ECA Update: April 19, 2013
Published: Fri, 04/19/13
Detailed FY 2014 DOE/NNSA Budget Documents Now Available
ECA
BUDGET DOCUMENTS This week, the Department of Energy released detailed budget justifications for its fiscal year 2014 budget request. At the time of the initial budget release, on April 10, only top-level DOE budget information was available.
Key US senator blasts DOE 2014 budget request for fracking, nuclear waste R&D Platts April 18, 2013 The chairman of the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday criticized the Obama administration for failing to adequately fund research into making sure hydraulic fracturing and nuclear waste storage is safe.
During a hearing on the Department of Energy's fiscal 2014 budget request, Senator Ron Wyden said he would attempt to increase funding in those two areas through his committee and also through his work on the Senate Budget Committee.
"Budget priorities ought to also make sure that addressing problems that are already at hand, like fracking or spent nuclear fuel storage, are real priorities, not afterthoughts," the Oregon Democrat said.
Under the 2014 budget request, DOE would provide $17 million for research into the safety of the controversial process of fracking. Some environmental groups say the process leads to emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, and could taint groundwater.
"The $17 million budgeted for this program doesn't begin to reflect the importance of addressing the challenges of improving the way fracking is done and the implications that has for US energy production and competitiveness," Wyden said.
Shale gas deposits exploited through horizontal drilling and fracking have boosted US natural gas production to record highs.
In fact, the presumptive next energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, has said that while fracking is important for the US economy, it must be done safely and with oversight.
Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman, who testified on DOE's budget request, said the agency can get "big bang for the buck" in fracking research.
"The dollars that we have dedicated to this technology are the right dollars," Poneman said.
Wyden also said DOE's cut to nuclear research was wrong-headed in light of the administration's decision in 2010 to terminate the long-planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In the request, DOE would cut fuel-cycle research and development to $165 million in 2014, down from $181 million in 2012.
"In the wake of the decision to cancel the Yucca Mountain repository, it is hard to understand how it makes sense to reduce funding on the nuclear fuel-cycle program," Wyden said.
NNSA would see slight budget increase under president's 2014 proposal Mark Rockwell, Government Security News April 15, 2013 The agency that oversees the safety of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the U.S. and helps other countries reduce stocks of nuclear material that could pose a threat would get a slightly bigger budget to do those jobs in the president's proposed 2014 budget.
NNSA would get $11.7 billion under the budget plan, an increase of 1.6 percent over FY13, according to its acting administrator Neile Miller. The agency noted the budget in an April 12 post on its blog site.
Speaking before leaders of the communities that host NNSA facilities at the Energy Communities Alliance annual meeting in D.C. on April 12, Miller said the budget would reaffirm the administration's commitment to leading global efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism and ensure the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure and effective.
She also told community leaders her agency would focus on three core objectives to accomplish in 2013.
First, she said, NNSA's goal is to keep Americans safe, and noted that local communities are the "pillars that support our nuclear deterrent, nonproliferation, and counterterrorism efforts."
Secondly, NNSA, she said, is also modernizing, noting that some communities have seen an increase in construction jobs, subcontractor support, and changes to the nature and scope of work at NNSA facilities.
Thirdly, Miller said NNSA is looking for federal employees and Management & Operating Contractors to keep an eye on efficiency and accountability, adding that the agency has to do more with less. The agency, she said, owes it to the communities and taxpayers to rethink and revise wherever possible.
Senate Panel Approves Obama's Energy Secretary Nominee
Steve Walsh, Bloomberg April 18, 2013 The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the nomination of Ernest Moniz as secretary of the Energy Department, setting up a confirmation vote by the full Senate.
Moniz, whom President Barack Obama nominated for the position last month, heads the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Institute and serves on the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.
The panel's vote was 21-1, with South Carolina Republican Tim Scott the only opposition. Moniz, 68, faced questions at an April 9 hearing on issues including natural gas export licenses, renewable energy and the Energy Department's handling of radioactive waste.
