ECA Update: December 4, 2014
Published: Thu, 12/04/14
Reader View: Waste cleanup important for nation
The Santa Fe New Mexican
November 29, 2014
The Santa Fe New Mexican's recent investigative article regarding Los Alamos National Laboratory's handling of the incident at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is appreciated ("Missteps and secrets," Nov. 16). The article, although very informative, made some allegations and raised suspicions that may be unfounded.
As mayor of the city of Española and chairwoman of the Regional Coalition of LANL Communities, I have received updates from the U.S. Department of Energy, the New Mexico Environment Department, officials from WIPP and from LANL regarding the investigation and the theories about what went wrong. Contrary to newspaper headlines that LANL has been hiding information, my experience has been that LANL has been forthcoming and transparent with the state of New Mexico and regional officials.
To date, LANL officials have completed an internal investigation that discovered significant flaws in their processes; they have revealed these results. They have also shared information on technical experiments completed in trying to determine what went wrong.
Ultimately, we of the Regional Coalition have been briefed on the wide-ranging series of experiments and theories that LANL is exploring and have seen no desire on the lab's part to hide or manipulate the results. Northern New Mexico has a laboratory that is committed to scientific integrity, and we should support LANL's efforts to seek the root cause of this incident.
The explosion at WIPP and its aftermath are extremely distressing, particularly because LANL was close to completing shipments of decades-old radioactive waste. The nation, the state of New Mexico and the other national laboratories must learn from this experience and take actions to ensure that this never happens again. The WIPP facility must be restored to operation as soon as possible. Again, in contradiction to the article, we have received estimates from DOE that the timeline for the safe reopening of WIPP is the spring of 2016. (Editor's note: Department of Energy officials have said a preliminary opening is possible in 2016, but a full reopening is expected to take two or three more years.) It is important not only to LANL but also to the nation's ability to clean up decades-old transuranic waste from around the country while ensuring national security now and in the future.
Alice A. Lucero is mayor of Española and chairwoman of the Regional Coalition of LANL Communities.
Column: The rocky road of Yucca
The Aiken Standard
December 1, 2014
The upcoming transfer of power in the U.S. Senate improves prospects for the eventual opening of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository in Nye County, Nevada. Project advocates, however, shouldn't pop the champagne corks yet. The road ahead remains rocky.
Aiken County's legal victory in August 2013 was an important, if limited, milestone.
The writ of mandamus issued by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to restart the Yucca Mountain licensing review.
The court ruled that President Barack Obama's administration doesn't have the power to unilaterally undo a Congressional mandate. Since Yucca Mountain was authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and had $11 million of remaining funding, the work must continue.
"The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections," stated the ruling. This applies even if U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., opposes the project.
Since the ruling, the Yucca Mountain saga progressed on numerous fronts.
Legal maneuvers between pro- and anti-Yucca Mountain forces continued inconclusively.
The state of Nevada, which opposed the ruling, requested a re-hearing from the full U.S. Court of Appeals. This was denied. The NRC itself declined to appeal the decision.
Aiken County and its allies, including Nye County, also kept their attorneys busy. They petitioned to have NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane recuse herself on Yucca Mountain decisions due to previous statements critical of the project. This too was denied.
In November 2013, the NRC released its response to the court order. The Commission proposed to spend its remaining funds on completion of the Safety Evaluation Reports while the Department of Energy completed the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
In a related development, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in January that the Nuclear Waste Fund Fee must be reduced to zero. This fee - equivalent to one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour from nuclear powered energy - was to pay for spent fuel disposal. But since the congressionally mandated repository - Yucca Mountain - is off the table, the fee must go too.
In Congress, the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate moved in different directions.
In June, the House appropriated more than $200 million for Yucca Mountain. The Senate, on the other hand, is pursuing a "consent based" siting process for a replacement repository and funding for an interim storage site.
Meanwhile, the NRC focused on completion of the Safety Evaluation Report. This past October, SER Volume Three was released with the remaining volumes due by January 2015.
Volume Three reviewed the facility's safety after closure.
