container (MPC) and is meant to be used not only for onsite storage of spent fuel but for its transport and final geological emplacement.  An important annoying detail for the nuclear industry is the fact that most dry casks now in use are obsolete and cannot be used for transport for final geological disposal.  Rather, those utilities such as Northern States Power, which have already purchased and are using the older dry casks, will have to take the spent fuel out of these casks in an underwater environment and transfer the spent fuel into new multi-purpose casks prior to any transport of spent fuel to a monitored retrievable storage facility such as that now being proposed in congress as a temporary alternative to final geological disposal in Yucca Mt.

Numerous controversial issues attend spent fuel storage including spent fuel pool safety, obsolete dry cask safety issues, NRC design and licensing criteria for new MPCs, transportation safety issues and final geological repository safety issues.  Presently, there are no licensed multi-purpose canisters available to transport spent fuel to a temporary monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility, if such a facility is authorized by congress.  MPCs as well as ISFSIs are very expensive components of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, and even if the safety issues attending appropriate MPC design are resolved, the political issues of transport and disposal of spent fuel are not, and funding of new MPCs would greatly exceed all the funds collected to date by the Department of Energy for a final geological repository.  Most controversial of all is the fact that the contents of the spent fuel pools at US reactors include a variety of highly radioactive wastes which cannot be sited as "standard spent fuel" in newly designed MPCs.  Typical spent fuel pool contents that are not destined for MPCs include failed fuel assemblies, fuel assemblies which have been altered, fuel assemblies which have had significant damage but are not considered "failed," neutron sources initially used to start the chain reaction, highly radioactive filters which contain spent fuel pellets and activation products from the reactor containment and a wide variety of debris and other equipment which is too radioactive to site as low-level waste.  One of the upcoming problems with any "low-level" waste facility is that NRC concentration averaging policies allow much of this GTCC waste and spent fuel debris to be diluted with class A low-level wastes and then sited as class C low-level waste.  To review the contents of a relatively "clean" reactor's spent fuel pool, see Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company's recently released spent fuel pool inventory, much of which is not destined for a geological repository.  At least MYAPC has the advantage of not being burdened with obsolete dry casks that will have to be replaced with much more expensive multi-purpose canisters as is the case at a number of other US reactors.  Citations pertaining to MPC safety and design issues and spent fuel disposal in general will be posted in this section of RADNET as they become available.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (January 1997). Standard review plan for dry cask storage systems. NUREG-1536. Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1536/index.html.
g. MOX

Leventhal, P. and Dolley, S. (March 1, 1999). The reprocessing fallacy:  An update. Presented to the special panel session on spent fuel reprocessing, Waste Management 99 Conference, Tucson, Arizona. Nuclear Control Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.nci.org/pl-wm99.htm.

Lyman, E.S. (January 21, 1999). Public health consequences of substituting mixed-oxide for uranium fuel in light-water reactors. Nuclear Control Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.nci.org/moxsum.htm.

Toevs, J.W. and Beard, C.A. (February, 1997). Gallium in weapons-grade plutonium and MOX fuel fabrication. Science for Democratic Action. An IEER (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research) publication. 5(4). pg. 11.
6. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Publications (if not listed in any of the above categories)

Minns, J.L. and Masnik, M.T. (April 1998). Staff responses to frequently asked questions concerning decommissioning of nuclear power reactors: Draft report for comment. NUREG-1628. Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US NRC, Washington, DC.

Santana, H., Stryker, W.J. and Childs, J.E. (December 31, 1998). Office of the Inspector General event inquiry:  NRC staff's handling of harassment and intimidation (H&I) complaints at Millstone:  Case No. 99-01S. OIG Report 99-01s. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. NRC, Washington, DC. http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/oig9901s.htm. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reactor safety study. WASH-1400. U.S. NRC,Washington, D.C. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Evaluation of station blackout accidents at nuclear power plants. NUREG-1032. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1986). Residual radionuclide contamination within and around commercial nuclear power plants. NUREG/CR-4289. U. S. NRC, Washington D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (July 1996). Radioactive waste: Production, storage, disposal. NUREG/BR-0216. Office of Public Affairs, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1998). Evaluation of loss of offsite power events at nuclear power plants: 1980-1996. NUREG/CR-5496. Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (August 1998). Draft regulatory guide DG-4006: Demonstrating compliance with the radiological criteria for license termination. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

| Next Part of This Section | Top of This Section | Next Section |

| Index | Introduction | Guide | Accidents | Definitions | Radionuclides | Protection Guidelines | Plumes | Baseline Data | Dietary Intake | Chernobyl | Source Points | Maine Yankee | Links | Bibliography | Alerts | Sponsor |