ECA Update: August 28, 2012
Published: Tue, 08/28/12
|
Newest MOX plans to be revealed at Sept. 4 meeting
Rob Pavey, The Augusta Chronicle
August 27, 2012
Rob Pavey, The Augusta Chronicle
August 27, 2012
The newest options and plans for the government's plutonium disposal program - including the role of Savannah River Site - will be revealed during a Sept. 4 public meeting at the North Augusta Municipal Center.
The meeting, held by the U.S. Department of Energy, will be from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. and will focus on the most recent environmental impact studies related to the $4.8 billion mixed oxide plant under construction at SRS.
The MOX program, administered by the National Nuclear Security Administration, is part of an effort to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium - enough for about 17,000 nuclear bombs - by rendering it permanently inaccessible for use in weapons.
The plant will blend small amounts of plutonium with uranium to make fuel rods suitable for use in commercial reactors. The
government's main potential client, the Tennessee Valley Authority, has not made a formal decision on using the fuel.
government's main potential client, the Tennessee Valley Authority, has not made a formal decision on using the fuel.
According to the draft impact statement, the TVA might use MOX fuel in as many as five reactors at its Sequoyah and Browns Ferry nuclear plants but does not yet have a "preferred alternative" on how to proceed.
The MOX fuel will be made from the purest "weapons-grade" plutonium, but the government has about 13 metric tons of other plutonium that is not suitable for processing at the MOX plant.
One plan calls for sending the material to the government's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, where it would be permanently buried.
Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Plans at SRS Hit Another Obstacle; Plans for MOX in Boiling Water Reactors Can't Be Implemented before 2025
Thomas Clements, The Aiken Leader
August 23, 2012
Columbia, SC - A presentation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on experimental mixed oxide plutonium fuel (MOX) made from surplus weapons-grade plutonium reveals a major hurdle for the MOX program at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site. On August 8, NRC staff in the preliminary stages of licensing MOX plutonium fuel was informed by Global Nuclear Fuels (GNF) that MOX intended for use in boiling water reactors (BWRs) would need to undergo extensive testing, significantly delaying full-scale MOX production and use.
Global Nuclear Fuels, which makes BWR fuel at its facility in Wilmington, North Carolina, revealed that its licensing plan involves testing sixteen "lead use assemblies" (LUAs) between 2016 and 2025. MOX made from weapons-grade plutonium has never been tested or used in a BWR and the NRC agreed that such MOX was a "new fuel form" requiring multi-year testing in a reactor. During this test period, no commercial BWR MOX use could take place.
This news comes just as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting a series of hearings on its MOX plans, which fail to address GNF's extended testing schedule for the new fuel. At the first hearing on the DOE's Draft Surplus Plutonium Disposition Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS), in Los Alamos, NM, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability Director Susan Gordon stated "No MOX plant operational schedule is presented, no plan or schedule for MOX testing in Tennessee Valley Authority or "generic" reactors is presented and no schedule for full-scale use of MOX is presented. Therefore, no Record of Decision can be issued."
The PF-4 facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory is being eyed by DOE to process nuclear weapon plutonium "pits" in order to supply plutonium oxide for the MOX plant. This plan would result in increased risks associated with transporting and processing plutonium. Other public hearings on the Draft SEIS will be held in Santa Fe, NM on Aug. 23, North Augusta, SC on Sept. 4, Chattanooga, TN on Sept. 11 and Tanner, AL, near the Browns Ferry reactors, on Sept. 13.
The information from GNF will significantly delay full-scale operation of the $6-billion MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility now under construction at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in SC, increasing costs. The MOX facility has yet to receive an operating license from the NRC and a possible redesign to process plutonium "pits" not processed at Los Alamos will add to costs.