To the delight of pro-Yucca Mountain lawmakers, Volume Three found that the facility meets the post-closure public health and environmental standards for individual protection, human intrusion and groundwater protection.
Not surprisingly, Reid and state officials in Nevada remained skeptical. "I will continue doing everything in my power to ensure that the project is never resurrected and doesn't receive another dime," declared the Senate Majority Leader.
But Reid faces changing circumstances. Republican Congressmen are clamoring for completion. Nuclear industry trade associations are stepping up their activities on behalf of Yucca Mountain.
As a sign of the times, the influential Chicago Tribune editorialized in the wake of Volume Three that, "The repository should be fast-tracked to remove the nuclear waste near communities across the U.S."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the Senate's fourth ranking Democrat, also joined the chorus:
"It is imperative that the Yucca Mountain licensing application is thoroughly considered by the NRC," Murray said.
Finally, Nye County "continues to stand ready for active and constructive engagement with the Department of Energy on this project of critical national importance."
So is it full steam ahead for Yucca Mountain?
Not quite. Yucca Mountain undeniably received boosts from the release of Volume Three and Reid's expected demotion to Minority Leader.
The incoming Republican-led Senate, however, will continue to face both a hostile administration and a Democratic minority under Reid capable of filibustering legislation and sustaining presidential vetoes.
If Senate Republicans are serious about this project, then they need to proceed slowly, building consensus with every small step. Support from Democrats like Murray is necessary.
Political capital must be spent. Legislative finesse may be required to tack Yucca Mountain funding onto bills the administration and Congressional Democrats deem critical.
But ultimately, only a change in administration will impact the political atmosphere enough to give Yucca Mountain a fighting chance.
It's Time the U.S. Deals With Its Nuclear Waste
The Wall Street Journal
November 28, 2014
The U.S. relies on nuclear for approximately 20% of its power. Nuclear is especially important as a source of carbon-dioxide-free base power, meaning plants that run continuously. Despite recently announced shutdowns, nuclear is expected to account for a sizable share of U.S. power over the next 20 years. The U.S. nuclear fleet, the largest in the world, produces approximately 2,000 to 2,300 metric tons of spent fuel each year. Over time, this has added up to a stockpile of approximately 70,000 metric tons. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, "if used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about 7 yards deep."
The Energy Department is supposed to pick up the spent fuel from nuclear operators, who have already paid fuel fees for this purpose. So far, however, the DOE hasn't really done anything, due to decades of technological challenges at Yucca Mountain, a deep geological repository where all spent fuel was supposed to be stored. There has also been a political failure to develop an alternative workable solution. As a result, operators have been forced to store spent fuel at nuclear plants, either in fuel pools or, increasingly, in dry storage. Operators are now in the incredible situation of suing the DOE to recover corresponding costs because the agency has not fulfilled its obligations.
If the development of dry storage at the plant sites has enabled operators to buy some time, it is fundamental that a real solution for the spent fuel be found. This is necessary not only to guarantee the sustainability of the U.S. nuclear fleet, but also to enable appropriate decommissioning of shut plants. Safe solutions exist and need to be properly assessed.
One option is to either revive the Yucca Mountain project or identify alternative sites. Another is to create centralized or regional interim storage sites. The U.S. could also explore technologies for reprocessing spent fuel, which reduce the volume of waste to be disposed and reuse valuable content in the spent fuel.
These actions will require political courage and a push from the nuclear industry. Whatever the solution, the Department of Energy, or any other entity that is responsible for finding a solution, also needs to consider proper contracting and project management schemes to guarantee that projects are successfully executed.
Groups disagree with Hanford cleanup decision
Tri-City Herald
November 29, 2014
The federal government issued its first final cleanup decision for one of Hanford's reactors without incorporating changes recommended by the Hanford Advisory Board and environmental groups.
The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a plan for the area around Hanford's former F Reactor that would leave radioactive waste deep underground in one place to decay over 264 years.
Groundwater contamination would be left to dissipate over 150 years.
