ECA Update: April 30, 2013
Published: Tue, 04/30/13
Dan Zak, The Washington Post April 30, 2013 Last summer, in the dead of night, three peace activists penetrated the exterior of Y-12 in Tennessee, supposedly one of the most secure nuclear-weapons facilities in the United States. A drifter, an 82-year-old nun and a house painter. They face trial next week on charges that fall under the sabotage section of the U.S. criminal code. And if they had been terrorists armed with explosives, intent on mass destruction? That nightmare scenario underlies the government's response to the intrusion. This is the story of two competing worldviews, of conscience vs. court, of fantasy vs. reality, of history vs. the future.
About this story: The intrusion at Y-12 in Tennessee was re-created for this article through reporting in the city of Oak Ridge, extensive interviews with the three activists and former protective-force guard Kirk Garland, and interviews with federal officials and site employees. This account also draws upon congressional testimony and detailed written reports on the security event from the inspector general of the Department of Energy and the contractor partnership Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Y-12.
See the full story at the link.
Yucca Mountain Casts a Long Shadow Over Nuclear-Waste Bill Introduced in the Senate Amy Harder, National Journal April 25, 2013 The decades-long fight over Yucca Mountain looms large over draft legislation released Thursday by a bipartisan group of senators seeking to find a solution to the nation's nuclear-waste-disposal problem.
The bill, drafted by Democratic and Republican leaders of both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Energy Department, comes just as a federal appeals court is about to rule--perhaps as early as Friday--on whether it will require the federal government to resume its review of Yucca Mountain, the planned nuclear-waste repository 90 miles from Las Vegas that President Obama shut down in 2009 under heavy pressure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
No matter what the court decides, the Yucca Mountain site that Congress designated as the nuclear-waste dump in 1987 is certain to dominate debate over the legislation, which was introduced by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and ranking member Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and ranking member Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
The bill would shift the authority over nuclear waste from the Energy Department to a new independent agency that would seek to develop both interim storage facilities and a long-term repository for radioactive waste, now stored in a piecemeal way at nuclear-power plants and Defense Department sites throughout the country.
But the 58-page draft bill is silent on whether the new agency, to be called the Nuclear Waste Administration, should include Yucca Mountain in its consideration of future waste sites. One of the bill's sponsors suggested Yucca Mountain was left out of the bill for a reason--it's the only way Reid would allow it on the Senate floor.
"While I continue to support Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository site, I also recognize the current realities that make that outcome unlikely at this time," Murkowski said.
Reid, in a statement to National Journal Daily, said he was open to considering the bill.
"I am pleased that this is a bipartisan effort and I look forward to learning more about the legislation as work on it continues," Reid said. "Nevadans and all Americans need a nuclear waste policy that protects the health and safety of our nation. I am optimistic that we will finally have such a policy once the pro-Yucca zealots end their costly failed battle to dump nuclear waste in Nevada and join the bipartisan effort to solve this problem."
Reid may have a stranglehold over any bills that mention Yucca Mountain in the Senate, but Republicans who control the House have no such constraints.
"We still believe that Yucca Mountain is the most viable solution to manage our nation's nuclear waste and efforts to reopen this program should be included in any legislative solution," House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said in a statement to NJ Daily.
Senator Likes U.S. Energy Nominee He's Blocking From Senate Vote Jim Snyder and Kathleen Hunter, Bloomberg April 24, 2013 Senator Lindsey Graham said his hold on Ernest Moniz's nomination for energy secretary remains in place after a meeting didn't clear up the lawmaker's concern over budget cuts to a plutonium processing plant in his state.
"We're talking with the White House, and we're trying to get resolution quickly," Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told reporters yesterday in Washington. "He's a great candidate. He'd be a good secretary of energy."
Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, said in an e-mail that the lawmaker met with Moniz yesterday. President Barack Obama nominated the Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics professor to replace Steven Chu, who is returning to Stanford University in California. Bishop declined to comment on whether Moniz tried to satisfy Graham's concerns.
The plant at the center of the dispute is intended to convert weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for civilian nuclear- power reactors. The project is being led by a consortium that includes Paris-based Areva SA. (AREVA)
Graham said his concerns are about the funding of the program. "It's not about him," Graham said.