"The GNF announcement is confirmation that testing of experimental MOX fuel by TVA is required by the NRC and will result in significant delays for the MOX program," said Katherine Fuchs, Program Director of Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) in Washington, DC. "This confirms exactly what ANA has been saying and what DOE has been hiding - that required MOX testing will add billions in costs, and could render the entire MOX program untenable. Congressional funders already concerned about the troubled MOX program will not be pleased to hear about this setback."
GNF would provide the hardware and design specifications for MOX to be made in the SRS MOX plant, if it is finished and can be brought online. AREVA, the French government-owned plutonium company, would likely operate the MOX plant making the BWR MOX to GNF specifications.
The only BWRs being analyzed for MOX use are at the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry site (GE Mark I, Fukushima design), but the Draft SEIS makes the startling admission that "TVA does not have a preferred alternative at this time regarding whether to pursue irradiation of MOX fuel in TVA reactors and which reactors might be used for this purpose."
In its presentation, GNF states that its goal is to "Use LUAs to Demonstrate [Low Enriched Uranium] Equivalent Lifetime," which means that a test of experimental MOX made from weapons-grade plutonium would be conducted for the same period of time as that of uranium fuel: three two-year fuel cycles (six years). GNF states that it would test 16 LUAs. It is unknown if eight of these test assemblies would be the first assemblies that DOE plans to make in the MOX plant at the end of 2018. GNF estimates these same LUAs will be made at the end of Fiscal Year 2019. Notwithstanding the existing confusion surrounding the MOX program, DOE has refused to clarify if the first assemblies from the MOX plant at SRS would be for BWR or pressurized water reactors (PWRs) or for some unspecified "next-generation" reactor.
Given the required 6-year testing, there could be no commercial MOX use in BWRs before the tests are concluded in 2025. DOE stated in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget request to Congress (on page 392) that "Supplying BWR MOX fuel to the Browns Ferry BWR's would account for 50 percent of the MOX facility's production." If the NRC doesn't certify BWR MOX fuel until 2025 or later, full production at the MOX plant will be set-back for seven years or more. As the 60-year license for first Browns Ferry reactor expires in 2033, the schedule for MOX production, testing and use make it ever more difficult to pull off the program in the anticipated life of the MOX plant - 13 years as presented in the DOE's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request (on page 461) to fabricate 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium into MOX.
DOE has steadfastly refused to reveal the operational schedule of the MOX plant or program life-cycle costs to the public. ANA estimates that $15-20 billion are left to be spent on the MOX program, whereas disposing of plutonium as waste would cost around $3.4 billion.
DOE is also pursuing MOX use in TVA's Sequoyah pressurized water reactors, though it remains unclear if a new in-reactor test will be required to license MOX use for more than one or two 18-month cycles, compared to normal three cycles for uranium fuel.
DOE director wants Bechtel authority for vit plant cut
Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald
August 28, 2012
Bechtel National should be removed as the design authority for the Hanford vitrification plant, according to a memo from a key Hanford Department of Energy official overseeing engineering of the project.
Bechtel holds the Department of Energy contract to build the $12.2 billion plant, including serving as the design authority to establish the design requirements and make sure the design process is technically adequate. It also is assigned to design the plant.
"The behavior and performance of Bechtel Engineering places unnecessarily high risk that the WTP (Waste Treatment Plant) design will not be effectively completed, resulting in fully operational facilities," Gary Brunson, DOE engineering division director for the plant, wrote in the memo.
DOE continues to be frustrated with the lack of progress on the project as it continues to work with Bechtel to address ongoing technical issues, said DOE in a written response to the memo.
"Addressing these challenges effectively will require both additional work by the contractor, as well as improved oversight by the department," DOE said.
Brunson sent the memo Thursday to his supervisor, Delmar Noyes, the deputy DOE director for the project, and Scott Samuelson, manager of the DOE Hanford Office of River Protection.
It listed 34 instances and technical issues that erode confidence in Bechtel's ability to complete its work as the design authority, according to Brunson.
In some cases, Bechtel provided design solutions and technical advice to DOE that were factually incorrect, not technically viable, not safe for future plant operators or would cost more during operations than other solutions, the memo said.
