Post on 13-Oct-2020
NCSL NUCLEAR WORKGROUP
WIPP A STORY OF CONSENT
BY
JOHN HEATON
6-4-2013
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
• WIPP HISTORY
• WIPP OPERATIONS OVERVIEW
• WIPP UNDERGROUND RESEARCH LABORATORY ACTIVITY
• WIPP CONSENT PROCESS
• BRC RESPONSE
• EDDY-LEA ENERGY ALLIANCE CISF
• POLITICAL ENERGY STATUS
History 1957−The National Academy of Sciences
recommends deep geologic disposal for
radioactive waste and suggested salt
1968 − A demonstration, “Project Salt Vault,”
is tested at a mine near Lyons, Kansas
1971 − State Senator Joe Gant Jr. contacts
U.S. Congressman Harold Runnells and
suggests that the AEC take a look at
Carlsbad’s salt beds
1979 − Congress authorizes WIPP as a
research and development facility
LAW SUIT BY AG 1980
1981 C&C Agree, EEG Formed, Leg Over
Sight Committee formed
1981 − The Department of Energy proceeds
with construction of WIPP
1980’s
Santa Fe
New Mexico
History 1982 – NWPA enacted
1985 – NWPA Co-Mingling Amend
1986 – WIPP standards established 194
1987 – NWPA Designates Yucca Mtn
1989 − The DOE completes repository
construction
1991 – EPA & DOE coordination
1992 − Congress passes the WIPP Land
Withdrawal Act. The act is amended in
1996.
1995 – SYSTEM PRIORITY MANAGE
1998 − The EPA certifies that WIPP meets
all applicable regulations
1999 − The first shipment of TRU waste
arrives at WIPP on March 26. The NMED
issues a RCRA permit in October
2005 − The final TRU waste shipment from
Rocky Flats is received at WIPP
2007 − The first shipment of RH-TRU
waste arrives at WIPP on January 23
Mar. 26, 1999
Jan. 2007
Available Withdrawn Land
Geologic Profile
CONTACT WASTE HANDLING
IN WIPP
Primarily emits alpha radiation (less penetrating)
Can be handled without any shielding beyond the container itself
About 96 percent of waste to be disposed at WIPP
REMOTE HANDLED WASTE
EMPLACEMENT MACHINE
Emits more penetrating radiation than CH-TRU
Transported and handled in certified casks that provide additional shielding
About four percent of waste to be disposed at WIPP
12
Transport Vehicle
WIPP Central
Monitoring Room
Operator
Groundstation
DOE-AL
Mobile Phone
(Back-Up) Users
Communications
Satellites
WIPP TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM • SATELITE TRACKED • Fully automated nation-wide
tracking to within 500 feet
• Five-minute updates
• States and tribes have access to
password-protected Web site
• Drivers in constant communication
with WIPP’s Central Monitoring
Room
Safest Shipping Containers on the Road
RH 72-B
Half-PACT
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission
certified Type B Shipping Containers
– TRUPACT-II
– Half-PACT
– RH-72B
– TRUPACT-III
• Proven leak tight after rigorous
testing
– 30-foot drop
– Puncture bar test
– TRUPACT-II tested for 30
minutes in 1,475-degree jet
fuel fire
TRUPACT-II
TRUPACT-III
14
Next Pilot Mission for WIPP
A National Solution for DHLW
• WIPP is America’s only deep geologic repository for the permanent disposal of defense-generated transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste.
• Originally being characterized for HLW
• Salt was recommended by NAS
Salt is an Ideal Disposal Medium
Salt at great depth ‘flows.’ It will encapsulate waste and isolate it from the surface for eons.
“The great advantage is that no water can pass through salt. Fractures are self healing….”
National Academy of Sciences, 1957
No engineered barriers are needed – disposal in salt is permanent.
Salt is widely distributed Salt has existed underground for millions of years and has a stable geology.