Obama's budget proposal, sent to Congress earlier this month, would cut spending on the project by 27 percent, or almost $120 million, in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. The administration said it would examine less costly ways to ensure the plutonium can never be used in nuclear weapons.
The Government Accountability Office last month estimated that the plant's construction costs have risen to at least $7.7 billion from $4.9 billion when building began in 2007.
While Graham continues to block the nomination, Moniz has won broad bipartisan initial support in the Senate. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week approved the nomination by a 21-1 vote, with South Carolina Republican Tim Scott the only one voting no.
"I hope so" Graham said, when asked about prospects of getting resolved before next week's recess.
Wyoming senator questions if Hanford B Reactor park is prudent Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald April 23, 2013 A Wyoming senator asked Tuesday if adding more national parks, including one to include Hanford's B Reactor, is prudent given the maintenance backlog at existing parks.
A bill to create a Manhattan Project National Historical Park had its first Senate hearing this session, coming before the National Parks Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday.
The National Park Service already has an $11 billion maintenance backlog, and parks, including Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, have had to delay opening this spring, said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
Adding new parks increases liability, he said.
All the legislation being considered by the subcommittee has been generated by community support, responded subcommittee Chairman Mark Udall, D-Colo.
"With the economic benefit that comes to a community, a national park is an investment in the community," said Peggy O'Dell, deputy director for Park Service operations.
Visitors to Yellowstone spend about $335 million annually and support almost 5,000 jobs, according to the park service.
Supporters of making Hanford's B Reactor part of a new national park said that would increase tourism spending in the Tri-Cities, also.
Limited tours of B Reactor bring about $1.5 million into the Tri-City economy annually, said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who released information after the hearing.
Visitors could increase 10- or 15-fold in the first year a national park is created, the park service has told DOE.
The annual cost of a new national park, which would include Manhattan Project facilities at Oak Ridge., Tenn., and Los Alamos, N.M., in addition to Hanford, would be $2.45 million to $4 million, according to written testimony submitted by O'Dell.
If the park is not created, tens of millions of dollars would be spent to tear down DOE-owned facilities, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., has said.
Last year, the House voted on a similar bill under a suspension of the rules, but it failed to get a required two-thirds vote of approval. Those opposed included representatives who objected to the financial obligations of a new national park and representatives concerned the project would glorify the Manhattan Project, which produced the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of World War II.
If not considered under a suspension of the rules, the bill would require a simple majority to pass, and Hastings believes it has that support.
"Designating the B Reactor as a National Historical Park would expand visitor access and preserve a key site in our nation's history," Cantwell said in a statement after the hearing. "I am encouraged by today's discussion in support of the bill and look forward to moving forward towards a committee vote."
The bill next needs a vote of approval from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee during a business meeting before going to the full Senate for consideration.
The House Committee on Natural Resources will hold a markup Wednesday on the House legislation to create a Manhattan Project National Park, according to the Atomic Heritage Foundation.
A nuclear "park" and a wild river: Progress in Congress
Joe Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer April 24, 2013 A bill to create a Manhattan Project National Historical Park, embracing sites in Washington, Tennessee and New Mexico that developed the atomic bomb, on Wednesday passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and has an excellent chance of passing Congress.
The nuclear park would include Hanford's old B Reactor on the Columbia River in eastern Washington, the country's first full-scale reactor. It manufactured plutonium used in the bomb that destroyed the Japanese city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.
"Designating the B Reactor as a national historical park would expand visitor access and preserve a key site in our nation's history," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a sponsor of the legislation.
Under the legislation, the old B Reactor would have the same status as Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Valley Forge and Abraham Lincoln's birthplace.
The Manhattan Project was the top-secret World War II effort to build atomic weapons before the Germans. It created the 560-square mile Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Eastern Washington, which went on to produce nuclear weapons plutonium for 45 years.
In addition to building bombs, Hanford generated the nation's largest concentration of high-level radioactive waste. World War II-vintage waste tanks are leading hot sludge into soils at the reservation. Hanford has become site for the world's largest environmental cleanup.
