ECA Update: August 1, 2013
Published: Thu, 08/01/13
|
Energy Secretary Supports Yucca Mountain Alternatives, New Agency for Nuclear Waste
Alex Brown, National Journal
July 30, 2013
Alex Brown, National Journal
July 30, 2013
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on Tuesday praised a Senate plan to deal with nuclear waste--an alternative to the long-disputed Yucca Mountain site--calling it a "promising framework for addressing key issues."
Moniz addressed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to testify on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act, which would establish a new federal agency to manage nuclear waste, which is now overseen by Moniz's DOE. The bill would also create a pilot spent-fuel storage facility, as well as temporary storage facilities for non-priority spent fuel.
The wrangling over the use of Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a storage site has "no end in sight," Moniz testified. He continued:
Rather than continuing to spend billions of dollars more on a project that faces such strong opposition, the administration believes ... a consent-based solution for the long-term management of our used fuel and nuclear waste ... has the potential to gain the necessary public acceptance.
The bill is based on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, a panel on which Moniz served. While Moniz couldn't give the administration's official endorsement for the bill, he expressed support for the idea of a new agency to handle nuclear waste:
The administration will work with Congress to ensure that the authorization of any new body established for this purpose provides adequate authority and leadership as well as appropriate oversight and controls.
Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., pressed Moniz further on that approach, acknowledging the secretary's awkwardness in admitting that his own agency is not best suited to handle nuclear waste oversight long-term. "We do need a new organization," Moniz responded. "The keys are the authorities that go to this agency."
Not everyone was on board with the search for Yucca Mountain alternatives. "We have a law that designates where the permanent storage is," said Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho. "We have a law that identifies Yucca Mountain ... but nobody seems to care." Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., expressed a similar view. Risch pressed Moniz on alternatives for storing nuclear waste if no communities express interest in building facilities. "We expect that we will have a number of communities coming forward with interest," Moniz said.
Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., an opponent of Yucca Mountain as a storage site, said he hoped the bill would keep nuclear waste out of his state.
Committee ranking member Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked Moniz if a 10-year goal for a new storage facility was realistic. That timeline is "aggressive, but quite feasible," Moniz said, but added that "it will take a dedicated organization to manage that." He also noted that if nuclear growth continues, more than one waste repository would become necessary.
Another concern, expressed by Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., is that communities with short-term storage facilities could end up being permanent storage sites if no alternative locations are found. Moniz emphasized the bill's "consent-based approach" and called for exploration of more geologic long-term storage alternatives. Those alternatives, he said, responding to a question from Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., could include hard rock, clay, granites, and salts--all of which have been used in Europe to store nuclear waste.
Moniz will testify Wednesday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, again addressing nuclear waste. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., that committee's chairman, has been a supporter of storing waste at Yucca Mountain and recently called for a final decision on that site.
House Republicans to Energy Secretary: Don't Scrap Yucca
Alex Brown, National Journal
July 31, 2013
House Republicans aren't giving up on Yucca Mountain as a long-term nuclear-waste storage site, despite a bipartisan Senate plan to explore alternatives and establish a new nuclear-waste agency. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz signaled his support for the Senate plan in a Tuesday hearing, but faced a less receptive audience Wednesday in the lower chamber.
Moniz testified before the House Energy and Commerce Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, giving the administration's view that the disputes over the Yucca Mountain site have "no end in sight." The United States needs "a new workable long-term goal" for its nuclear waste, Moniz said. "The [Yucca Mountain] stalemate couldn't continue indefinitely."
Republicans pushed back, calling Yucca Mountain the legally designated site and disparaging alternative approaches as too costly. "DOE's new waste strategy very much represents the administration's effort to start from scratch as if the Nuclear Waste Policy Act doesn't exist," said subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus, R-Ill., adding that new site location efforts would cost $5.6 billion in the first 10 years. Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., called Yucca Mountain the "clear answer," saying it "could be completed faster than a new effort to build interim storage, thus making Yucca Mountain the best option for mitigating taxpayer liability."
