DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report of the Plutonium Disposition Red Team

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report of the Plutonium Disposition Red Team OFFICIAL USE ONLY Final Report of the Plutonium Disposition Red Team Date: 13 August 2015 Oak Ridge, Tennessee Thom Mason, Chair John W. Krueger/ORNL August 13, 2015 OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific, commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY Final Report of the Plutonium Disposition Red Team Thom Mason, Chair Oak Ridge, Tennessee 13 August 2015 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6283 Managed by UT-BATTELLE, LLC For the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 John W. Krueger/ORNL August 13, 2015 OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY This page left blank intentionally OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY Contents Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... v Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ v Acronyms and Abbreviated Terms .............................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ix Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 4 1. Evaluation of Previous Cost Assessments ................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Plutonium Disposition Working Group Report ................................................................................ 10 1.2 Aerospace Report ............................................................................................................................. 11 1.3 High Bridge Report ........................................................................................................................... 14 2. Evaluation of the MOX Approach to Pu Disposition .............................................................................. 16 2.1 The Baseline Approach to MOX-based Pu Disposition .................................................................... 16 2.1.1 Description of the MOX approach ............................................................................................. 16 2.1.2 Technical Viability of the MOX Approach .................................................................................. 18 2.1.3 Ability to Meet International Commitments ............................................................................ 20 2.1.4 Regulatory and Other Issues ..................................................................................................... 20 2.2 Potential Enhancements for Cost Reduction ................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Staffing ...................................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.2 MOX Fuel Use Revenue and Risk Mitigation .............................................................................. 21 2.2.3 Scope Reduction ........................................................................................................................ 22 3. Dilute and Dispose, and Similar Options ................................................................................................ 24 3.1 The Dilute and Dispose Option ......................................................................................................... 24 3.1.1 The Base Case (D2 from Figure 4) ............................................................................................. 24 3.1.2 Potential Enhancements to the Base Dilute and Dispose Option ............................................. 31 3.2 The Sterilization Approach (Option C on Figure 4) .......................................................................... 33 4. Comparative Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 34 4.1 Attribute Comparison Summary ...................................................................................................... 34 4.2 Cost Comparison Summary .............................................................................................................. 35 References .................................................................................................................................................. 38 Appendix A, Red Team Charge Letter ....................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B, Participants and Subject Matter Experts ............................................................................... B-1 Appendix C, Biographies of Red Team Members ...................................................................................... C-1 Appendix D, Isotopic Dilution Variant ....................................................................................................... D-1 iii OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY This page left blank intentionally iv OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY Figures Figure 1. Definition of MOX Program Elements ............................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Impact of Arbitrary $100M and $200M Reductions in Ops Costs on MOX Program Life Cycle Costs ................................................................. 13 Figure 3. Basic Flow Diagram for the MOX Approach .................................................................. 17 Figure 4. Remaining Practical Approaches to Pu Disposition ....................................................... 25 Figure 5. Basic Flow Diagram for the Dilute and Dispose Approach ............................................ 26 Tables Table 1. Comparison of planned budgetary needs to actual appropriations ............................... 5 Table 2. PWG Estimate Summary ................................................................................................ 10 Table 3. Aerospace Estimate Summary ....................................................................................... 11 Table 4. High Bridge Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 14 Table 5. Attribute Comparison Summary .................................................................................... 