Tripling nuclear brings challenges for nuclear transport

the back-end of the fuel cycle as an “intractable” issue that could hinder nuclear expansion plans: “In the US, one of the big challenges is that no matter what solution you have – interim storage or repository – you’re gonna have to transport hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent fuel from somewhere to somewhere else

Monday, 14 April 2025, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/tripling-nuclear-brings-challenges-for-nuclear-transport

Issues such as tariffs, taxes and regulation facing the transport sector as it prepares for the coming growth in nuclear capacity worldwide were highlighted by a panel at the World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2025 conference.

Transport has always faced challenges with too few ports and carriers willing to accept Class 7 radioactive materials, said panel moderator and Energy Resources International President Eileen Supko, who is also the World Nuclear Transport Institute’s principal representative for North America. (Radioactive materials are Class 7 materials under UN regulations on the transport of dangerous goods).

Panelist George Kargopolov, transportation and special projects director of Montreal-based CIS Navigation agreed. The company operates a fleet of six ships transporting radioactive and nuclear materials including radioisotopes such as cobalt-60 and natural uranium, and has provided nuclear material transport services for almost three decades.

With more and more nuclear power plants around the world, the demand for nuclear transport is growing, but there are not many carriers that are willing to accept nuclear materials for transportation and there are few ports, especially in the USA, that are capable and willing to handle nuclear materials, he said: “The industry is expanding, but the shipping capacity is not.”

He identified four key challenges for nuclear sea transportation: nuclear liability concerns; stowage limitations; port acceptance issues; and political and regulatory challenges, specifically proposals by the USA to levy charges on Chinese-built or linked ships for each port call they make in the USA (known as USTR Section 301). “Nuclear materials carriers are niche carriers, and they will be definitely affected if the [proposed] flat fee of USD1.5 million [per port call] will be applied,” he said.

Kurtis Hinz, president and CEO of Canadian headquartered transporter TAM International, said USTR Section 301 tariffs could lead to a further restrictions and limitations on carriers of Class 7 materials and result in “rate volatility” for the transport of such materials.

For every Chinese-built vessel in its fleet, the shipping line will be charged up to USD1.5 million per port call, Hinz said. “So let’s say the vessel calls into the west coast of the US. That’s USD1.5 million in LA, USD1.5 million in Oakland, USD1.5 million in Seattle tagged on to that vessel,” he said.

“If you’re a big carrier that has 15,000 containers on it, you can spread that cost out. If you’re chartering for small amounts of uranium ore, EUP (enriched uranium product) or things like that, that number hits pretty hard,” he said.

“At the end of the day, we are the last in line on those liner services to try and move material. We have to make alliances … but they will restrict their capacities to make sure they’re running as efficiently into the places they work.”

Transporters of Class 7 materials are facing growing risks of delays and denial of shipments…………………………………………..

Lynch pin

Michael McMahon is vice president of Transportation and Strategic Projects at NAC International, part of the Kanadevia Corporation (formerly Hitachi Zosen Corporation), with more than 30 years’ experience in nuclear materials transportation services, especially in the back-end of the fuel cycle.

“I would say without transportation, there’s no nuclear because the materials have to get from where they are to where they need to be. And that’s not the same place. Without that lynch pin, you really don’t have an industry,” he said.

He also highlighted HALEU fuels as a challenge for the transport sector. Current volumes of HALEU requiring transport are low but this is set to change and become an area of concern over the coming years, he said. The packages that exist today for shipping HALEU are geared towards smaller quantities and are not going to be economically efficient for larger demand in future.

It still takes time and money to get a new package designed now that is going to economically address this market,” he said.

Back-end transport issues should not be forgotten, he added, describing the back-end of the fuel cycle as an “intractable” issue that could hinder nuclear expansion plans: “In the US, one of the big challenges is that no matter what solution you have – interim storage or repository – you’re gonna have to transport hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent fuel from somewhere to somewhere else … we’re gonna need to address that.

Statistics show that “transportation is absolutely the safest thing we do in nuclear right now”, McMahon said, but a gap between public perception of risks versus the reality of the thousands of nuclear fuel transports completed safely every year present a potential barrier to new nuclear plans. “I think this is going to be a big challenge for us,” he said, calling for a demonstration of the safety of these future transports. “That would be a key aspect for us.”

World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2025, co-organised by the Nuclear Energy Institute and World Nuclear Association, took place in Montreal, Canada on 9-10 April.

April 29, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety | Leave a comment