Top committee Democrats, however, expressed support for the new approach. "It does not appear [Yucca Mountain] will be open in the near future," said subcommittee ranking member Paul Tonko, D-N.Y. "It is worth examining alternatives to current law and the current situation." Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., criticized Republicans' "obsession with Yucca Mountain" and cited the Senate bill as a good approach to beginning to find alternatives.
As he did in the Senate hearing Tuesday, Moniz pushed back on the idea that the government would have difficulty finding communities willing to play host to the nation's nuclear waste. "We believe there are reasons for optimism," he said. When pressed for specifics by Shimkus, Moniz said it was too early in the process to identify possible alternatives.
Another problem with the plan, Shimkus said, is the timing. The Energy Department plan would not have a pilot repository operational until 2048, "65 years after Congress first passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and after the reactors we have operating today have likely closed."
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., broke from his Democratic colleagues, questioning the cost of finding alternatives. He asked Moniz if Yucca Mountain was no longer an option given his support for the new approach. "The issue's not dead," Moniz responded. Dingell pressed further, asking if the Yucca site was still "viable." Moniz responded: "It needs both science and public acceptance, the latter is not there." Dingell and Upton penned a joint op-ed earlier this month calling for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reach a final decision on Yucca Mountain.
OMB: Agencies should let evidence guide budget request
Sean Reilly, Federal TimesJuly 30, 2013
Agencies should seek funding only for programs that work in their 2015 budgets and be able to back up their requests with evidence, Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Burwell told agency heads in a new memo.
In pursuit of President Obama's goal of "a smarter, more innovative and more accountable government," agencies need to strengthen their ability to improve program performance "by applying existing evidence of what works, generating new knowledge, and using experimentation and innovation to test new approaches to program delivery," Burwell said in a July 26 memo.
That approach is particularly important given the current fiscal climate, Burwell added, as agencies face "tough choices' in meeting "increased demand for services in a constrained resource environment." Agencies should also come up with new evaluation tools or ideas for developing evidence that can be used to improve existing programs.
Toward this end, Burwell said officials from the National Science Foundation and the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments are jointly developing "common evidence guidelines" to improve the quality of government studies.
In another effort, the Housing and Urban Development Department is sharing data with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to better grasp how housing policy may affect the way elderly residents of publicly subsidized dwellings use health care, Burwell said in the memo.
In recent years, OMB officials have repeatedly stressed the importance of evidence in shaping budget decisions. This fall, OMB and White House policy councils are also planning at least five workshops for agencies on such themes as:
-
How agencies can conduct rigorous program evaluations and data analytics on a tight budget.
-
How they can turn a traditional competitive grant program into one that is innovative and "evidence-based."
-
How they can use behavioral and social science research findings to improve program results at low cost.
Paducah Community Chronicles Site History in New Book
Office of Environmental Management
July 31, 2013
PADUCAH, Ky. - Members of the Paducah Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) spearheaded the publication of a new book that captures the history of EM's Paducah site.
The Story of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Megawatts to Megatons to Megawatts, preserves the plant's complex history and pays tribute to the hard-working people who made it successful.
The Paducah Sun, a local newspaper, printed the book in collaboration with DOE infrastructure contractor Swift and Staley, Inc. The 160-page hardbound book is filled with stories, interviews and photographs detailing the plant's history.
For more than six decades, plant employees contributed to the region's growth, played a role in scientific advancements, such as space exploration, and worked toward world peace.
"For my part, the hours of personal time I devoted to the project were a labor of love to honor the memories of the devoted people who have worked at the plant," said Judy Clayton, a firefighter and emergency medical technician at the site and CAB member. "Although I was the principal driver behind the effort, I had considerable support from others, such as Georgann Lookofsky and Valerie Render, both Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant employees, and Buz Smith of DOE, who contributed information and photographs."
Located on a 3,556-acre reservation, the plant began enriching uranium in 1952, first for the nation's nuclear weapons program, then for nuclear fuel for commercial power plants.