35 v OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY This page left blank intentionally vi OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY Acronyms and Abbreviated Terms ADR Advanced Disposition Reactor AFS Alternate Feedstocks AP aqueous polishing BCP baseline change proposal BWR boiling-water reactor CCO Criticality Control Overpack CD Critical Decision CISAC NAS Committee on International Security and Arms Control COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DMO Direct Metal Oxidation DOE U.S. Department of Energy EM U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management Program ETC estimate to complete HEU highly enriched uranium IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICE independent cost estimate IROFS items relied on for safety KAMS K-Area Material Storage LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LCC life cycle cost LWA WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 MFFF Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility MIFT MOX Irradiation, Feedstock, and Transportation MOX mixed oxide MT metric ton NAS National Academy of Sciences NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OPC other project cost ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PDCF Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility PMDA Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement PWG Plutonium Disposition Working Group PWR pressurized-water reactor QA quality assurance RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Red Team Plutonium Disposition Red Team SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SFS spent fuel standard SMP Sellafield MOX Plant SNM special nuclear material SRS Savannah River Site TEC total estimated cost TRU transuranic vii OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant WSB Waste Solidification Building viii OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY Executive Summary The Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) calls for the United States and Russia to each dispose of 34 metric tons (MT) of excess weapon-grade plutonium by irradiating it
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Utilities Summary - Demo Company Ltd
    Utilities Summary - Demo Company Ltd The following report has been designed to help you reduce your utility costs. We have analysed every transaction within your accounts to help assess whether there is the potential for you to reduce your utilities expenditure. We have identified that there is the potential for you to save money on your utilities expenditure with the following providers. If you were to realise just a 20% saving this could be worth £0.8k per annum. BES Utilities Utilities Overview Utilities expenditure over the past 12 months of £5.2k has increased compared to the previous 12 months by £0.8k (18.2%). During the past quarter expenditure was £1.2k, a decrease from the previous quarter of £0.3k (21.4%). Compared to the same quarter in the previous year, this represents an increase of 70.2%. 1,200 8,000 7,000 1,000 Prior Year 6,000 800 5,000 600 4,000 3,000 400 Last Year 2,000 200 1,000 0 0 This Year Monthly Spend Rolling 12 Month Spend 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 £30,000 The earliest Overhead transaction £25,000 recorded within your accounts was on 17 April 2011. £20,000 Since then, the provider you have £15,000 spent the most with is BES £10,000 Utilities (26.4k). This represents 69.3% of all utilities expenditure £5,000 during this time period. £- BES Utilities Contract Water Plus Natural Gas Utilities Summary - Demo Company Ltd Provider 1 BES Utilities Potential to reduce costs - Extremely likely Months with provider 78 1,200 6,000 Prior Year Earliest Date Jan-13 1,000 5,000 Latest Date Aug-19 800 4,000 Total Spend to date 26,352 600 3,000 Monthly Spend TY 326 400 2,000 Last Year 200 1,000 Latest Qtr 704 0 0 Previous Qtr 1,286 This Year var (45.2%) Same Qtr Last Year 524 Monthly Spend Rolling 12 Month Spend var 34.5% 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 This provider has been highlighted as charging uncompetitive prices and operates with onerous terms, also, you have been using them for enough time to suggest you could negotiate more favourable terms and your spend is high enough for you to realise material savings in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter – Notifying of Our Intention to Launch a Project to Protect Consumers from Back Billing
    Suppliers, consumer groups and other interested parties BY EMAIL Date: 3 April 2017 Dear colleagues Open letter – notifying of our intention to launch a project to protect consumers from back billing The purpose of this letter is to announce that we are launching a project to examine the regulatory framework governing back billing.1 Our minded-to position is to introduce new licence obligations to strengthen consumer protections in this area. The back-billing principle was introduced in 2007 and states that, if a supplier is at fault, they will not seek additional payment for unbilled energy used more than 12 months prior to the error being detected and a corrected bill being issued.2 We view this as an essential consumer protection and a minimum standard that we expect all suppliers to apply. The principle was introduced through self-governance; the suppliers active in the domestic retail market (at the time of introduction) committed to apply it and enshrined it in their own policies. However, in the ten years since it was introduced the market has changed markedly. There are now over fifty active suppliers in the retail market; in 2007 there were just eleven. We are not confident that the principle is being applied consistently across the market and are concerned that not all suppliers have appropriate back billing arrangements in place. When the principle was originally introduced, we stated that we would regulate to protect consumers if we became aware that the principle was not being applied universally.3 Given the reasons outlined, we are launching a project with the aim of protecting consumers from excessive back billing time limits.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Metrics for the Smart Grid System Report