In addition, some of the solutions Bechtel provided were more difficult or costly to verify than other alternatives or otherwise increased cost or lengthened the schedule to complete the plant, the memo said.
The issues have occurred since Bechtel began working on the project and illustrate its engineering department's general behavior and performance, Brunson wrote in the memo. Repair and rework of faulty design is leading to significant cost increases and lengthening the schedule, he wrote.
DOE recognizes that there are significant technical issues remaining at the plant, some of which have existed for many years, DOE said in its prepared statement released by spokeswoman Carrie Meyer. DOE provided the memo at the Herald's request as it continues to review it. Construction of the one-of-a-kind plant began 10 years ago as work continues on its design.
"The department takes seriously its role overseeing the safe design and delivery of the Waste Treatment Plant, and is continuing to work with Bechtel to address the ongoing technical issues," DOE said.
Construction has slowed on key parts of the plant to resolve technical issues with a mixing system for high-level radioactive waste in tanks within areas of the plant that will be too radioactive for workers to enter once operations start.
Bechtel has not developed a technically adequate and complete plan to resolve the mixing issues, including a contingency plan because of the high risks associated with design verification, Brunson wrote in his memo.
He recommended DOE remove Bechtel immediately as the design authority and establish an independent design authority to best represent the interests of DOE and the future operator of the vitrification plant.
DOE should retain the National Engineering Technology Laboratory to complete a feasibility study of using computational fluid dynamics, a model not used before for nuclear design verification, to verify the plant's mixing design, the memo said.
Brunson called for DOE also to assess strategies proposed by Bechtel to verify the design of tanks within the plant and recommend a preferred strategy based on cost, schedule to complete and schedule for starting the plant. The study should assess vessels already installed and those remaining to install, he said.
In addition, DOE management should always seek its engineering staff's advice to resolve design, construction and commissioning issues both in advance of and also in preference to the vit plant contractor and design authority, he wrote.
"Unlike the contractor, federal staff have no other motive than to represent the interests of the department and the taxpayer," he wrote.
Brunson is the latest technical official assigned to the vitrification plant as a DOE or contractor employee to raise issues.
Don Alexander, a DOE senior scientist at Hanford, successfully used DOE's differing professional opinion process, to raise issues about erosion and corrosion of metal in the plant over its 40-year lifetime. A panel of technical experts concluded in June that his concerns had merit, and testing is being planned.
In November 2011, Donna Busche, manager of environmental nuclear safety at the plant filed a federal whistleblower complaint after she said she raised issues related to nuclear operations at the plant. That followed action by the original whistleblower at the plant, Walter Tamosaitis, the former contractor research and technology manager on the project, who has a lawsuit in federal court against his employer, subcontractor URS.
DOE and Bechtel have been working to improve the safety culture on the project, including to ensure that scientists and engineers feel free to raise issues that may affect the future safe operation of the plant without fear of retribution.
"It's ... important to note that the successful completion of this important project depends on employees continuing to be able to freely raise concerns," DOE said in its statement in response to Brunson's memo.
Former U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher joins Livermore, Los Alamos labs' boards of governors
Lisa M. Krieger, Mercury News
August 27, 2012
Former U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher has been named an independent governor on the Boards of Governors of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Tauscher represented the 10th Congressional District, which included the San Ramon Valley, from 1997 to 2009.
She most recently was a special envoy for strategic stability and missile defense with the State Department from February through August and undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from June 2009 until February.
"Ms. Tauscher has a distinguished record as a seven-term member of Congress with expertise in national security matters and as an investment banker," said Norman J. Pattiz, chairman of the two management groups.
Tauscher is a strategic adviser with the legal services firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz and is also as vice-chairwoman designate of the Atlantic Council's Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security.
The appointment takes effect Sept. 17.
What's Inside The Suspect Nuclear Waste Tank At Hanford?
