ECA Update: February 9, 2012
Published: Thu, 02/09/12
The controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project terminated by the Obama administration could still be an option for disposing of US commercial spent nuclear fuel, but the amount of total waste would soon make a second site necessary, according to a senior member of a federal commission set up to look at the issue.
Using the facility, however, would require a change of heart from the state of Nevada, which opposes the use of the site for nuclear waste, said Brent Scowcroft, the co-chairman of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
"The local communities surrounding Yucca Mountain are supportive. The state, as a whole, is not, and that is where the deadlock came," Scowcroft said during a hearing of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
Carlsbad Mayor, CDOD, County Officials Respond to BRC Report Carlsbad Mayor, CDOD, County Officials February 4, 2012 CARLSBAD, NM, February 04, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- The President's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future issued its final report in January, and Carlsbad and Eddy County officials say Southeast New Mexico's salt beds should play a key role in the country moving forward with the BRC's suggestions.
The BRC has concluded its two-year assessment, which began in the wake of the Obama administration's decision to cancel the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada. Yucca Mountain was to become the nation's primary and permanent storage site for spent commercial nuclear reactor fuel and high level defense and government wastes. Carlsbad and Eddy County officials believe the BRC's report lends credence to Southeast New Mexico being the successor to Yucca Mountain. "First of all, I applaud the BRC's extensive and objective look into America's nuclear future," said Carlsbad Mayor Dale Janway. "Last January, the BRC paid a visit to Carlsbad and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, which I feel was the most important trip of the organization's extensive search across the entire globe. There have been decades of speculation about what to do with our nuclear waste, but for the past 13 years now WIPP has actually been cleaning up our nuclear waste." New cost for Hanford cleanup projected at $112 billion Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald February 9, 2012 The new price tag for completing the remainder of Hanford nuclear reservation cleanup, plus some post-cleanup oversight, is $112 billion.
That is down $3 billion from last year, according to projections in the annual Hanford Lifecycle Scope, Schedule and Cost Report.
The drop primarily is because of work accomplished last year using Department of Energy annual budget money and the final year's spending of Hanford's federal economic stimulus money.
However, last year's estimate of $115 billion was criticized by some as unrealistically low.
TRANSCRIPT
RICHLAND, Wash. - The main government contractor building the waste treatment plant at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, has hired a new safety culture manager. This move comes after multiple federal reports have criticized the southeast Washington project - some saying that employees feel reluctant to raise concerns with the plant.
Frank Russo is the top manager for government contractor Bechtel on Hanford's waste treatment plant. He sent a memo to his employees this week saying he's hiring a new leader focused on the project's safety culture.
The factory is a one-of-a-kind $12-billion facility meant to treat millions of gallons of radioactive waste. Lately, the project has been the subject of several major reviews by the federal Defense Nuclear Safety Board and the Department of Energy's office of Health, Safety and Security. Also, the Department of Energy's Inspector General launched an investigation into whether Bechtel used proper quality-control standards on key equipment installed in the plant.
The new Bechtel hire, Ward Sproat, worked on the Nevada's Yucca Mountain nuclear long-term storage project.
Signs that Y-12 dispute nearing a resolution? Frank Munger, Knox News February 8, 2012 Construction of Y-12's new high-security storage facility was completed in 2009, and it is now loaded with the nation's primary stockpile of bomb-grade uranium.
The project can't be put to bed, however, because of the ongoing dispute and litigation over construction costs associated with the $549 million Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility.
The construction team, headed by Caddell-Blaine Joint Venture, has about $60 million in claims pending in U.S. District Court, and B&W Y-12, managing contractor at the nuclear weapons plant, countersued and is seeking damages of its own. Both sides have accused the other of breach of contract, with no real progress reported over the past couple of years.
But that could be changing, based on news the parties have met in recent weeks.
OAK RIDGE, Tenn. -- The Y 12 National Security Complex is one of four production facilities in the National Nuclear Security Administration's Nuclear Security Enterprise. Its unique emphasis is the processing and storage of uranium and development of technologies associated with those activities. Decades of precision machining experience make Y-12 a production facility with capabilities unequaled nationwide.
Y-12's uranium expertise is a result of several decades of supporting the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile by creating components for every weapons program. As a result of Cold War processes to produce materials, environmental legacies exist, and the most widely recognized issue is mercury contamination. Approximately 2 million pounds of mercury was lost or unaccounted for during production in the 1950s and '60s, and many tons of the toxic metal ended up in the environment via spills, leaks, and discharges.
Y-12's daily discharges of mercury into East Fork Poplar Creek, the main waterway that traverses from the Y-12 site to the city of Oak Ridge, have declined significantly during the past 30 years, however much work remains to eliminate the problem.
"Our ultimate plan is to tear down the buildings, remediate the mercury sources in the soil, and address the groundwater," Cange said. "It's important that we accelerate this work, so in the near term we will identify projects that address surface water and others that will help prepare the buildings for eventual demolition."
NNSA Needs to Improve Guidance on Weapon Limitations and Planning for Its Stockpile Surveillance Program GAO Report February 8, 2012 For the 52 NNSA identified limitations for all weapons in the U.S. nuclear stockpile, 86 percent fall into six types: detonation safety under abnormal conditions, weapon reliability, weapon delivery, more frequent replacement of limited life components, nuclear yield, and worker safety. Some DOD officials expressed concern over the impact that certain weapon limitations have on weapon operation, maintenance, and war planning. According to DOD officials, current DOD mitigation actions, as well as the successful completion of ongoing and planned NNSA efforts, should address most limitations for which the officials raised concerns. DOD officials stated that the current stockpile allows sufficient flexibility to mitigate limitations. However, they told GAO that there may be less flexibility in the future as the stockpile continues to age and decreases in size. For each weapon system, NNSA provides DOD with guidance containing additional information on nuclear weapon limitations. However, GAO found that this guidance does not cover all limitations and some DOD officials said that it may not provide them with relevant information for some limitations. Specifically, the guidance addresses approximately 60 percent of all limitations but does not include limitations based on certain weapon components. In addition, one senior DOD official stated that the guidance did not help clarify the potential impact that a particular limitation may have on weapon operation and maintenance. The applicable military service is now conducting its own analysis of this limitation's potential impact. Furthermore, the national laboratories identified four existing weapon limitations (8 percent of all limitations) that are no longer valid because, among other reasons, corrective action to address the limitations is complete. In addition, it is uncertain if an ongoing DOD and NNSA review of nuclear weapon military requirements will be used to eliminate limitations based on potentially outdated military requirements. |
|