"He knows how the department works from the inside," Chairman Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said today in favor of Moniz's nomination. He will "make sure our country doesn't lose its competitive edge, particularly to China."
Moniz served as undersecretary of energy from 1997 to 2001 and has advised the Obama administration on energy issues. From 1995 to 1997 he was associate director for science in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Issues before the Energy Department include hydraulic fracturing in shale rock, which has driven down costs for natural gas and boosted U.S. manufacturers that use natural gas as a fuel or ingredient for their products. The department is reviewing more than 16 applications from companies that want to export some of the U.S.'s growing natural gas reserves.
Moniz, who joined Cambridge, Massachusetts-based MIT as a physics professor in 1973, is founding director and head of the MIT Energy Initiative, a forum created in 2006 for conducting global energy research largely funded by energy companies.
He was a member of Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, which issued a report in January 2012 that studied long-term solutions to nuclear waste, excluding the proposed Yucca Mountain site.
Reid appoints former NRC chief Jaczko to nuclear panel Zack Colman, The Hill April 18, 2013 Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory Jaczko was appointed Thursday to a new panel charged with monitoring the agency that oversees the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tapped Jaczko -- a former aide for the Nevada Democrat -- for the position with the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise.
The panel was created by the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Its purpose is to make recommendations for improving operations at the Energy Department's (DOE) nuclear weapons agency.
Those suggestions regarding the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will be revealed in a report that's due by February, 2014.
Jaczko has kept a low profile following an unceremonious departure from the NRC in which he resigned his post following allegations that he verbally abused staff.
His appointment to the 12-member panel, as well as a book deal he signed with Simon and Schuster on Wednesday about "Jaczko's controversial years as the top nuclear regulator in the country," will change that.
The controversial former NRC chairman's appointment to the panel will likely rile conservatives.
Republicans criticized what they said was a unilateral decision by Jaczko -- with Reid's backing -- to pull the plug on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in 2009.
GOP lawmakers said the move violated federal law, which identifies the site as the nation's permanent location for nuclear waste.
Jaczko contended the NRC lacked the funds to carry out the necessary review of the Energy Department's application to use the Nevada site as the nation's long-term nuclear waste storage center.
Energy Department Announces New Investment in Nuclear Fuel Storage Research DOE Press Release April 16, 2013 WASHINGTON - As part of its commitment to developing an effective strategy for the safe and secure storage and management of used nuclear fuel, the Energy Department today announced a new dry storage research and development project led by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The project will design and demonstrate dry storage cask technology for high burn-up spent nuclear fuels that have been removed from commercial nuclear power plants.
"The Energy Department is committed to advancing clean, reliable and safe nuclear power - which provides the largest source of low-carbon electricity in the United States," said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Pete Lyons. "At the same time, the Department is working to address the challenges of the back end of the fuel cycle, including advancing secure and reliable extended storage and dry cask technologies."
In the nuclear energy industry, burn-up relates to the power extracted from reactor fuels. Over the last few years, many improvements have been made in fuel technologies which have allowed plant operators to achieve higher burn-up levels, almost doubling the amount of energy captured. The Energy Department has studied the current long-term dry cask systems used to store spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors, and has identified areas for continued research and data collection related to the storage of high burn-up spent fuel. The research project led by EPRI will focus on studying these issues. The Department will invest $15.8 million over five years, with private industry contributing at least 20 percent of the total project cost.
This work builds on the steps the Department is taking in FY 2013, and has proposed for FY 2014, to support a new strategy for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. In the Energy Department's budget request presented last week, the Department requested $60 million for nuclear waste research and development that aligns with the recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future and supports to the Administration's Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste. The request includes funds to lay the groundwork for the design of an integrated waste management system as well as related research and development on storage, transportation and materials issues.
Find the Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste and additional information on the Office of Nuclear Energy's efforts to develop used nuclear fuel management strategies and technologies at www.energy.gov/ne.
