REPORT
ON THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONs
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFETY
On Friday,
November 16, 2001 the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commissions Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safety (ACRS) met to hear staff reviews of the
key issues in Duke Cogema Stone &
Websters (DCS) Construction Authorization
Request (CAR) for the plutonium fuel factory
proposed for the Savannah River Site.
I attended the meeting which was held in NRC
Offices in Rockville, MD. This is my
report.
| |
November 17, 2001
Janet Zeller
Executive
Director
Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League BREDL@skybest.com |
OVERVIEW
The plutonium fuel
project is being evaluated in a top to
bottom assessment of physical security by
the NRC in conjunction with other federal
agencies.
Some general
deficiencies in the CAR were flagged by staff and
ACRS committee members including: a) DCSs
over-reliance on administrative controls, e.g.,
operator skills, b) DCSs reliance on
qualitative rather than quantitative analysis, c)
DCSs delay to the operational license phase
of several vital systems such as accounting for
amounts of plutonium coming in and going out of
the facility.
Chairman Dana
Powers expressed concern about the
philosophical approach of the
project; he announced that bifurcation will be a
major discussion item at the March ACRS meeting.
Bifurcation concerns include DOE/NRC
jurisdiction, the public/private nature the
plutonium fuel factory, and facility wastes going
to SRS.
PROBLEMS
IDENTIFIED IN THE REVIEW
The NRC staff
reviews and ACRS discussions zeroed in on some
important deficiencies and areas of concern in
the DCS proposal. These included:
Fire plan: The
fire plan is woefully lacking. Chairman Powers
likened it to the fire detection and
extinguishing methods for an "auto body
shop." A subcommittee will conduct
further work.
Criticality: The
committee was not convinced that criticality is
impossible at the facility. Flaws include
DCSs deterministic approach which relies on
operator analysis and the absence of a mitigation
plan. Criticality was one of the dominant risks.
Filtration:
Committee members noted the necessity for an
optimal filtration system because the facility
relies on filters for health and environmental
control. Staff outlined some advantages of sand
filters over HEPA filters including no
degradation and no fire hazard.
Chemical Safety:
One committee member challenged the absence of
chemical industry standards, noting that DCS
chose to use nuclear reactor standards. One key
problem is the poor understanding of the
formation of red oil and DCSs
erroneous reliance on temperature control which
has proved inadequate.
Seismic Issues:
The committee focused on questions about using a
more precise model including bedrock to soil
modeling.
Physical Security:
This entire presentation was obsolete post
September 11. The analysis still included the
impossibility of intentional plane crashes.
Committee members questioned the lack of detail
on the interface between SRS security and special
fuel factory security.
|