The vast, secret bomb-building apparatus included the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and the Oak Ridge Laboratory in Tennessee.
U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, is normally no friend of parks and monuments. He opposed creation of a Hanford Reach National Monument nearby on the Columbia River, and recently upbraided President Obama for designating a San Juan Islands National Monument and monuments in four other states.
While legislation protecting natural areas languishes in his committee -- Congress has not protected a single acre of wilderness in the past three years -- Hastings is behind creation of the Manhattan Project Park. "I'm committed to bringing the bill to the House floor this Congress and working with the Senate to get it signed into law," he said on Tuesday.
The environment scored a rare victory on Wednesday in Hastings' committee.
The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed legislation that would protect Illabot Creek in Skagit County under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Illabot Creek is a major salmon-producing tributary of the Skagit River. It rises deep in the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, and falls from 7,500 feet to a bare 300 feet above sea level where it empties into the "Magic Skagit." Its lower stretches were trashed by loggers years ago, but much of its watershed remains pristine.
"Illabot Creek is a critically important salmon and steelhead (spawning) run that deserves permanent protection: I'm glad the Natural Resources Committee has once again passed this bill, and I hope that the full House will consider it soon," said Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash.
There is no word yet whether -- or if -- the House Natural Resources Committee will act on a bipartisan proposal to preserve wildlands in eastern King County.
Sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., it would protect the Middle Fork-Snoqualmie River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and add 22,000 acres of the wild Pratt River to the existing Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area.
Less than an hour's drive from Seattle, the Middle Fork-Snoqualmie is the closest mountain valley to Puget Sound population centers.
Tired, Poorly Trained Guard Dogs Could Endanger Nuclear Arms Site Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire April 29, 2013 A U.S. nuclear arms site in Tennessee could be working its guard dogs to exhaustion during vehicle checks and skipping steps in their training, raising the risk that intruders or explosives could slip into the facility unnoticed, the Energy Department inspector general said in a recent report.
"We found that half of the canine teams we observed failed explosive detection tests, many canines failed to respond to at least one of the handler's commands, and that canines did not receive all required training," says the assessment by Energy Department auditors made public Thursday. The department backed calls in the report to settle on and implement "acceptable" work requirements for the dogs, and to develop training certification practices up to par with those of a state or federal police canine program.
The Y-12 National Security Complex receives guard dog services under a five-year contract worth nearly $15 million, the report indicates.
Y-12 has faced a number of security failures over the past year, including a July break-in in which three peace activitists reached the site's bomb-grade uranium storage area and allegations of cheating on exams by contract security personnel. The troubles led the Energy Department's semi-independent National Nuclear Security Administration to dismiss the security contractor at the installation; a new management firm is also being put into place.
Auditors said they had been unable to confirm claims that the guard dog company had "rigged" canine proficiency tests, possibly by ordering animals to "sit" when they failed to do so on their own to signal detection of simulated contraband.
Worries over lax training prompted the Y-12 facility's operator to place the canine security program on hold for several days last August while an outside group tested the ability of on-site dogs to sniff out explosives. In that test, 14 of the site's 35 canine groups failed to detect one or two of the 10 "explosive testing aids" used in the exam.
Despite "immediate corrective actions" by Energy personnel, further action is warranted in part to ensure dogs "are appropriately evaluated, supporting documentation is comprehensive and that the canine teams are evaluated on all 12 types of explosive aids" required under contract, the report states.
Separately, investigators said they had confirmed grounds for concern that dogs were being overworked. A number of handlers said managers had refused their requests to grant the animals additional rest time, including during periods of "record-breaking heat," and auditors reported 91 cases in which operators worked their dogs beyond established limits.
The canine contractor's internal rules require handling personnel to consult with managers about giving dogs rest time if they perform more than 25 vehicle checks in one hour and their workload does not drop in the following half-hour. The IG report, though, notes a dog team last May had completed 60 vehicle checks in one hour and 42 the following hour.