Nuclear Energy Radiating on Capitol Hill Ken Silverstein, Forbes April 17, 2013 Nuclear energy is back in the hot seat. U.S. lawmakers want to know more about the emergency response plans in place if a nuclear accident were to occur as well as what the game plan is to find radioactive nuclear fuel a permanent home.
Both issues have held high profiles within nuclear energy circles for decades. But some reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) are now making the rounds on Capitol Hill, creating a ripple effect with the various stakeholders. While nuclear power here has a proven safety record, the public must be assured that its officials have considered all the contingencies.
Meantime, the topic of fuel storage is still sizzling. Scientists have studied and fees were paid to place the spent fuel in Yucca Mountain that is 90 miles outside of Las Vegas. But the Obama administration ceased that effort, citing engineers who said that groundwater could leak into where the material would be stored. He then appointed a blue ribbon commission to present new solutions.
With that, industry set out to either force action at Yucca Mountain or to facilitate a new permanent storage site. Meantime, that blue ribbon panel that is part of the U.S. Department of Energy has suggested two interim storage facilities. But the GAO, a congressional watchdog agency, is dousing that option.
"Interim storage could also provide the nation with some flexibility to consider alternative policies or new technologies," says GAO, in its analysis. "However, interim storage faces several challenges." It is questioning the Energy Department's legal authority here, although key U.S. Senators are considering legislation that would facilitate such goals.
The report then goes on to say that most communities would be apprehensive to have radioactive materials at their doorstep. And even if some were amenable, their state governments may not be, fearing that such interim hosting could turn into an indefinite time period. Lastly, GAO says that transporting the waste to any resting spot would also create logistical impediments.
The leading U.S. nuclear operators are taking legal action to retrieve the roughly $15 billion to $20 billion in fees paid since 1982 to develop Yucca Mountain: Dominion Resources D +0.79%, Duke Energy DUK +0.12%, Entergy ETR +1.58% Corp., Exelon Corp., PSEG Corp. and Southern Co. At present, 120 nuclear waste storage facilities exist in 39 states that hold 70,000 tons of spent fuel, which is growing at 2,000 metric tons a year.
"A new strategy is needed, not just to address these damages and costs but because this generation has a fundamental ethical obligation to avoid burdening future generations with the entire task of finding a safe permanent solution for managing hazardous nuclear materials they had no part in creating," says the Energy Department's blue ribbon panel.
While the report focuses more on finding long-term storage for radioactive waste, it also considered the reprocessing of such fuel. Panelists held out hope for the eventual re-use of those byproducts but concluded that any real solutions are decades away. The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board concurs, adding that reprocessing may reduce nuclear waste but it does not yet eliminate it.
About three-quarters of the used material is in "spent fuel pools" while a quarter is in above-ground steel-encased dry casks. The risk with respect to the "wet" storage is centered on what happened at Japan's Fukushima plant, where the auxiliary power failed and the pools dried up. If that happens, fires can spread and radiation can leak.
Transferring the spent fuel from wet to dry storage would allow the waste to be stored for decades longer or until a permanent home could be found, says GAO, in an earlier report. That would also reduce the risk of "pool fires" and the spread of radiation. It adds that moving the fuel from spent fuel pools to dry casks is safe and that this should be "accelerated."
The Fukushima disaster along with the need to find a home for used nuclear fuel is pushing the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to better their emergency responses in case of radiation leaks. They are charged with ensuring that plant owners and operators as well as state and local officials are equipped with the information and the tools they need to evacuate those within a 10-mile radius of an accident.
The GAO is giving good marks to those 10-mile response systems, saying that the primary health risk in those zones is exposure to radiation. But the watchdog is expressing concerns about the protocols for those outside of that circumference: The lack of public awareness there may create mass confusion.
"It is unknown to what extent the public in these areas is aware of these emergency preparedness procedures, and how they would response in the event of a radiological emergency," says GAO.
In 1978, a year before Three Mile Island, officials created not just the 10-mile rule but also the 50-mile "exposure pathway." Those distant communities would need to know the dangers from ingesting contaminated food and water.
