NUCLEAR ENERGY
Lowering Carbon Emissions ‘Absolutely’ Part of DOE’s New Nuclear Plan, Brouillette Says
Morning Consult | 4/23/2020
Unveiling a long-awaited report demonstrating the Trump administration’s plan to “revitalize” the United States’ “competitive advantage” in nuclear energy, Department of Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said the goal of reducing the country’s overall
carbon emissions is “absolutely” a part of the strategy.
The Nuclear Fuel Working Group report — which makes no specific mention of climate change — lays out a road map for the country to “revive and strengthen” its uranium mining industry and move into nuclear
technology markets currently dominated by Russia and China. The NFWG was set up by President Donald Trump in July 2019 and directed to “develop recommendations for reviving and expanding domestic nuclear fuel production.”
The resulting strategy maintains that revitalizing the U.S. uranium mining and nuclear technology development is beneficial for national security and includes measures such as creating a U.S. Uranium Reserve to the tune of $150 million; demonstrating the use of small modular reactors and micro-reactors to power federal facilities; and streamlining regulatory reform and access to land for
uranium extraction. And couched within it is a pitch to expand the country’s nuclear fleet more generally, which could decrease its reliance on fossil fuels.
| Follow the latest DOE budget updates with ECA's budget tracker
|
NUCLEAR WASTE
Federal agencies want to extend nuclear waste site to 2080
Santa Fe New Mexican| 4/25/2020
The more than 20-year-old nuclear waste disposal site in Southern New Mexico would remain active for at least 60 more years under a proposed permit renewal, reflecting the role of nuclear weapons in the
country’s Cold War past and what many federal leaders envision for the future.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s permit is set to expire in 2024, but federal officials who oversee the nation’s nuclear programs believe the underground repository near Carlsbad can keep taking radioactive waste for decades to come.
Critics contend WIPP, where the waste is buried in salt beds 2,150 feet underground, should not operate beyond the 25-year life that was planned when it opened in 1999. They also argue WIPP is fast approaching its limit, and alternative disposal sites should be created outside New Mexico.
“It’s been clear to everybody that WIPP had a limited amount of waste it could handle,” said Don Hancock, director of nuclear waste safety for the nonprofit Southwest Research and Information Center.
Yet federal agencies submitted a proposal calling for a permit renewal until 2080, Hancock said. And the latest proposal gives no date for when the permit extension would end, he said.
CONTRACTS
Feds deny appeal of $4B Hanford contract. But coronavirus could delay it
Tri-City Herald | 4/23/2020
The Government Accountability Office has denied an appeal of the Department of Energy’s award of a $4 billion contract for sitewide services at the Hanford nuclear reservation to Mission Integration Solutions.
Proceeding with transition from the expiring Mission Support Alliance contract to the new 10-year contract was on hold until the GAO ruled on a protest filed by a subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries. However, now the new coronavirus pandemic may be an issue.
Hanford employee were sent an announcement Thursday morning informing them of the GAO’s decision. “The department will evaluate when to commence the transition to the new contractor in light of the current pandemic,” the announcement said.
A 120-day transition period between the old and new contract is planned.
PLUTONIUM PIT PRODUCTION
NNSA lengthens comment period for Savannah River pit production environmental study
Aiken Standard | 4/23/2020
The National Nuclear Security Administration has extended the period in which it is taking comments and input on its draft review of the environmental impacts of plutonium
pit production at the Savannah River Site.
Feedback can now be submitted through June 2. The previous deadline was May 18.
Comments concerning the Savannah River Site plutonium pit production draft environmental impact statement can be emailed, the preferred method, to NEPA-SRS@srs.gov. Comments can also be mailed to Jennifer Nelson, NEPA Document Manager, National Nuclear Security Administration, Savannah River Field Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, S.C. 29802.
The date for the related public hearing, April 30, remains unchanged. The hearing will be online (you can log on or call in, 408-418-9388 conference No. 796495716) in light of the novel coronavirus crisis.
Federal law requires the production of 80 plutonium pits, nuclear weapon cores, per year by 2030. To meet that demand, the National Nuclear Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Defense two years ago recommended forging the cores in both South Carolina and New Mexico.
Fifty pits per year would be made at the Savannah River Site south of Aiken, at a redone Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, they counseled. The remainder, 30, would be made at Los Alamos National Laboratory in northern New Mexico.
Read about DOE's High Level Waste Interpretation
Have questions about DOE’s recent high-level waste (HLW) interpretation? Download ECA’s Key Points and FAQs on the issue to better understand what ECA believes are the potential benefits of implementation.
Interested in learning more? Read the ECA report “Making Informed Decisions on DOE's Proposed High Level Waste Definition” at www.energyca.org/publications
Stay Current on Activities in the DOE World
Read the latest edition of the ECA Bulletin, a regular newsletter providing a detailed brief of ECA activities, legislative news, and major events from across the DOE complex. Have suggestions for future editions? Email bulletin@energyca.org.
|
Learn More about Cleanup Sites with ECA's DOE Site Profiles
ECA's new site profiles detail DOE's 13 active Environmental Management cleanup sites and national laboratories, highlighting their history, missions, and priorities. The profiles are a key source for media, stakeholders, and the public to learn more about DOE site activities, contractors, advisory boards, and their surrounding local
governments.
|
|
|
|