It took two years to compile the content for the book and publish it. The book features photos from plant vaults, employees and plant neighbors. Clayton and others interviewed some of the first plant employees in their homes and at the CAB office. CAB members edited the content, and the board's support staff helped coordinate interviews. Videos of those interviews and the site's history are featured on the CAB website.
"The history book is something the Paducah CAB, the Paducah community and site workers can be proud of. It records the history of the facilities and the people important to us all," DOE Portsmouth Paducah Project Office Manager Bill Murphie said.
"Generations to come need to know of the accomplishments at this site. This is why they gathered and compiled all of this information within one book," said Smith, a strategic planner for EM's Paducah Site Office. "The book exists because of Judy and her commitment."
Study on combining Hanford, commercial waste under way
Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald
July 30, 2013
Washington, D.C. -- The Department of Energy will finish a study this fall on whether Hanford and other high-level radioactive defense wastes should be disposed of with used nuclear fuel from commercial plants, said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
He discussed the study in response to questioning from Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., at a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday.
Bipartisan Senate legislation has been introduced to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, which was formed after the Obama administration moved to end work on the Yucca Mountain, Nev., nuclear repository.
The proposed legislation would allow the construction and operation of a facility for defense waste if Moniz determines that separating the two types of waste is best.
Technically, Hanford and commercial waste could be stored together, Moniz said at the hearing. However, there could be advantages to not combining the two types of waste, he said.
Hanford waste includes high-level radioactive waste stored in underground tanks until it can be glassified at the vitrification plant. It also includes fuel irradiated for weapons plutonium production but not processed to remove plutonium after the Cold War ended.
Cantwell is concerned that Hanford and other defense waste not be treated as "an afterthought" as plans are made for disposal of commercial used fuel.
"We need this to be a central part of the discussion, and so that's what I would be looking for in legislation," she said.
Hanford continues to make progress, she said. But a plan is needed so that waste that's retrieved from aging underground tanks, some of which are leaking, has a destination once it is treated for disposal. The plan should be updated every five years, she said.
"It's unacceptable to our state and my constituents to think that Hanford is just going to end up being that repository for that vast amount of high-level defense waste," she said.A disposal site for high-level radioactive defense waste "is the best, most comprehensive, cost-effective way to deal" with Hanford's tank waste, she said.
Moniz said DOE is committed to moving high-level waste off Hanford.
He was impressed with environmental cleanup progress made over the last several years when he made his first visit as energy secretary last month, he said.
There will be access again to the Columbia River in two or three years as cleanup along the river is completed, he said. Work to allow the demolition of the Plutonium Finishing Plant is well along and groundwater treatment plants are making progress.
"I thought it was actually also uplifting at least in those ways," he said.
Energy Northwest, which operates the nuclear power plant near Richland, sent comments earlier to the four senators who wrote the legislation discussed at the Tuesday hearing.
It asked that the differences in defense waste and commercial used fuel be considered because there could be interest in eventually retrieving the commercial fuel to be recycled.
Recycling now is not feasible but one day it could be a viable, affordable alternative to seeking new fuel sources, according to Energy Northwest. Reusing it could reduce the volume of waste needing to be stored.
Moniz said there also might be other types of suitable repositories besides deep geological disposal, such as was proposed at Yucca Mountain. Deep bore holes is one possibility, he said.
Adopting a lasting policy on nuclear waste is urgent, according to senators at the hearing.
"Simply continuing to pass the burden of safely disposing of nuclear waste to future generations is not an option -- whether it is at a shuttered nuclear power plant or in tanks along the Columbia River," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, the committee chairman and one of four senators who collaborated on the legislation.
"Our goal with this legislation is to get the permanent repository program back on track and to make sure spent fuel and nuclear defense waste is handled safely until it is," he said.
Among the bill's provisions is creating an independent agency replacing DOE as manager of the nuclear waste program and creating temporary storage and a repository in communities and states that consent to have them.
DOE, advisory board differ on Hanford groundwater plan
Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald
July 29, 2013
The Hanford Advisory Board is concerned that more research should be done before a cleanup plan for uranium-contaminated groundwater becomes final.