    Appendix A Metrics for the Smart Grid System Report Department of Energy | February 2012 Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... A.1 A.1 Metric #1: The Fraction of Customers and Total Load Served by Real-Time Pricing, Critical Peak Pricing, and Time-of-Use Pricing .......................................................................................... A.3 A.2 Metric #2: Real-Time System Operations Data Sharing .............................................................. A.11 A.3 Metric #3: Standard Distributed Resource Connection Policies .................................................. A.25 A.4 Metric #4: Regulatory Recovery for Smart Grid Investments ..................................................... A.35 A.5 Metric #5: Load Participation ...................................................................................................... A.43 A.6 Metric #6: Load Served by Microgrids ......................................................................................... A.53 A.7 Metric #7: Grid-Connected Distributed Generation and Storage ............................................... A.63 A.8 Metric #8: Market Penetration of Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles........... A.73 A.9 Metric #9: Grid-Responsive, Non-Generating Demand-Side Equipment .................................... A.85 A.10 Metric #10: Transmission and Distribution Reliability ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter: Cooperation with Switching Programme Governance Arrangements
    Email: [email protected] Date: 15 January 2019 Dear Colleagues, Open letter: Cooperation with Switching Programme Governance Arrangements I am writing today to set out the baselined governance arrangements we are establishing to oversee the delivery phase of the Switching Programme and to invite you to provide feedback on the nominated representatives to participate in the new groups. Attached as an annex to this letter is a pack of information explaining these arrangements and the nominations received thus far. I would be grateful if you could respond by 25 January with any additional feedback and for parties still to nominate their representative, with the names and details of their representative to [email protected]. Overview of new governance arrangements At the Switching Programme Delivery Group on the 11 September, we set out our initial proposal for changes to the governance of the Switching Programme for the delivery phase. These changes are designed to improve the governance of the programme, to provide more efficient mechanisms to engage the right people, and facilitate quicker consultation and decision making during the DBT Phase of the Programme. Following the initial circulation of the proposed governance structure we received feedback that the level of supplier representation on the groups was not sufficient. We have listened to the feedback provided, and revised the governance structure on the Implementation Group and Delivery Group to address this feedback. The revised representative structure is set out below. The Terms of Reference for these groups will be made available in the coming weeks. We have allocated suppliers into Large, Medium and Small categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Auto-Rollover Remedy
    Appendix 17.2: Auto-rollover remedy 1. This appendix, which relates to the auto-rollover remedy, first sets out parties’ initial comments to the Remedies Notice. Thereafter, it lists the detailed submissions (from parties), which we received before the publication of the provisional decision on remedies. Finally, we review the grounds for objections under which suppliers can object to a transfer occurring. 2. We have listed the parties’ responses to the provisional decision on remedies in the main body relating to microbusiness remedies. We note that all the parties that responded to the provisional decision on remedies supported the remedy and its design, except for Haven Power. Responses to the Remedies Notice 3. In the Remedies Notice, we consulted on a remedy that stipulated ‘introduction of a new requirement into the licences of retail energy suppliers that prohibits the inclusion of terms that permit the auto-rollover of microbusiness customers on to new contracts with a narrow window for switching supplier and/or tariff.’ 4. In this section we set out a summary of the responses to the Remedies Notice. The responses below can be found in full on our website. The Six Large Energy Firms 5. Centrica told us that it believes that the ending of auto-rollover contracts (with fixed-term Rollover Periods) would be beneficial to microbusiness customers and would help generate trust and engagement in the microbusiness segments. Since ending auto-rollover contracts (with fixed-term Rollover Periods), Centrica said that it had seen increased competitive forces as a result of the removal of the narrow window of opportunity for switching, and that would help support the right kind of conditions for PCWs to emerge.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Meters
    Smart Meters Quarterly Report to end March 2017 Great Britain Statistical Release: Experimental National Statistics 25 May 2017 This document is available in large print, audio and braille on request. Please email [email protected] with the version you require. © Crown copyright 2017. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. This publication is available for download at www.gov.uk/government/publications. Contents Contents Contents ____________________________________________________________ 2 Executive Summary ___________________________________________________ 3 Chapter 1: Introduction to Smart Metering __________________________________ 4 1.1 Overview _______________________________________________________ 4 1.2 Types of Premise ________________________________________________ 5 1.3 Types of Supplier ________________________________________________ 5 1.4 Types of Gas and Electricity meters __________________________________ 6 1.5 Further information _______________________________________________ 7 Chapter 2: Domestic Smart Metering ______________________________________ 8 2.1 Smart meter installations in domestic
    [Show full text]
  • Theft Best Practice Forum Minutes 17 January 2019 at 10:00 Amba Hotel Charing Cross, the Strand, London WC2N 5HX