After Fukushima, lawmakers and regulators wanted to review the whole convention. While the plant owners are responsible for managing efforts to limit the fallout of radiation leaks on site, it is FEMA that is in charge of off-site activities. It is working with state and local officials to keep the public up-to-speed and to form centers from which all activities would be coordinated.
For its part, the NRC stand by the current standards. If an actual scare did occur, it says that history has shown that a mass exodus resulting in total chaos does not happen if the protocols are rehearsed and communities are knowledgable. It studied Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
"Based on the research, NRC has confidence that show evacuations generally have no significant impact on traffic movement and concludes that the licensee's current emergency planning bases continue to provide reasonable assurance protection," says R.W. Borchardt, executive director of operations for the NRC.
The GAO is less confident. It says that more information is needed, specifically just what the public knows and how all the people living around a nuclear facility might respond. If the migration rate outside of the 10-mile zone were greater than 20 percent, it fears that those living inside that radius could get trapped.
The conversations about where to store spent fuel and how communities would respond in the event of radiation leaks are healthy. The issues are interconnected and each must get a thorough public airing. The objective here is to satisfy concerns and to earn the trust of those communities that would host future nuclear power power plants or their spent fuel
Ensuring the Safety of Spent Fuel in Storage NRC Blog April 16, 2013 Mark Lombard
Director, Office of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation While no one can say with certainty today where spent nuclear fuel will ultimately go for long-term storage or disposal, one thing is clear: the current methods of spent fuel storage are safe.
Managing the "back end" of the nuclear fuel cycle - what happens to the fuel after it is taken out of a reactor - may never be completely separated from political and economic considerations. But the technical challenges are fairly straightforward. Spent fuel is hot. And it is extremely radioactive. It must be kept cool and it must be shielded to protect workers, the public and the environment. It must also be properly controlled to prevent it from achieving a sustained nuclear chain reaction, also known as going critical.
The NRC has updated its Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel fact sheet, which explains the two major ways spent fuel is managed - in pools and in dry cask storage. The fact sheet explains the regulatory requirements, inspections and monitoring that ensure spent fuel is managed safely. It also details improvements the NRC has made to address concerns raised by the accident at Japan's Fukushima plant and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
An NRC backgrounder, Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, provides more detail on how this management strategy evolved, the basic requirements for dry storage, different licensing options and opportunities for public input.
A great deal more information on spent nuclear fuel storage is also available on the NRC's website. We encourage you to read about our activities in this area and post your questions, comments and concerns below.
Heinrich wants DOE to assure LANL cleanup Michael Coleman, ABQ Journal April 19, 2013 WASHINGTON - Sen. Martin Heinrich sought assurances Thursday from the Department of Energy about waste cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory and warned his Senate colleagues that planned reductions in nuclear weapons wouldn't necessarily mean big savings for taxpayers.
The New Mexico Democrat, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, made the remarks at a committee hearing to examine the budget of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Daniel Poneman, the department's deputy secretary, told Heinrich the Energy Department is committed to cleaning up radioactive and other wastes at LANL as required under a binding agreement with the state.
"We are firmly committed to meeting our objectives," Poneman said, noting that final spending amounts for LANL cleanup could fluctuate as Congress grapples with the effects of the sequester, or broad budget cuts that went into effect in March as part of debt reduction deal Congress reached in 2011.
The Obama administration's proposed federal budget unveiled last week included a $31.8 million increase for cleanup of radioactive and other wastes at LANL. Heinrich and Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., have asked for more, but there is no guarantee Congress will go along.
For the 2014 fiscal year, Obama has requested $219.8 million for "defense environmental cleanup" at LANL, including about $4 million for administration. That's up from $188 million in the current budget year.
On a separate issue, Heinrich stressed Thursday that reductions in nuclear warheads planned as part of the U.S.-Russia New START Treaty will not necessarily mean sharp reductions at Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories. Funding for New Mexico's nuclear labs has become a top-tier agenda item for the state's congressional delegation in light of the nation's dire federal budget outlook.
