Gov't Nears Nuke Material Decision

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>]

Index:



Gov't Nears Nuke Material Decision

Security fears, cost at issue in storing nuclear waste

Alternatives to fast breeder reactor emerging

=================================



Gov't Nears Nuke Material Decision



WASHINGTON (AP) - Pending a final environmental review, the Energy 

Department is expected to move as much as several tons of plutonium 

and weapons-grade uranium from a federal research laboratory in New 

Mexico to Nevada because of security concerns, according to 

documents.



In a department memo, John C. Browne, director of the Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, called the proposed move ``the best overall 

decision to meet the post-September 11th challenges for the long-term 

security of nuclear activities.''



An Energy Department spokesman, Bryan Wilkes, said that while no 

final decision has been made, moving the material to the Nevada Test 

Site is the preferred option being studied to increase security. The 

environmental study is being reviewed, he said.



Several tons of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, which could be 

used to make an atomic bomb, are kept at Technical Area-18 at the Los 

Alamos lab in New Mexico where critics have said it cannot be 

adequately protected.



``There is no doubt that that facility was at high risk. They simply 

could not defend it,'' said Pete Stockton, an analyst for the Project 

on Government Oversight, a private watchdog group that Sunday 

released a copy of the Browne memo and other documents involving the 

expected move.



Built in the 1940s, Technical Area-18 is located at the bottom of a 

steep canyon, where the high ground and an adjacent highway makes the 

site difficult to defend.



In repeated security exercises, troops have been unable to protect 

the material. In a 1997 exercise, Army Special Forces posing as 

attackers wheeled away a garden cart full of props representing the 

nuclear material. In another test, attackers obtained access to the 

facility where they could detonated an explosion, had they been 

terrorists.



Had actual material been stolen it would have been enough to make 

several weapons, said Stockton, who three years ago chaired a DOE 

team that recommended to then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson that 

the material be moved. Richardson ordered the environmental studies 

into moving the material.



Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a frequent critic of security at federal 

weapons facilities, urged the department to complete the move as 

quickly as possible and safeguard the material from potential 

terrorists.



POGO, which has criticized DOE security of nuclear weapons material, 

obtained a draft press release from the National Nuclear Security 

Administration, an agency within the DOE, that indicated that plans 

are going forward to move the material to Nevada with a decision 

anticipated next month.



Everett H. Beckner, deputy NNSA administrator, has given his approval 

to begin design activities and other steps to implement the move, 

according to a memo obtained by POGO.



The material is part of a research project in which scientists 

examine how electronic components of nuclear weapons respond to 

small, short-lived nuclear detonations.



On the Net:



Project on Government Oversight: http://www.pogo.org



National Nuclear Security Administration: http://www.nnsa.doe.gov



Los Alamos National Laboratory: http://www.lanl.gov

-----------------



Security fears, cost at issue in storing nuclear waste



SAN FRANCISCO Aug 11 (Reuters) - Even if a permanent site for storing 

nuclear waste opens as planned in 2010, the spent radioactive fuel 

that will pile up at U.S. reactors in the years to come raises grave 

new security risks, safety issues, and costs to consumers.



Last month, after 12 years of protests and legal wrangling, President 

Bush signed legislation to make Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert 

the permanent storage site for the nation's used nuclear fuel.



But even if Yucca Mountain opens on schedule in 2010, which some 

doubt, 70 of the nation's 103 nuclear reactors will have already run 

out of space in on-site water pools used for waste storage, the 

Washington, D.C.-based industry group Nuclear Energy Institute said.



As a consequence, utilities have been scrambling to build special 

large canisters, known as dry casks, at their reactor sites.



The problem is the dry casks present even a worse security risk than 

the water pools, heightening security concerns during America's 

declared "war on terrorism" in the wake of last September's attacks 

on New York and Washington



"You still have the reactor as a hazard, you still have the spent 

fuel in the pool as a hazard, and you're adding spent fuel in dry 

casks as a third hazard that increases the headaches for plant 

security," said David Lochbaum, a former nuclear plant engineer now 

with the Union of Concerned Scientists.



"Because spent fuel storage was always viewed as an interim measure 

in this country, we've never given it the same consideration from a 

safety or security standpoint as the reactor. It's always taken a 

back seat," he said.



The storage problem is not new. Every 18 to 24 months, about a third 

of the radioactive fuel rods at U.S. nuclear plants are replaced with 

new ones. So far, that has added up to about 45,000 metric tons of 

spent fuel -- enough to bury a football field under 15 feet of waste 

material. Some 2,000 metric tons are being produced every year.



When most of the nation's nuclear reactors were designed in the 1960s 

and 1970s, it was assumed their waste would be shipped off to a 

central repository or reprocessing facility.



But commercial reprocessing never fully developed in the United 

States, and plans to open a permanent disposal site have been 

delayed. The only option for nuclear plants has been to store the 

waste on site. 	   



COST, SECURITY CONCERNS



Water pools traditionally used for temporary storage of spent rods 

are steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water. The water cools 

the fuel, which gives off heat and radiation for years after it is 

removed from the reactor.