Jeff McMahon, Forbes
August 27, 2012
When news broke last week that radioactive material had been found outside of the inner containment wall of a double-hulled tank at the nuclear waste cleanup site in Hanford, Wa, most reports characterized the contents of the tank as "radioactive waste."
But that's more a category than a description.
The Energy Department has been eager to find out exactly what's in the tank, which received wastes from leaky single-walled tanks and from more than a half dozen facilities at the Hanford site, including nuclear reactors, plutonium processing plants, a PUREX plant, and laboratories.
DOE funded many studies to analyze the chemical compounds in the tank, determine whether they could corrode the stainless-steel walls, and to anticipate the effects of a spill. Here's some of what those studies found:
Hanford tank AY-102 contains 857,000 gallons of waste in the form of a brown sludge stewing from the heat of its own decay in a translucent yellow liquid at 110 to 135 degrees.
(The two deposits of highly radioactive material found this month between the walls of the tank are dry, according to DOE, and one of them is described as white. Officials plan to sample the material again in mid-September in the hope that its composition will reveal its source.)
The sludge inside the tank contains chunks of solids, many common metals--including aluminum, nickel, lead, silver, copper, titanium, and zinc--and other common elements. In 2001, DOE added sodium hydroxide and sodium nitrate to discourage the toxic sludge from corroding the tank. In a 2002 study, researchers found the sludge to be within standards that should not corrode the tank.
The most prominent radionuclides found within Tank AY-102, and their associated health risks, are:
-
URANIUM 235 and 238 are the natural isotopes of uranium commonly used in nuclear weapons and reactors. They are hazardous, according to the EPA because, "about 99 percent of the uranium ingested in food or water will leave a person's body in the feces, and the remainder will enter the blood. Most of this absorbed uranium will be removed by the kidneys and excreted in the urine within a few days. A small amount of the uranium in the bloodstream will deposit in a person's bones, where it will remain for years."
-
PLUTONIUM 238, 239, 240 and 241. Plutonium is not easily ingested, according to EPA, but if inhaled it can remain in the lungs or travel to the bones and liver.
-
STRONTIUM 90, a "bone-seeker" that the body mistakes for calcium and deposits in bones. A tiny amount of strontium 90 from the Fukushima disaster was found last year in milk in Hawaii.
-
CESIUM 137, a more familiar radionuclide from Fukushima fallout, is distributed throughout the body's soft tissues.
-
THORIUM is a widely available radioactive element championed by some as a safer nuclear-energy source. According to EPA, "studies have shown that inhaling thorium dust causes an increased risk of developing lung cancer, and cancer of the pancreas. Bone cancer risk is also increased because thorium may be stored in bone."
-
OTHER RADIONUCLIDES detected in one or more studies of Tank AY-102 include carbon 14, cobalt 60, selenium 79, technetium, antinomy, neptunium 237, americium 241 and curium 243/244.
The Hanford facility opened in 1943 to supply atomic materials to the Manhattan Project and was shut down in the 1960s. The government began its $12.2 billion cleanup of the site in 1989. There are 53 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste stored on the campus.
DOE IG Report: Tank Waste Feed Delivery System Readiness at the Hanford Site
DOE IG
August 23, 2012
The Department of Energy (Department) made progress in completing the waste feed delivery system to support operations of the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). We found that the Department had completed a number of waste feed delivery subprojects earlier than planned and was on track to complete other critical path activities. We noted, however, that a number of challenges remain for completing the construction and operation of the waste feed delivery system. Specifically, the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) that defines the specific WTP waste feed criteria and associated controls had not yet been finalized. Uncertainties with tank waste mixing and sampling could also impact the delivery of waste to the WTP. The Department was aware of these problems and told us that it had plans and strategies in place to mitigate the associated risks. The Department's ongoing actions to address risks with the WAC and tank waste feed and characterization are proactive. However, given the importance of treating, immobilizing and disposing of hazardous and highly radioactive waste, we made several suggestions to the Manager, Office of River Protection concerning areas that should be closely monitored.