"The relationship between reducing those numbers (of weapons) and the cost savings they may or may not incur is not all linear," Heinrich said. "As long as we have one nuclear weapon, we'll need the infrastructure."
Heinrich said America's decision not to test nuclear weapons, which he called "good policy," means the stockpile must be evaluated with expensive computers.
"It's more expensive to have supercomputers to make sure (nuclear weapons) remain safe, secure and reliable," Heinrich said. "It (planned warhead reductions) won't necessarily create an enormous savings to be able to spend on other priorities."
The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee is expected to begin work on the fiscal year 2014 nuclear weapons budget next week.
S.C. backing of Holtec International's SMR bid could bring jobs early Chuck Crumbo, GSA Business April 16, 2013 Holtec International, which won South Carolina's backing in its efforts to receive a federal grant to develop a small modular reactor at the Savannah River Site, said the agreement could lead to the creation of up to 500 jobs in the Palmetto State before a unit is ever built.
The jobs would be tied to manufacturing dry storage casks used to store nuclear waste at commercial power plants in South Carolina, said Pierre Oneid, Holtec's senior vice president and chief nuclear officer.
Oneid offered the remarks during an interview at this morning's opening of the third annual Nuclear Insider SMR Conference at the Columbia Marriott. The two-day event has drawn about 300 nuclear industry leaders.
Holtec, a global supplier of equipment and systems for energy providers, is one of three companies seeking up to $226 million in the second round of funding from the U.S. Department of Energy to design, license and help develop a commercial version of a small modular reactor -- commonly referred to as SMR.
"We have an initiative to bring manufacturing jobs much before the SMR would be developed in South Carolina and that's in the dry storage," said Oneid, who's also president of Holtec's SMR division.
Holtec, based in Marlton, N.J., has a contract to provide dry storage units for the V.C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in Fairfield County, which is jointly owned by South Carolina Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper.
The company is seeking similar agreements for dry storage units at six other reactor units in South Carolina and the Savannah River Site, Oneid added.
If Holtec earns the additional business, it could lead to locating a manufacturing facility for dry storage units in South Carolina much sooner than building a factory for a SMR unit, Oneid said.
He added Holtec's goal is to have a dry storage manufacturing facility in the state in the next three years.
The total number of jobs could range from 200 to 400, Oneid said. If Holtec lands the SRS business, the total could reach 500, he added.
The possibility of Holtec building a factory to build dry storage units was one reason why NuHub, the commercial nuclear advocacy group in the Midlands, and the state of South Carolina agreed to back Holtec's bid for the federal funding, said Sonny White, co-chair of NuHub and president of Midlands Technical College.
In the first round, NuHub and the state backed both Holtec and a competitor - NuScale Power of Corvallis, Ore. That's because Holtec and NuScale have agreements to develop a SMR unit at the Savannah River Site.
"What we've always said is that this whole initiative is about job creation," White said. "The jobs come regardless of what happens to SMR."
In November, Charlotte-based Babcock & Wilcox received the first award from the Energy Department to design, license and help develop a commercial version of a small modular reactor in partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bechtel International.
Then, in March, the Energy Department announced it would offer a second grant of up to $226 million to another vendor to develop a small modular reactor to be licensed and in commercial operation by 2025.
The Energy Department said it favors SMR designs that can be made in factories and hauled to sites where they would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival.
NuHub and the state are backing SMR development because the units could be built in South Carolina and exported through the Port of Charleston to overseas markets. Experts believe annual sales of SMR units could reach $50 billion and the creation of thousands of jobs.
Holtec's SMR is a 160-megawatt pressurized water reactor that has been designed to withstand severe natural disasters by relying on gravity under all operating and emergency conditions.
Another vendor seeking federal funding for its SMR project is Westinghouse Electric, designer of the two AP1000 reactor units being built at the Summer nuclear plant.