"The skills and proficiency of the canine detection teams could be impacted if the team is required to conduct excessive vehicle searches, thereby potentially compromising the security posture at the department's Y-12 site," the report warns. The guard dog firm said those checks included vehicle "screenings" less intensive than full "searches," but auditors said the company's own guidance establishes no such distinction.
Federal and contractor personnel said they had not reviewed canine training and certification records because the Energy Department did not identify canine operations as a "high-risk security area." The National Nuclear Security Administration contested an IG finding that such security risk assessments could be problematic.
The assessment does not specifically identify the firm involved, but the Knoxville News Sentinelnamed the firm K-9 SOS as a longtime guard dog handler at Y-12.
Udall unhappy with lack of certainty about Los Alamos Gary Gerew, Albuquerque Business First April 25, 2013 Sen. Tom Udall didn't receive the assurances he sought about the future of plutonium work at Los Alamos National Laboratory Wednesday.
During a Senate subcommittee hearing to examine the proposed budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration, Udall asked Neile L. Miller, the NNSA's acting secretary, to explain what the agency planned to do about plutonium work at LANL after last year's announcement that it was stopping work on a multibillion-dollar plutonium lab at Los Alamos. But he didn't get a definite answer, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
"NNSA for over a year has failed to present a full plan for how to deal with the deferral of the CMRR (Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility)," said Udall, according to the Journal. "The interim plan has more questions than answers."
In a letter this month to the House Armed Services Committee, NNSA and Pentagon officials laid out details of a new alternative approach to plutonium work at Los Alamos. In the year since the NNSA said it was stopping work on the plutonium lab, Los Alamos and NNSA have been developing an alternative approach intended to maintain the ability in the long term to manufacture 50 to 80 new plutonium "pits" for future use in the nuclear arsenal, according to the Journal.
Miller told Udall the delay in presenting a concrete plan reflects prudence on the part of NNSA, not lack of interest, according to the Journal.
After the hearing, Udall told the Journal he wasn't satisfied with the NNSA officials' explanation.
"We were trying to flesh this out a little bit, and I don't know that we got very far," Udall told the Journal.
It's time for government to accept spent nuclear fuel Ed Halpin, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer for PG&E April 24, 2013 In a recent editorial, The Tribune called on the federal government to keep the issue of spent nuclear fuel storage among its top priorities and to move forward on establishing a federal repository.
As the owner of Diablo Canyon Power Plant and the decommissioned Humboldt Bay Power Plant, PG&E shares The Tribune's view. We have long advocated that the Department of Energy act on its responsibility to accept spent nuclear fuel from the nation's active and retired nuclear power plants.
Accepting the spent fuel was a commitment the federal government made to all nuclear energy plant operators, their neighboring communities and energy consumers. It's a commitment that we and our partners in the industry expect the government to fulfill.
Even as we seek a long-term government storage solution for spent fuel, there should be no uncertainty on two major points: First, nuclear power remains essential to meeting the energy demands of the future; and second, current onsite storage processes for spent fuel are safe and will be for an indefinite period.
Regarding our energy future, nuclear power stands alone as the only major source of carbon-free, baseload power that can operate 24/7. Diablo Canyon provides enough emissions-free and affordable electricity to meet the needs of more than 3 million Californians. The plant also helps PG&E deliver some of the cleanest energy in the nation to our customers, with nearly 60 percent of our portfolio coming from renewable or carbon-free resources. Without the plant, California would be much harder pressed to meet its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals cost-effectively.
The long-term importance of nuclear power is all the more reason the federal government must meet its commitments on spent fuel storage. Until then, PG&E will continue to store spent fuel at Diablo Canyon in safe, secure and federally monitored wet and dry storage facilities.
The wet storage pools house spent fuel immediately after it is removed from the reactors. They were built, with seismic safety in mind, out of steel-reinforced concrete anchored into bedrock, with steel liners serving as an added safety barrier. Layer upon layer of safeguards are in place to effectively manage and monitor the fuel in the pools.
When the spent fuel assemblies have cooled enough and are no longer needed in wet storage, they are taken to a seismically reinforced dry cask storage facility located on-site. Here the assemblies are stored in a secure, protected area until they can be transferred to the federal government.