    Theft Best Practice Forum Minutes 17 January 2019 at 10:00 Amba Hotel Charing Cross, The Strand, London WC2N 5HX Attendee Company Daher Aden [DA] Bristol Energy Ruby Currie [RCu] British Gas Piers Merritt [PM] British Gas Andy Channing [AC] EDF Energy Lucy Watson-Smith [LWS] Robin Hood Energy Jennifer Pickering [JP] E. ON Energy Ash Sherratt [AS] E. ON Energy Mike Wilkinson [MW] Npower Matthew Simkiss [MS] Npower Shamil Udayar [SU] Npower Ross Clarke [RCl] Npower James Scafie [JS] SSE Claire Cantle Jones [CCJ] SSE Sarah Perriam [SP] SSE Sarah Mcdermott [SM] SSE Charlotte Williams [CW] SSE John Sanderson [JS] First Utility Tracey Burton [TB] Co-operative Paul Hart [PH] UK Power Networks Jack Brayshaw [JB] BES Utilities 24 January 2019 Page 1 of 16 In Attendance Austin Gash [AG](Secretariat) ElectraLink Michelle Simpson [MS] (Chair) ElectraLink Fungai Madzivadondo [FM] (Secretariat) ElectraLink Mark England [ME] (part meeting) Experian Jon Dixon [JD] (part meeting) Ofgem Apologies Company Ian Main Scottish Power Dave Ackers Xoserve Dave Mitchell SGN Hayley Berry SSE Emma Hegarty SSE OPEN SESSION 1. Introductions 1.1 The group noted the introductions. 1.2 The Chair provided an overview noting that the Forum seeks to improve Supplier engagement and help industry participants develop and share knowledge of general theft arrangements. 2. Last Meeting Minutes 2.1 ElectraLink received minor comments regarding the September Theft Best Practice Minutes. The updated meeting minutes were circulated to members prior to the meeting. There were no further comments provided during the meeting. ElectraLink took an action to amend the September 2018 meeting minutes and upload to the SPAA and DCUSA Websites.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Meter Statistics in Great Britain: Quarterly Report to End September 2020 26Th November 2020 Official Statistics
    Smart Meter Statistics in Great Britain: Quarterly Report to end September 2020 26th November 2020 Official Statistics What you need to know about these statistics: This quarterly release includes information on the number of smart meters installed in domestic properties and smaller non-domestic sites during the third quarter of 2020 by the 16 largest energy suppliers, as well as the total number of meters operated by large suppliers on 30 September 2020. The report also includes information for small suppliers to the end of 2019. Responsible statistician: Mita Kerai Email: [email protected] Media enquiries: 020 7215 1000 Public enquiries: 0300 068 5044 Next publication: 9th March 2021 Smart Meter Statistics in Great Britain Contents Introduction _____________________________________________________ 3 Meters in operation _______________________________________________ 4 Operational meters in domestic properties ____________________________ 4 Operational meters in smaller non-domestic sites ______________________ 6 Meters installed __________________________________________________ 7 Meters installed in domestic properties _______________________________ 7 Meters installed in smaller non-domestic properties _____________________ 8 Accompanying tables ______________________________________________ 9 Technical information ______________________________________________ 9 Energy Suppliers included in this report ______________________________ 10 Definitions ______________________________________________________ 11 Further information
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Meter Statistics in Great Britain: Quarterly Report to End March 2020 28Th May 2020 Official Statistics
    Smart Meter Statistics in Great Britain: Quarterly Report to end March 2020 28th May 2020 Official Statistics What you need to know about these statistics: This quarterly release includes information on the number of smart meters installed in domestic properties and smaller non-domestic sites during the first quarter of 2020 by the 16 largest energy suppliers, as well as the total number of meters operated by large suppliers on 31 March 2020. The report also includes information for small suppliers to the end of 2019. Responsible statistician: Mita Kerai Email: [email protected] Media enquiries: 020 7215 1000 Public enquiries: 0300 068 5044 Next publication: 27th August 2020 Smart Meter Statistics in Great Britain Contents Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 3 Meters in operation _________________________________________________________ 4 Operational meters in domestic properties ______________________________________ 4 Operational meters in smaller non-domestic sites ________________________________ 6 Meters installed ____________________________________________________________ 7 Meters installed in domestic properties _________________________________________ 7 Meters installed in smaller non-domestic properties _______________________________ 8 Accompanying tables ________________________________________________________ 9 Technical information ________________________________________________________ 9 Energy Suppliers included in this report _______________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • MS Ritgerð Markaðsfræði Og Alþjóðaviðskipti the Power Online
    MS ritgerð Markaðsfræði og alþjóðaviðskipti The Power Online Researching Online Branding Constructs Within the Energy Industry Ragna Þorsteinsdóttir Leiðbeinandi: Dr. Friðrik Rafn Larsen, lektor Viðskiptafræðideild Júní 2016 The Power Online Researching Online Branding Constructs Within the Energy Industry Ragna Þorsteinsdóttir Lokaverkefni til MS-gráðu í viðskiptafræði Leiðbeinandi: Dr. Friðrik Rafn Larsen, lektor Viðskiptafræðideild Félagsvísindasvið Háskóla Íslands Júní 2016 The Power Online: Researching Online Branding Constructs Within the Energy Industry Ritgerð þessi er 30 eininga lokaverkefni til MS prófs við Viðskiptafræðideild, Félagsvísindasvið Háskóla Íslands. © 2016 Ragna Þorsteinsdóttir Ritgerðina má ekki afrita nema með leyfi höfundar. Prentun: Háskólaprent ehf. Reykjavík, 2016 Acknowledgements This thesis is a final project of 30 ECTS credits towards a M.Sc. degree in marketing and international business at the Faculty of Business Administration, University of Iceland. My instructor through this process was Dr. Friðrik Larsen, and I would like to thank him for his guidance and inspiration. I would also like to thank my wonderful friend Ingibjörg Sigurgeirsdóttir for proofreading and unfaltering support during the writing of this thesis. My study group also deserves a huge thank you for the support network during long nights and early morning study sessions. I would also like to thank my family for always believing in me, and I also could not have asked for better employers during this time of study. 3 Abstract An increase in liberalised energy markets creates unique challenges to energy companies as consumers gain power to choose among competing providers. This means that energy companies need to seek ways to capture the attention of the consumer, which could include online branding.