The Pittsburgh-based company, which operates a nuclear fuel manufacturing facility in Columbia, is developing a 225-megawatt integral pressurized water reactor at Ameren Missouri's Callaway Energy Center near Jefferson City.
NuScale's project is scalable. Each reactor unit can generate 45 megawatts and up to 12 units can be co-located at one site.
NuScale Power has the financial backing and technical assistance of Fluor Corp., a multibillion-dollar global engineering firm with a history of more than 60 years in the nuclear new-build market.
Federal regulators in South Carolina scheduled to discuss progress at mixed-oxide fuel plant Associated Press April 17, 2013 COLUMBIA, South Carolina -- Federal regulators are in South Carolina to discuss progress at a delayed, over-budget project to turn weapons-grade plutonium into commercial reactor fuel.
Representatives from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are meeting Wednesday at the Savannah River Site to talk about the mixed-oxide fuel, or MOX, fabrication facility.
The plant is part of a nonproliferation effort, with the United States and Russia committed to disposing of at least 34 metric tons each of weapons-grade plutonium.
Last month, the NRC gave good marks to progress on the project, which was originally slated for completion in 2016. But the General Accountability Office says the plant is more than three years behind that deadline and is also now expected to cost $3 billion more than expected.
Hastings criticizes DOE for poor communication Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald April 17, 2013 The Department of Energy is not answering Rep. Doc Hastings' questions on the Hanford vitrification plant, he said in prepared remarks for a speech to the Energy Communities Alliance.
DOE must increase transparency and be prepared to answer basic questions about the $12.2 billion plant under construction if Congress is to continue investing taxpayer money in the plant, he said.
He also questioned why DOE was taking so long to release its reprogramming plans, which could affect Hanford jobs, and the slow process to transfer unneeded Hanford land for economic development. He delivered the speech Friday in Washington, D.C. His remarks were distributed this week.
For almost a year Hastings has asked for details in writing to outline the schedule, cost and work to be done associated with DOE's plan to test and resolve vitrification plant technical issues, Hastings said. Questions have been raised about the safety and efficiency of eventual plant operations, including whether there could be an uncontrolled nuclear reaction or a buildup of flammable gases.
Most recently DOE said that outgoing Energy Secretary Steven Chu's expert panels are working on these issues, Hastings said.
"This work, though, has taken place behind closed doors," he said.
Those with information on the work have been required to sign nondisclosure agreements.
Advocates of environmental cleanup of federal weapons sites such as Hanford, including those in Congress and in communities, need complete information to be successful in efforts to advance work, Hastings said.
He also waiting is on DOE to submit its reprogramming package to Congress, which will outline DOE plans to switch appropriated federal money among Hanford programs or among cleanup sites across the nation.
"Cleanup progress, as well as jobs, in all of our communities will be impacted by this reprogramming package," Hastings said. "It's simply not fair to EM (environmental management) sites, workers or communities for the administration to continue holding up the reprogramming package."
Workers at the vitrification plant have been warned to prepare for two weeks of furlough this summer as officials wait to see whether reprogramming could help resolve budget difficulties.
Hastings also discussed the need for a fair and timely process to ensure that land no longer needed by DOE is transferred out of federal control to be used for other purposes.
"In my view, local communities must not only have input, but must have real authority over decisions about future land use," he said. "The federal government should not be in the business of dictating to our communities how and when this land can best be used."
In 2011, Hastings said he was encouraged that DOE was prepared to begin taking steps required to transfer some unneeded Hanford land just north of Richland for industrial use based on a request from the Tri-City Development Council.
"Two years later, that transfer is still pending," Hastings said. "There is no reason why proposals to make good use of land no longer needed by the federal government should be held up in Washington, D.C., for years."
DOE offered no comment on the lack of communication with Hastings, his concerns about reprogramming or why the land transfer is taking so long.
However, it released a statement saying that DOE continues to support and work toward the transfer of a portion of the site's designated industrial land to TRIDEC for diversification of the local economy and will work with the community as future land use decisions are made. Some of Hastings' remarks were more positive.