These two on-site interim storage methods are safe and effective and follow industry best standards.
Meanwhile, PG&E is working to make its customers whole for the costs of storing spent fuel on-site at Diablo Canyon and at the retired Humboldt Bay Power Plant. The absence of a federal repository means that PG&E electric customers are being charged twice to store this fuel -- once to build the federal repository, and again to store the fuel on-site as an interim solution.
To rectify the situation, PG&E sued the federal government and recently reached a settlement to recover more than $266 million, which we plan to return to our customers through the rates they pay. As PG&E electric customers were charged twice for storage, they should have these funds returned.
Because our customers and communities were ensured a federal solution for spent fuel, they deserve to have that promise fulfilled.
That's why we support the work of members of Congress to keep this issue a priority, such as the actions being taken by a bipartisan group of leading senators, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, to advance both comprehensive and targeted legislation that would compel the federal government to proceed with a community, consent-based process to establish interim consolidated storage sites. These legislative efforts build off the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations, which received broad-based support. We commend these efforts and believe Congress has a real opportunity to pass legislation to facilitate this process and put the government on track to assume its obligation.
At the same time, we also support the calls of others in Congress and legal efforts for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resume the licensing of Yucca Mountain. While we wait for the court's decision and subsequent action from the NRC on Yucca Mountain, we believe Congress should proceed with legislation to advance interim, consolidated storage. It's imperative that we continue to move forward.
Held up by MOX(y) Henry Sokolski, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and Autumn Hanna, Taxpayers for Common Sense April 16, 2013 Sometimes, even in Congress, one can overplay one's hand protecting turf. Consider the South Carolina delegation's sharp objection to President Obama's cut to a nuclear project sited at Savannah River designed to convert 34 tons of nuclear weapon-grade plutonium into civilian reactor fuel. President Obama, who has a reputation for spending too much on energy projects, wants to cut this one by $167 million and find a more cost effective way to dispose of the plutonium. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has decided to play hardball by placing a hold on the Energy Secretary nominee, Ernest Moniz, whose appointment just received near unanimous approval of the Senate Energy Committee.
To be sure, the president's proposed cut hardly augurs well for the Mixed Oxide Fuels (MOX) program. Due to mismanagement, the project is now more than a decade behind schedule and is projected to cost nearly four times its original $2 billion construction estimate. Worse, it has little hope of ever achieving its intended objective, which was to make fuel that U.S. nuclear utilities would burn. Even after extensive marketing, nobody, not even federally supported Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), is interested in buying this fuel, perhaps because it is riskier to use than conventional uranium fuel. Yet, without customers, there is no way this project can end, except in costly failure.
Making subsidized, uneconomical nuclear fuels from weapons explosive plutonium may have been palatable 20 years ago when the project was first hatched. Today, however, it is directly at odds with our government's sensible efforts to persuade others to forgo making similar fuels. Just this week, our diplomats shelved a request from South Korea to make plutonium-based fuels from spent U.S.-origin nuclear fuel. They did this to avoid setting any precedent that might give North Korean, Iranian, or other would-be bomb makers a "peaceful" civilian pretext to make nuclear explosive materials themselves.
There also is a worry that Japan may soon dramatically expand its plutonium recycling efforts (to extract each year 1,000 to 2,000 bombs worth of nuclear explosive plutonium - enough to make enough nuclear weapons to quantitatively replicate the entire deployed, US nuclear force). This is a step that might well prompt an unwanted military response from China. Of course, if the president was going to kill the project outright and had no intention of starting up an alternative program, the South Carolina delegation's objections might be defensible. In fact, the president is doing neither. In the longer term, the president says he wants to consider alternative ways to dispose of the 34 tons of plutonium. This could include vitrifying the plutonium with existing nuclear waste. This would cost at least $2 billion and take several years to accomplish. It could be done at Savannah River. Short-term storage of the plutonium is also a possible option. In either case, the delegation from South Carolina would surely have a say over what alternative would make the most sense. Certainly, engaging in that battle, rather the reactionary, rearguard action it is now threatening to wage, would serve everyone's long-term interest, including that of South Carolina. |
|