"(The Department of Energy) is choosing to ignore overwhelming, common-sense input from citizens throughout the Pacific Northwest who want to see a proactive approach to reducing pollution that reaches the Columbia River from the Hanford site and the F Reactor area," Dan Serres, conservation director for Columbia Riverkeeper, said in a statement.
Most of the environmental cleanup of the area around F Reactor already has been completed under interim decisions. The final decision focuses on what remaining work will be done before cleanup is declared completed.
The Hanford Advisory Board has closely followed plans, aware that the decision for the area around F Reactor could set the stage for decisions on cleanup around the other eight plutonium production reactors that line the Columbia River at Hanford.
The board recommended that DOE and EPA take action to significantly reduce the time for cleanup goals to be reached after DOE released its proposed plan. The final decision largely adopted that proposal.
The board also expressed concern about DOE's ability to restrict use of the land to prevent intrusion into areas with contamination far into the future.
The adopted decision requires digging up contamination in 91 places, but leaving radiological contamination deeper than 15 feet below ground in 15 places.
Excavation restrictions to prevent contact with the contaminated soil would need to be in place, with limits at different sites lasting from the year 2033 to 2278. In one place, irrigation would need to be prohibited to prevent water from carrying contamination down to groundwater.
The agencies considered active treatment of already contaminated groundwater, including pumping up the water and cleaning it before reinjecting it into the ground, but instead settled on letting the contamination gradually dissipate.
Natural processes such as biodegradation, dispersion, dilution and radioactive decay would reduce contamination over 150 years to drinking water standards, the decision document said.
The cost of actively treating the groundwater would be $177 million to $194 million, while letting it dissipate while monitoring it with wells and restricting its use would cost $36 million, according to the decision document.
"We are disappointed that Energy has not opted to use available technologies for a thorough cleanup," Emily Bays of Hanford Challenge said in a statement.
DOE said in the document and at a recent Hanford Advisory Board committee meeting that it had good reasons for the choices made.
The groundwater contaminant that will take the longest to dissipate, 150 years, is radioactive strontium. However, a "pump and treat" plant for much higher levels of strontium near Hanford's N Reactor did little to reduce contamination there.
A pump-and-treat system could reduce other contaminants near F Reactor, including nitrates and hexavalent chromium. But the groundwater would still be contaminated with strontium for 150 years, preventing its use, the decision document said.
Near N Reactor, workers add chemicals to the ground to form calcium phosphate to bind the strontium in place and prevent it from reaching water.
But the decision document for the area around F Reactor concluded that the strontium contamination near F Reactor is bound to the soil in a specific area and is not migrating. Adding the underground chemical barrier would not reduce the 150 years needed for it to decay.
Leaving contaminated soil deeper than 15 feet should not be a concern for most uses of the land, according to DOE. That would allow a residential basement to be dug, for example, without excavation reaching contaminated soil.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that contaminated water is not used and that digging of wells or other deep excavation does not expose contaminated soil over 100-plus years.
"We realize there are always going to be concerns about how long these can be maintained and how reliably," said Greg Sinton, the DOE project lead for the decision document at the advisory board committee meeting.
However, reviews will be done at least every five years, as required by federal law, he said. That should keep attention on the remaining contamination and not allow it to be forgotten, he said. If the reviews find that contamination is not dissipating as expected under the decision just made, new cleanup plans could be adopted.
The Hanford Advisory Board made recommendations to DOE and EPA on the pending decision for cleanup in the area of F Reactor in June 2013 and September of this year and could choose to make a formal comment again now that the decision has been made.
SRS manager Dave Moody to retire in June
The North Augusta Star
November 25, 2014
Savannah River Site officials announced Friday that Site manager Dave Moody is expected to retire after four years with SRS and 36 years with the Department of Energy.
Officials forwarded an email to the media originally sent by Mark Whitney, principal deputy assistant secretary for environmental management. Whitney wrote that Moody has had a significant impact in his four years at the Site and has taken part in a number of achievements.
