Re: FFTF not dead yet ...

[Susan Gawarecki <loc@ICX.NET>]

The news article quoted by Jaro said:



> ``It was an outrage that a final decision on FFTF was hastily reached in

> the last days of the Clinton administration without formally soliciting

> interest'' from third parties, Hastings said.



This statement is simply NOT TRUE.  DOE released a document to solicit

input for this decision - Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (PEIS) for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy

Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United

States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF)

[DOE/EIS-0310D, July 2000].  The LOC's Citizens' Advisory Panel read

this and sent extensive comments.  The CAP opposed restart of the FFTF

for a number of reasons, three of which I mention here:



1. It would be overly expensive to upgrade the facility and

documentation necessary for restart (experts in the Research Reactors

Division at ORNL estimate that $250 million to $300 million will be

required to upgrade the equipment and safety documentation at FFTF).  



2. It would be more cost effective to upgrade existing facilities at Oak

Ridge (High Flux Isotope Reactor) and INEEL (Advanced Test Reactor) that

can do the same work (based on more realistic projected demands for

medical isotopes -- no other independent source supported DOE's inflated

estimates).



3. With respect to the materials irradiation mission, the following

comments apply:

·	There are currently eight sites available for this purpose at the HFIR

and several more at the ATR.  Currently most of these irradiation sites

are not utilized at all or are only partially utilized. 

·	Since almost all current and future power reactors being discussed for

use in the United States have a thermal spectrum, the Fast Flux Test

Facility, which uses a fast neutron spectrum, is not a suitable facility

for testing materials for use in these reactors.



There were a number of other comments, and those I cited were somewhat

expanded on.  I would be happy to e-mail the CAP's comments to anyone

who is interested.  Frankly, the PEIS looked to us like a thinly veiled

attempt to get the FFTF restarted so DOE's Nuclear Energy program would

have a big facility to focus on.  We felt that the rationale was not

solid, the analysis omitted a number of sensible alternatives, and the

huge cost is not justified in light of available alternatives.



As you all know, neither I nor my organization are anti-nuclear, so our

comments were based on reading the literature, weighing options, and

consulting with reactor research scientists.  If there is a different,

compelling, perspective that we've not considered, I would be interested

in hearing those arguments.



Regards,

Susan

-- 

.....................................................

Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director

Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee

                       -----                       

A schedule of meetings on DOE issues is posted on our Web site

http://www.local-oversight.org/meetings.html - E-mail loc@icx.net

.....................................................

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.