Part 1 of 2 Parts
A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the U.S. effort to choose one of two locations for the production of the plutonium cores for nuclear warheads. The cores are commonly referred to as “pits.” The two possible sites were the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory in New Mexico and Savannah River site in South Carolina. However, there is unfinished business at Savannah River that must also be dealt with.
In the year 2000, the U.S. and Russia signed a deal to dispose of tons of weapons grade plutonium left over from the Cold War. The idea was that the plutonium could be diluted and mixed with uranium to create MOX fuel for domestic nuclear reactors.
The Russians built their MOX plant and produced small amounts of MOX fuel in 2014. They reached industrial capacity at their facility in 2015.
The U.S. decided to build a MOX plant at Savannah River to carry out their obligation under the deal with Russia. Since construction began, there have been lawsuits, delays and cost overruns. Critics say that the problems are a clear illustration of waste and mismanagement at the DoE National Nuclear Security Administration. (NNSA) In 2016, the Russians pulled out of the nuclear fuel agreement saying that the U.S. had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement.
Now it is estimated that completion of the U.S. MOX facility will cost seventeen billion dollars. The contractor for the MOX plant is a joint venture between the French nuclear company Areva and Chicago Iron & Steel. The contractor has repeatedly fallen short of meeting their goals on time and in budget. There has been a rising movement in the U.S. government to kill the project altogether.
If the project is shut down, the estimates submitted to Congress by the NNSA state that the U.S. government will have sunk around seven billion six hundred million dollars in the project. If work continues and the facility is completed and produces the planned amount of MOX fuel, the cost to the U.S. will be an additional fifty billion dollars over the lifetime of the plant. If, instead of completing the project, it is cancelled, the U.S. government believes that they can dilute and dispose of the plutonium for about eighteen billion dollars over thirty years.
The director of the Savannah River Site Watch says that “The decision to abandon the MOX project is the only reasonable decision as the MOX project isn’t viable technically or financially. What a monumental waste this has been.”
Energy Secretary Rick Perry has released a document this week that authorizes the end of construction of the U.S. MOX plant. In addition, the document promises to remove thirty-four metric tons of plutonium that was going to be converted to MOX fuel from the state of South Carolina. The new plan calls for the dilution of the plutonium with nonradioactive materials and disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico which was opened to dispose of nuclear waste from the production of nuclear weapons.
The NNSA released a document that said, “Several independent assessments have found the alternative dilute and dispose method to be a faster, less expensive, and less risky alternative to MOX. The Department of Energy is committed to meetings its obligation to the state of South Carolina to securely process and remove plutonium from the state.”
Please read Part 2
Blog
-
Nuclear Weapons 342 – U.S. Deciding Where To Produce New Plutonium Cores For Nuclear Warheads – Part 1 of 2 Parts
-
Geiger Readings for May 15, 2018
Ambient office = 133 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 99 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 107 nanosieverts per hour
Bartlett pear from Central Market = 83 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 100 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 92 nanosieverts per hour
-
Nuclear Reactors 561 – U.K. Office of Nuclear Regulation Reveals Plans For Brexit
The U.K. Office for Nuclear Regulation was established as a public corporation under the Energy Act of 2013 as the “independent, statutory regulator of nuclear safety, nuclear security, and conventional health and safety at nuclear sites in the UK.” (This would seem a bit tardy due to the fact that the first commercial power reactor in the world went into operation in the U.K. in 1965.)
The ONR just presented its latest Corporate Plan to Parliament. In the new Plan, it lists ten top priorities for 201802019. Included in the plan is the development of a new regime to satisfy safety requirements following the decision of Parliament to exit Euroatom to which it has been a signatory. Also included are measures to support the “implementation of a new emergency planning arrangements as a result of the Basic Standards Directive.”
The U.K. government stated in March that it would work closely with the ONR to make sure that it will be able to shoulder the responsibilities necessary to meet the U.K.’s mandated future domestic civil safeguards. This is necessary because the international standards and nuclear non-proliferation standards of the Euratom rules and regulation will no longer apply to the U.K. in the near future. The U.K. is planning on leaving the European Atomic Energy Community commonly referred to as the Euratom Treaty upon its exit from the European Union in March on 2019.
The ONR Plan says, “We regulate the safety and security of a significant nuclear legacy, radioactive waste, an ageing reactor fleet, ageing defense facilities, nuclear new build and the transport of civil radioactive materials. We also regulate conventional health and safety, including fire safety, on licensed nuclear sites and provide regulatory oversight for the transportation of civil nuclear materials. We also support the UK in meeting its safeguards obligations through facilitating the current activities of Euratom.”
“Following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, we will continue to work with government to meet the UK’s continuing commitments (for example, the Nuclear Safety Directive) and identify and plan for changes required to implement revised government policy. We will support the UK government in managing a smooth exit from Euratom, particularly in relation to nuclear safeguards arrangements and helping ensure the UK’s continued compliance with international standards.”
The Plan calls for setting up an U.K. system to account for and control nuclear materials; helping to develop new radiation emergency preparedness and public information regulations to amend the transportation regulations to support implementation of the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive of 2013; and, finally, implementing the NERA6 report, “The Economic Impact of ONR safety regulations”, action plant as agreed upon by its regulatory management team.
The ONR said that it will work with U.K. safeguard dutyholders and the inspectorates of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Euratom in order to continue safeguards compliance in the U.K. (up to March 2019). It will forward reports to Euratom and the IAEA as required about the U.K.’s obligations under the Nuclear Cooperation Agreements.
“The ONR will continue to support UK exit from Euratom, including through expert input to negotiations (e.g. to establish new trade agreements) and legislation (for example, to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and development of nuclear safeguards regulations); establishing additional safeguards capability; and delivering a UK SSAC by 29 March 2019 that meets UK international reporting obligations.”
The ONR’s top ten organizational priorities includes plans to: “strengthen and improve engagement with stakeholders; enhance succession planning, leadership development and improve capability and capacity through recruiting and developing staff; simplify line management structures to provide more effective leadership and free up inspector time to perform regulatory duties; develop an internal improvement project to focus on leadership and improve ONR’s culture; improve cyber security and information governance; modernise its IT systems; and update and improve knowledge management and business processes to improve efficiency and effectiveness throughout ONR.” -
Geiger Readings for May 14, 2018
Ambient office = 74 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 117 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 121 nanosieverts per hour
Beefsteak tomato from Central Market = 92 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 90 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 75 nanosieverts per hour
-
Geiger Readings for May 13, 2018
Ambient office = 81 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 135 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 137 nanosieverts per hour
Bartlett pear from Central Market = 133 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 58 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 52 nanosieverts per hour
-
Geiger Readings for May 12, 2018
Ambient office =77 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 124 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 123 nanosieverts per hour
Beefsteak tomato from Central Market = 125 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 73 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 69 nanosieverts per hour
Dover sole – Caught in USA = 100 nanosieverts per hour