Hanford has made national news this winter and spring after six underground tanks were discovered to be leaking radioactive waste.
Perspective on the leaks is important, Hastings said. The amount of waste leaking from the tanks now is minute compared to the amount of waste that has spilled and leaked from the tanks over the past decades that plutonium was produced at Hanford.
News about the tanks also has overshadowed accomplishments at Hanford, he said.
There was no plan 15 years ago for cleaning up waste and contamination along the Columbia River. Now that work is almost 90 percent done, he said.
At the Plutonium Finishing Plant, 77 percent of contaminated glove boxes have been removed and across Hanford, 4 billion gallons of contaminated groundwater has been treated, he said.
Budget boost possible for some Hanford work in 2014 Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald April 17, 2013 Work at Hanford's tank farms and Plutonium Finishing Plant would ramp up under the Obama administration's proposed budget for fiscal 2014.The overall proposed budget was released April 10, but Wednesday, the administration released details of how money it is requesting would be spent on individual Hanford nuclear reservation projects.
Department of Energy officials refused to discuss the budget proposal, despite information in it that apparently contradicts other recent information from DOE.
The overall budget proposal is about $2.2 billion, about the same as the site's budget in 2012. The budget for the current fiscal year is based on a continuing resolution that continues fiscal 2012 budget amounts, but with a reduction for sequestration.
To increase spending at the tank farms and Plutonium Finishing Plant, the proposed budget for other work was reduced, including money for the vitrification plant and for cleaning up contaminated groundwater.
At the tank farms, spending would be increased from $442 million in fiscal 2012 to $520 million for fiscal 2014.The money would be used to complete retrieval of radioactive waste from the 16 underground tanks in the group called C Tank Farm. The tanks are required to be emptied to regulatory standards in fiscal 2014 to meet a court-enforced consent decree.
Money also would be used to start work to retrieve waste from tanks that DOE wants to classify as transuranic waste to allow it to be sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a national repository in New Mexico, rather than sending it to the vitrification plant as high-level radioactive waste once the plant begins operating.
DOE has six tanks newly discovered to be leaking waste into the ground and believes five of them could be classified as transuranic waste -- a plan that would require New Mexico to modify the repository permit before the waste could be shipped.
The proposed budget also would include completion of a report on possible supplemental technologies to treat tank waste that the vitrification plant, as designed, will not be able to vitrify in a reasonable time.
DOE has said that supplemental technologies could save money, but regulators are skeptical that technologies adequately would protect the environment after treated low-activity waste is disposed of at Hanford.
The increase also would support ventilation system upgrades to help prevent the possibility of an explosion of flammable gases and would help prepare for the delivery of waste to the vitrification plant once it begins operating.
At the Plutonium Finishing Plant, the proposed budget would increase from $99 million in fiscal 2012 to almost $143 million in fiscal 2014. The money would be used to continue work to remove glove boxes and other highly contaminated equipment and prepare the plant for demolition.
The budget for protecting and cleaning groundwater is proposed to drop from about $191 million in fiscal 2012 to about $142 million in fiscal 2014.The decrease reflects the completion of construction and startup of Hanford's largest and most complex groundwater treatment system, the 200 West Groundwater Treatment Facility.
At the vitrification plant, the budget would decrease from $740 million to $690 million, the amount long planned for annual spending at the plant during construction and commissioning.
No construction would be done on the plant's Pretreatment Facility in fiscal 2014 under the proposed budget as work continues to resolve technical issues. However, construction would continue on other major facilities at the plant.
In other work, the proposed budget says that $327 million for work to clean up the area along the Columbia River would cover completion of cleanup of the 618-10 burial ground, one of Hanford's most hazardous burial grounds. However, last week DOE said the work would not be completed in fiscal 2014.The proposed budget also includes almost $99 million for work at the K Basins. That would include beginning retrieval of bulk radioactive sludge from underwater containers in the K West Basin, according to the proposed budget. However, because of sequestration, work to build an annex needed for that transfer has been paused this year.