A meeting is scheduled tonight in Richland by the Department of Energy and its regulators to discuss and hear comments on the proposed plan for the 300 Area, which is just north of Richland.
Much of the plan follows usual Hanford procedures for digging up contaminated soil and waste sites, treating the waste as needed and then disposing of much of it in a central Hanford landfill for low-level radioactive waste.
However, choosing a final plan for groundwater near the Columbia River that is contaminated with uranium above drinking water standards over about 125 acres may be more controversial.
The 300 Area was used for fabricating uranium into fuel pieces for the Hanford reactors that produced plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. It also was used for research, including testing processes for chemically removing plutonium from irradiated uranium fuel.
Process trenches used to dispose of contaminated liquid into the soil were removed in the 1990s, and levels of uranium in the groundwater dropped, said Mike Thompson, DOE hydrogeologist. Hanford officials assumed then that if uranium-contaminated soil was excavated down to about 15 feet -- which has been done -- the groundwater contamination gradually would dissipate.
But it later became clear that more lightly contaminated soil near the groundwater was continually recontaminating the water. As the river would rise and fall, the level of groundwater also would change, allowing the groundwater to periodically soak the contaminated soil.
Digging up all the contaminated soil is not an option, according to DOE. It would cost more than $1 billion and the soil would fill an area measuring 1,000 feet by 1,000 feet in the 70-foot-deep lined landfill in central Hanford.
The digging also could backfire and increase contamination in the groundwater, according to DOE. Water is used to control dust and prevent airborne contamination during excavation, but the water would filter through the soil and push more uranium into the groundwater.
Instead, DOE proposes adding a binding solution to the soil to reduce the movement of contamination to the groundwater while contamination in the groundwater dissipates over time.
Phosphate would be added, which combines with uranium in a carbonate form to make autunite, a uranium phosphate mineral that's bright yellow and flaky. It's a stable mineral that does not readily dissolve when hit by water, keeping it in the soil instead of in the water.
The phosphate would be added into the soil in two ways. First, it would be dripped in from the surface of the ground. Second, it would be injected into wells that do not reach the groundwater. The idea is to reach the contamination in the zone where the soil periodically gets soaked.
The method would not have to be 100 percent effective to give the groundwater some protection and allow enough uranium to dissipate to reach regulatory standards in a matter of decades, Thompson said.
About 330 pounds of uranium per year is released to the Columbia River from the Hanford 300 Area, according to DOE. But three irrigation outlets on the Franklin County side of the river release 3,500 pounds of uranium a year into the river from fertilizer and uranium that's naturally in the ground. In addition, the Yakima River adds about 8,800 pounds a year.
DOE and its regulators are cleaning up the uranium-contaminated groundwater on the Hanford side of the river to comply with federal Superfund law that requires restoration of the aquifer in a reasonable time.
DOE has tried similar solutions to its proposed method in tests at the 300 Area, but the results have not been optimal. Most recently, the agency tried putting the phosphate on the ground and letting it soak in, but results varied from spot to spot.
The Hanford Advisory Board has recommended a field test to determine the effectiveness of the proposed solution. Then DOE and EPA would be better prepared to make a final decision on whether it's the best method for cleaning up the uranium, and cleanup could be done in a more timely and cost-effective manner, it said.
"It is important to the board that the 300 Area decisions are dependable, protective, defensible and well supported," the board said in a June letter to DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
DOE has studied the issue of uranium-contaminated groundwater for more than two decades and no better method is on the horizon, Thompson said.
EPA agrees that adding phosphate to the soil is the best technology available.
Most of the uranium in the soil already has been removed, and the plan addresses a small amount that is left and continues to bleed into the groundwater, said Larry Gadbois, an EPA scientist.
The public may comment at a meeting at 6:30 p.m. today at the Richland Public Library, 955 Northgate Drive, Richland. An open house will start an hour earlier. Additional public meetings will be held Wednesday in Seattle and Aug. 8 in Hood River.
Comments also may be submitted until Sept. 16 by email at 300AreaPP@rl.gov, by phone at 800-321-2008 or by mail to Kim Ballinger, DOE Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, A7-75, Richland, WA 99352.