    [Show full text]
  • Engagement Log: Transparency
    ENGAGEMENT LOG: TRANSPARENCY Annex NGET_A9.01_Engagement Log December 2019 As a part of the NGET Business Plan Submission 0 ENGAGEMENT LOG: TRANSPARENCY ENGAGEMENT LOG Priority: I want you to be transparency in your performance Topics: Transparency in Performance and Stakeholder Led Business plan Author: Mohammed Farooq Document Version Number: 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 1. PRE-ENGAGEMENT 4 1.1. What is the topic and why is it being engaged on? 1.2. What existing insight has been utilised? (incl. Truth assessment) 1.3. What are the desired outcomes for engagement? 1.4. What is the engagement approach? 2. POST-ENGAGEMENT 10 2.1. What were the engagement outcomes and how has this influenced options? 2.2. What was the feedback on the engagement approach? 2.3. What were the initial National Grid conclusions? 3. STAKEHOLDER GROUP CHALLENGE & REVIEW 17 3.1. What were the challenges and how did NGET respond? 4. CONCLUSIONS 20 4.1. What impact has this feedback had on National Grid and the RIIO-T2 business plan? 4.2. Business plan outputs aligned to stakeholder engagement outcomes – golden thread 5. APPENDIX 21 5.1. Engagement principles checklist 5.2. Business plan / engagement topic prioritisation framework 5.3. Stakeholder segments 5.4. Engagement approach – spectrum 5.5. Detailed outputs from engagements (embedded documents) 1 ENGAGEMENT LOG: TRANSPARENCY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This stakeholder priority covers the transparency of our performance, ensuring our financial reporting is transparent and easy to understand by stakeholders. It also covers the concept of a stakeholder-led business plan, making sure we do not only engage with stakeholders when we have to, but instead we implement this concept as a business-as-usual activity which will lead to increased transparency and will highlight what is important for stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Have the Expressed Purpose of Backing
    The Scaleup 2017Index Foreword The ScaleUp Institute has always companies and charities have • The more equity investment believed in the need for better specific qualities that will be they receive, the faster they data on the UK’s fastest- better examined by a separate grow. The majority of scaleups growing companies. We can approach. raised less than £5m. If investors only effectively support these had deeper pockets to give the companies if we know who they companies more investment, are, where they are, and what The Scaleup Index they would grow faster. they do. To this end, we are shines a spotlight pleased to work with Beauhurst in on a particular segment of • Many scaleups are more than creating the Scaleup Index which 20 years old. Many of the UK’s the UK landscape that is shines a spotlight on a particular older and more stable segment of the UK’s scaleup adding billions to the companies clearly have the “economy and hundreds of landscape that is adding billions potential for growth, though to the economy and hundreds of thousands of jobs. they are most likely to be thousands of jobs. It shows the Irene Graham growing at a moderate pace (20 diversity of our scaleups, their CEO, The ScaleUp Institute to 40% per annum). breadth of sectors and presence up and down the country. They • Nearly half of scaleups have a are vital to the strength of the This first Index establishes the female director, but only 4% UK’s economy. benchmark levels against which have a female founder.
    [Show full text]