National nuclear waste board hears local Hanford concerns Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald April 16, 2013 The vitrification plant will not address all of Hanford's high-level radioactive waste, including waste that has leaked from tanks, officials told the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board on Tuesday.
The board met in Richland and spent much of the day focused on vitrification of waste, including what to do with vitrified waste and used nuclear fuel with no national repository for high-level waste available. The board was formed in 1987 to offer technical advice on nuclear waste management to Congress and the energy secretary.
But with the focus on vitrification, other Hanford waste is at risk of slipping under the radar, said Ken Niles, representing the state of Oregon, as he and other regional officials addressed the board about Hanford concerns.
The federal Department of Energy is required to vitrify, or glassify, high-level radioactive waste now held in underground tanks from the past processing of irradiated fuel to produce plutonium for weapons.
But in the past, at least 1 million gallons of waste from those tanks has leaked or spilled into the soil, Niles said.
The state of Washington considers the leaks to be high-level radioactive waste, said Suzanne Dahl, representing the Washington State Department of Ecology.
But DOE has been fairly clear it intends to leave most of it in the soil where it is, Niles said.
DOE has indicated it may be able to remove or immobilize some of the leaked waste in the soil, but is interested in leaving mostly emptied tanks in the ground rather than digging them up. That could make addressing the contaminated soil beneath the tanks problematic.
Studies to address contaminated soil deep underground are in early stages and have been limited by budget reductions, Niles said.
At least six tanks have been newly discovered to be leaking, Niles said. Although they now are releasing relatively small amounts of radioactive waste into the ground in central Hanford, there is no assurance that will be the case in two weeks, two years or two decades, he said.
The leaking tanks "are the canary in the coal mine," said Pam Larsen, the executive director of Hanford Communities, an organization of local governments. "They need treatment as soon as possible.
"Hanford also has nearly 2,000 containers of radioactive cesium and strontium that was removed from waste in Hanford's tanks in the 1970s to reduce heat in the tanks, regional speakers said.
There has been discussion of blending the waste into the high-level waste being glassified at the vitrification plant. But there's also been a proposal to store the waste until more of its radioactivity naturally decays and then allow it to be disposed in a landfill for radioactive waste, Niles said.
However, the state of Oregon believes that it should go to a national deep geological repository, when one is developed, for high-level radioactive waste, Niles said.
In addition, Hanford already has 34 logs of vitrified waste, said Allyn Boldt, representing Hanford Challenge, a Hanford watchdog group.
The waste was vitrified for studies planned in Germany in the '80s, but never left Hanford, Niles said. The vitrified logs should go to a deep geological repository, he said.
The technical review board also needs to remember that in addition to tank leaks and spills, 450 billion gallons of contaminated liquids were poured into the ground, Larsen said. As a result, contaminated groundwater is a significant problem.
The state of Washington expects DOE to make good on its commitment to transform all 56 million gallons of tank waste into a waste form that's as protective of the environment as glass, Dahl said.
Plans call for separating tank waste into low-activity and high-level radioactive waste streams for separate treatment at the vitrification plant. However, as planned now, the vitrification plant could not treat all the low-activity waste in a reasonable time.The low-activity waste would contain most of the chemicals and 5 percent of the tank waste radioactivity. Once treated it would be disposed of at Hanford rather than sent to a deep geological repository.
DOE agreed to vitrify Hanford's low-activity waste in the '90s in exchange for delaying work on the vitrification plant, Dahl said. The state later agreed to let DOE investigate other waste forms than glass, but DOE did not prove by a 2006 deadline that any other form would be protective enough of the environment to allow drinking water standards to be met, she said.
More recently an extensive environmental study, the Hanford Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement, found that grouting or steam reforming the low-activity waste would violate water standards eventually, Dahl said.
Russell Jim, representing the Yakama Nation, which has treaty rights at Hanford, said the tribe has not agreed that high-level radioactive waste can be reclassified as low-activity waste.
|
|