Dry cask storage is "a substantial expense" -- and an expense that 

gets passed on to ratepayers, said NEI spokesman Steve Kerekes.



Building dry storage at a plant site requires an initial investment 

of $10 million to $20 million. Once operational, it costs about $5 

million to $7 million a year to maintain the facility and add 

containers as storage needs grow.



Since 1983, utility customers have been paying a surcharge on their 

monthly bills for the government's nuclear waste management program. 

The fund has collected about $18 billion.



Because the government defaulted on its obligation to begin moving 

used fuel from nuclear power plants when Yucca Mountain failed to 

open in 1998 as planned, electricity consumers are paying millions of 

dollars for additional on-site storage over and above the billions 

already committed to the federal fund.



As a result of the government default, utility customers may have to 

pay an additional $5 billion to $7 billion, assuming the repository 

is available in 2010, the NEI said.



Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey, a Democrat and longtime critic of 

the nuclear industry, has warned that depleted radioactive fuel 

stored at U.S. nuclear plants is "extremely vulnerable" to attack. He 

has said an aircraft attack on spent fuel depots could release the 

same amount of radiation as a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb, more than half 

the strength of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.



Reactors, housed in special containment vessels designed to contain 

the equivalent of a small nuclear explosion should things go badly 

wrong in the core, have more barriers protecting them, more backup 

systems, and more safety systems.



Fuel dumps are outside the reactor containment structure.



Spent fuel pools are generally located below ground. Although their 

concrete walls are 4 feet to 5 feet thick and lined with steel and 

their roofs are typically made of standardized industrial material 

like sheet metal.



The pools are housed in separate buildings adjacent to a reactor 

containment structure and are therefore within the reactor's security 

perimeter.



"Because the pools are kind of enveloped by the other security, 

there's a greater likelihood that the spent fuel pools would be 

protected than the dry casks, which are not part of the normal 

security system," Lochbaum said.



Dry casks, made of steel or steel-reinforced concrete 18 inches or 

more thick, are generally stored above ground in an open field on 

concrete pads.



"Dry casks are more vulnerable because they're out in the open but 

they contain less radioactive material than what's in the pools," 

Lochbaum said.



Like the reactor, the pools and casks were designed to withstand 

earthquakes, tornadoes and other natural calamities, but were not 

designed to withstand the impact from fully fueled commercial 

airlines like those that struck the World Trade Center towers and the 

Pentagon on Sept. 11.

-----------------



Alternatives to fast breeder reactor emerging



TOKYO, Aug. 10 (Kyodo) - To replace inefficient old nuclear reactors 

expected to be decommissioned after 2010, Japan drew up 

plans to develop a so-called fast breeder reactor (FBR), which is 

supposed to generate more fuel than it consumes.



But the controversial project was shelved after a sodium leak was 

discovered at the prototype Monju reactor in the city of Tsuruga, 

Fukui Prefecture in 1995.



However, practical alternatives are emerging, according to power 

industry sources. They include large light-water reactors and small 

gas-cooling reactors.



Japanese nuclear power planners tried to put the FBR into practical 

use. Plutonium extracted in the reprocessing of spent fuel at 

light-water reactors, which are the current mainstay reactors, is 

meant for the FBR program.



Nuclear power experts maintain the FBR is the principle next-

generation reactor. But practical use is distant, and it cannot 

replace 

old reactors immediately after decommissioning work begins.



The Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute, which developed the 

Monju, and a group of FBR researchers from electric utilities 

aim to refine their plans for FBR structures and reprocessing methods 

by 2015.



Meanwhile, large light-water reactors being developed by utilities 

and nuclear reactor manufacturers are expected to be put into 

practical use before the FBR. The advanced light-water reactor will 

be enlarged so it can produce 1.7 million kilowatts of power.



Construction costs can be lowered with an ''earthquake-resistant'' 

flexible structure. Additional safety facilities such as emergency 

core cooling systems and emergency power generators are planned.



Developers want the reactor to be operable even during inspections, 

and hope it can remain running from a year and a half to two 

years at a time.



Its core will be designed to take in plutonium-uranium mixed oxide 

(MOX) fuel and burn plutonium that will be in oversupply with the 

shelving of FBR plans.



Attracting attention overseas is the small pebble bed module reactor 

(PBMR), which uses a small gas-cooling system. Power 

supplies can be severely interrupted if large reactors are off-line 

for a long time, but there is no such worry with small reactors. The 

initial investment in a PBMR is small because of its size, and large 

output is possible with multiple PBMRs.



Experts said PBMR efficiency in converting core heat into electricity 

is greater than 40%, topping the 35% of light-water reactors. Since 

major parts of its core structure are made of heat-resistant carbon, 

large accidents such as a core meltdown would be unlikely.



South Africa is to start building a PBMR next year, and Japanese 

enterprises will take part in producing its fuel and developing its 

turbine engine.

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

Sandy Perle				Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100  

Director, Technical			Extension 2306 			

ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service	Fax:(714) 668-3149 	                

ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.		E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 	

ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  	E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com          

Costa Mesa, CA 92626



Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/

ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com



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

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.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/