DOE Awards Contract for WIPP Mobile Loading Unit Services
DOE Press Release
August 27, 2012
Cincinnati - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today awarded a competitive small business contract to Celeritex, LLC, (a Joint Venture between Project Services Group, LLC and DeNuke Contracting Services Inc.) of Suwanee, Georgia. The contract is to provide Mobile Loading Unit services in support of the National TRU Program and the DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. The contract has a value of up to $17.8 million, with a three-year performance period and two-one year extension options. This contract was limited to Small Businesses.
The Mobile Loading Unit contractor will load Contact Handled (CH) and Remote Handled (RH) Transuranic (TRU) waste containers into Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved packaging at various DOE and defense-related waste generator sites around the country for transportation and disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico.
There will be a 15-day transition period with Celeritex, LLC assuming responsibility for mobile loading services on November 1, 2012.
The DOE WIPP facility is designed to safely isolate defense-generated TRU waste from people and the environment. Waste temporarily stored at sites around the country is shipped to WIPP and permanently disposed in rooms mined out of an ancient salt formation 2,150 feet below the surface. WIPP began waste disposal operations in 1999. The facility is located 26 miles outside of Carlsbad, N.M.
Japanese Ministry to amend law to bury nuclear waste without reprocessing
Toru Nakagawa, The Asahi Shimbun
August 25, 2012
The industry ministry plans to amend legislation to allow for "direct disposal" of spent nuclear fuel, a move away from the nation's problem-plagued goal of creating a full nuclear fuel cycle, sources said.
Instead of recycling all spent fuel to promote the use of nuclear energy, some of it would be buried deep in the ground without reprocessing, the sources said.
No decision has been made on the location of a final disposal site, a problem that has proved a conundrum in many countries that operate nuclear power plants.
The ministry's plan comes amid pressure on the government to phase out nuclear energy following last year's disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant. The government has indicated it would gradually reduce Japan's dependence on nuclear energy, which would lessen the need to recycle the spent fuel.
To help decide on a new energy policy as early as in September, the government has proposed three options regarding the ratio of nuclear energy in power generation in 2030: zero percent, 15 percent and 20-25 percent.
It says spent nuclear fuel would be directly disposed of under the zero-percent scenario, while both reuse and direct disposal would be considered for the 15-percent and the 20- to 25-percent options.
No matter which option is adopted, the government plans to review its current policy of reusing all spent fuel from the nation's nuclear reactors.
But Japan's Designated Radioactive Waste Final Disposal Law currently presupposes the reuse of spent fuel and contains no provision on direct disposal.
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry concluded the law needs revisions to allow for direct disposal, and plans to submit an amendment bill to the ordinary Diet session that will open early next year.
Nuclear reactors in Japan produced about 1,000 tons of spent fuel annually before the Fukushima disaster.
Under the current Final Disposal Law, the government and the power industry will transfer the spent fuel to a reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, where reusable fissile substances will be extracted. The remainder, or "high-level radioactive waste," will be buried.
However, the recycling of spent nuclear fuel presupposes that more nuclear reactors will be built and the use of nuclear fuel will expand. There will no longer be a need to recycle spent fuel if the government decides to scrap all nuclear reactors by 2030.
The necessity of recycling will also diminish if the government decides to gradually reduce nuclear power to 15 percent or to maintain its share at 20-25 percent.
Construction of the reprocessing plant in Rokkasho began in 1993, followed by a succession of failures during trial runs. Full operation of the facility is nowhere in sight, which has put the entire nuclear fuel cycle policy at an impasse.
About 14,000 tons of spent fuel has piled up on the grounds of nuclear power plants across Japan. Storage spaces are expected to reach full capacity within four years at some nuclear plants if they continue to operate.
 |
|
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 |
|
ECA Bulletin |
|
Browse previous editions of the ECA Bulletin |