American Institute of Physics FYI on BNL HFBR Restart

[Mike Grissom <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

Radsafers,

Those following the Brookhaven National Laboratory's
High Flux Beam Reactor difficulties will find this
AIP item of special interest.  This should dispel
any doubts on the part of our international colleagues
that the US programs operate in a difficult political
environment!

S.,

MikeG.

>FYI
>The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
>Number 120: October 2, 1997
>
>Congress Votes to Keep High Flux Beam Reactor Closed for One Year
>
>Found among the hundreds of sections of H.R. 2203, the FY 1998
>Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, is Section 512
>that states: "None of the funds made available in this or any other
>Act may be used to restart the High Flux Beam Reactor."   With
>these words, approved by both the House and Senate on Tuesday, any
>restart of the reactor will be delayed until after September 30,
>1998 -- the period covered by this legislation.  Whether the
>reactor will reopen is still an unanswered question.
>
>The conference report accompanying this bill provides additional
>details:  
>
>"The conference agreement includes bill language prohibiting the
>use of funds in this or any other Act for the purpose of restarting
>the High Flux [Beam] Reactor (HFBR).  In fiscal year 1998, the
>Department of Energy is directed to drain the spent fuel pool, and
>may add a steel wall liner to the pool so that additional
>radioactive material may be removed without threat of leakage.  The
>Department of Energy is also directed to meet the requirements
>outlined in Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 12, complete
>seismic upgrades, and seal the floor drain.
>
>"The Department of Energy is also directed to undertake an
>environmental impact statement (EIS) with respect to the HFBR.  The
>conferees expect that the EIS will be a comprehensive survey of any
>environmental hazards that the tritium leak or other contamination
>associated with the HFBR pose to the drinking water and health of
>the people in the surrounding communities, and that it will provide
>a detailed plan for remediation.  The findings of the EIS and a
>plan for any necessary remediation shall be reported to Congress."
>
>Although the bill language and conference report prohibit the
>restart of HFBR in the next twelve months, it is open to discussion
>if DOE could not restart the reactor at some future date.  It is
>interesting that nowhere in the above 200+ words of the bill and
>report language is the word "terminate" used.  In contrast, when
>Congress killed the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993, the
>report language stated that the appropriated funds were "to be used
>only to orderly terminate the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)
>project...."  In the next paragraph, "termination" or "terminated"
>were used four times.
>
>So while it cannot be  predicted that the reactor will be
>restarted, there is nothing in the current bill that would appear
>to prevent it.  When asked about this by reporters, Rep. Michael
>Forbes (R-NY), a driving force (along with Senator Alfonse D'Amato
>(R-NY)) behind the closure of HFBR, disputes this possibility. 
>Referring to DOE officials, Newsday quoted Forbes as follows: "They
>can put any spin on it they want, but the fact is that this puts us
>on the path to a permanent shutdown.  They're looking for any way
>they can to undermine it, but...if I have to offer this up every
>year, I'll offer it up."  It should be noted that it is
>legislatively unnecessary to take such an action every year, as it
>could be accomplished once by using SSC-type termination language. 
>For whatever reason, the appropriators did not include this
>language.
>
>A lengthy review of the facility is being conducted, and a restart
>decision by DOE Secretary Federico Pena is not due until early
>1998.   DOE officials state they did not plan to reopen the reactor
>during the next year.  
>
>Richard M. Jones
>Public Information Division
>American Institute of Physics
>fyi@aip.org
>(301) 209-3095