These include: reducing the Site footprint by 75 percent; permanently closing four radioactive liquid tanks; maximized production of vitrified high-level waste canisters; upgrading H-Canyon for continual mission; finding a final disposition path for non-Moxable plutonium; and spearheading an effort to find an innovative and economic alternative to build a third Glass Waste Storage facility.
"Dr. Moody's leadership at the Savannah River Site over the last four years has resulted in tremendous achievements for the cleanup of the Site," Whitney said. "I am confident Dr. Moody will be equally successful in whatever challenges he chooses to tackle next."
A career member of the Senior Executive Service, Moody has years of experience in the fields of environmental science and nuclear chemistry. That knowledge comes from a doctorate in inorganic chemistry from Indiana University and a bachelor's degree in chemistry from the University of South Carolina.
Before his 2010 appointment to SRS, Moody served for five years as manager of DOE's Carlsbad Field Office where he directed the administration of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. He also worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
DOE Responds to Recommendation 2014-1 of the DNFSB, Emergency Preparedness and Response
Federal Register
December 1, 2014
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledges receipt of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) Recommendation 2014-01, Emergency Preparedness and Response, issued on September 3, 2014, and published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2014.
The Department shares the Board's view that actions are needed to improve emergency preparedness and response capabilities at its defense nuclear facilities. As stated in my August 5, 2014, letter to you, the Department's emergency preparedness and response infrastructure, capabilities, and resources are of great importance to me and DOE's senior leadership. Recommendation 2014-01 will complement the actions that the Department has already initiated to improve emergency management. I also stated that it is the Department's responsibility to determine the requisite timeline to accomplish the actions in our Implementation Plan to address Board recommendations.
I understand the Board's enabling statute requires the Department to complete implementation of its plan within one year. I am placing a high priority on addressing the Recommendation; however, due to the complexity and broad reach of the Department's actions, we probably will not be able to complete our corrective actions within one year, in which case we will make the necessary notifications prescribed by law.
Therefore, with the exception of the "end of 2016" timeline, DOE accepts the remainder of sub-Recommendation 1 and all of sub-Recommendation 2.
I share your intent to improve emergency management in the Department. In developing an Implementation Plan to address each specific action of this Recommendation, the Department will expeditiously proceed with improvements, accomplishing the highest priorities within a one-year period. We will prioritize efforts and will maintain a dialogue with your staff as we move forward to address your concerns.
We appreciate the Board's perspective and look forward to continued positive interactions with you and your staff on preparing DOE's Implementation Plan. I have assigned Ms. Deborah Wilber, the Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Emergency Operations, to be the Department's responsible manager for this Recommendation.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Ms. Wilber at (202) 586-9892.
Sincerely,
Ernest J. Moniz
Project and Program Management: DOE Needs to Revise Requirements and Guidance for Cost Estimating and Related Reviews
Government Accountability Office
November 25, 2014
What GAO Found
The Department of Energy's (DOE) and its National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) cost estimating requirements and guidance for projects and programs do not fully reflect best practices for developing cost estimates. In regard to cost estimating requirements for projects, DOE's 2010 project management order requires 1 of the 12 cost estimating best practices--conducting an independent cost estimate--for larger projects at certain stages of development. In contrast, DOE's 2011 cost estimating guide describes recommended approaches for using 10 of 12 best practices and partially contains information about the other 2. Furthermore, because DOE's cost estimating guide was issued in 2011--after DOE's 2010 project order was issued--it is not referenced in the order. As a result, users of the order may not be aware of the guide's availability and may not benefit from its usefulness. In addition, although NNSA programs are required to follow DOE's budget formulation order and NNSA's budget process, both of which require the development of cost estimates, neither the order nor the process requires the use of best practices in developing the estimates. In February 2014, for example, GAO found that NNSA's lifecycle cost estimate for the Plutonium Disposition Program did not follow all key steps for developing high-quality cost estimates, in part because the agency did not have a requirement to develop a life-cycle cost estimate. In the absence of a requirement for using best practices, it is unlikely that DOE, NNSA, and their contractors will consistently develop reliable cost estimates.
|
|