SRS fails security force test
Derrek Asberry, Aiken Standard
August 1, 2013
The Savannah River Site failed a security force test in January that was conducted by SRS's Health, Safety, and Security office, an extension of the Department of Energy.
According to the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog organization that focuses on DOE security, the test featured a mock attack by Health, Safety, and Security commanders against SRS security guards.
An article on the organization's website indicates that several scenarios went wrong during the test.
Mock attackers reportedly reached a key building and accessed simulated bomb material, according to the article. The Health, Safety, and Security office stopped two other tests before completion. One test was halted due to a shift change and the other one due to weather.
Tom Clements, the Southeastern nuclear campaign coordinator with Friends of the Earth, recently filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the report on the results of January's security test.
"The Office of Health, Safety, and Security should be more forthcoming about the failed security test at the H-Canyon, as the public has the right to know if facilities at SRS are being adequately protected," Clements said.
According to Department of Energy personnel, test result information was limited for security purposes.
"Security is taken very seriously," said Bill Taylor with SRS External Affiars. "We don't disclose much detail about methods of protection, how our security forces respond to a situation or specifics about an exercise, to prevent any adversary from using that information."
In response to the uncompleted tests during the simulation, Taylor elaborated on the inefficiencies, stating that work groups have already been briefed on conduct and procedures. These briefings were handed out by Government Solutions, formerly known as Wackenhut Services Inc. The company is a security contractor of SRS.
"As a result of some performance issues identified in January 2013, WSI-SRS issued an Operational Pause to have senior leaders brief each work group of the expected standards for decision making and to reinforce the requirements to follow policies and procedures when conducting work," Taylor added.
Security at DOE facilities is a growing concern, especially since last year's trespassing incident at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The incident involved a nun and two other trespassers, who were peace activists attempting to protest the facility.
Derrek Asberry is a beat reporter with the Aiken Standard news team and joined the paper in June. He is originally from Vidalia, Ga., and graduated from Georgia Southern University with a journalism degree in May 2012.
SRR ready to grout two more tanks
Derrek Asberry, Aiken Standard
July 28, 2013
Savannah River Remediation continues to reduce environmental risks with plans to close liquid waste Tanks 5 and 6 at the Savannah River Site.
The process is essential due to the large amounts of liquid waste the Site currently houses. Tanks 5 and 6, specifically, are estimated to hold up to 750,000 gallons of liquid waste.
"By operationally closing SRS waste tanks, SRR continues to reduce the single most substantial environmental risk in South Carolina," said Rick Kelley with Savannah River Remediation's Public Affairs.
The grouting process is expected to begin next month. Currently, the contractor is awaiting confirmation to begin work on the tanks. First, it must complete a facility self-assessment, followed by a formal readiness assessment before work can begin.
Readiness assessments are conducted before major work to ensure the proper preparations are made which includes available resources, trained staff and that hazards are identified and mitigated.
According to Kelley, roughly 50 trucks are expected to deliver specially-formulated grout to the Site. Once inside, the grout will be dumped into a commercial pumping system, through piping, into the tanks. The entire process will take about four months, and the contractor is expected to hire about 35 employees for the job.
"SRR's mission is to operationally close SRS waste tanks in a safe, timely, compliant, and cost-effective manner while exceeding stakeholder expectations," Kelley added.
Before the upcoming closing of Tanks 5 and 6, Savannah River Remediation closed Tanks 18 and 19 after being hired by SRS in 2009. After the closing of Tanks 5 and 6, the contractor will be looking to close two more tanks in 2015.
Savannah River Remediation is comprised of a team of companies led by URS Corp. with partners Bechtel National, CH2M HILL and Babcock & Wilcox. Important subcontractors for the contract include AREVA, Energy Solutions and URS Professional Solutions.
 |
|
More Information |
|
To help ensure that you receive all email with images correctly displayed, please add ecabulletin@aweber.com to your address book or contact list |
|
to the ECA Email Server |
|
If you have trouble viewing this email, view the online version |