Bedded salt is preferred over domed salt due to the inherently larger areas contained in the bedded geologic salt formations.
GENERIC
SALT DISPOSAL INVESTIGATIONS (with a field scale heater test at WIPP)
What is the SDDI Proposal?
• Salt Defense Disposal Investigation of heat-generating nuclear waste in salt consisting of:
- laboratory testing - modeling efforts - an underground field test at WIPP
• Tests disposal arrangement of balancing heat loading with waste
and repository temperature limits • Majority of laboratory and modeling conducted at the national
laboratories • Builds upon past experiences – thermal tests at WIPP, Kansas,
Louisiana, and Germany
• TESTS TO PROVE & CONFIRM:
• Instrumented to measure:
>water movement
>temperature
>deformation rate
>alcove closure rate
>crushed salt pressure
>ventilation conditions
• Confirm lab tests
• Dispersion of heat
Why Conduct the Field Test at WIPP? •COST SAVINGS BY TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS •TIME SAVINGS BY DECADES DUE TO INFRASTRUCTURE •TESTS CAN BEGIN NOW Access SDDI Drifts
Heater Test
Potential Test Location Within WIPP URL
SDDI could be conducted in drifts near the planned test location for the hotter SDI experiments.
Two 80 ft long drifts spaced
approximately 35 ft apart (rib to rib).
Each drift would be excavated with
minimal mining (~10’ tall x 16’ wide).
The SDDI Field Test • Two test drifts, constructed and instrumented very similar.
• Each contains five heaters on the floor mimic in-drift disposal techniques.
• Drift #1: Run-of-mine backfill placed on top of canisters mimicking initial
placement
• Drift #2: Backfill compacted to the crown representing conditions ~30 yrs into
repository operations
SDDI Test Drift #1
SDDI Test Drift #2
HOW IS WIPP REGULATED?
• 1992 LWA DICTATED REGULATORY
OVERSITE
• EPA HAS RADIOLOGIC AUTHORITY
AND LONG TERM PERFORMANCE
• STATE HAS RCRA AUTHORITY
• DOE HAS HEALTH, SAFETY,
OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT
WHAT ARE WIPP LIMITS?
• TRANSURANICS > 100nci/gm
• DEFENSE ONLY WASTES
• VOLUME OF 176,000 cu meters
• RH > 200nci/gm UP TO 250,000 cu ft
– ONLY 5% OF RH CAN BE 200R TO 1000R
• NOTHING > 1,000 R/hr
• LIMITS ARE ONLY REGULATORY
WHAT THE HECK ARE
TRANSURANICS??
HOW DID CONSENT OCCUR? (CONSULTATION & COOPERATION
AGREEMENT) • 1980 LAW SUIT SETTLEMENT
• EEG ESTABLISHED (PAID CRITICS)
• LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FORMED (RADIOACTIVE & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMITTEE)
• CARLSBAD ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CENTER
• C & C PROVIDED FOR: – ROUTINE COMMUNICATIONS
– STANDARDS SETTING
– RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
– DEFINED PARTIES
– FOCUS ON PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
– PUBLIC INTERACTION WITH PERMIT
NATURAL DISASTERS & RISK
Sandy
Fukushima
Sandy
Sandy 2012
Drought
BRC RECOMMENDATIONS
• TWO OR MORE INTERIM STORAGE
FACILITIES
• TWO DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES
• A FED-CORP TO RUN THE BACK-END
OF THE FUEL CYCLE PROGRAM
• APPROPRIATING WASTE FUND
MONEY TO FED/CORP
WHAT IS THE NUCLEAR WASTE
FUND???
• CREATED BY NWPA OF 1982 TO TAKE CARE OF FUEL CYCLE WASTE
• 1 MIL / KwH FROM ALL NUKE USERS
• PRODUCES $780 MILLION PER YEAR
• CORPUS HAS $28 BILLION
• BBA, GRAHAM/RUDMAN, ETC. CONTROL
• IN NON-DISCRETIONARY-OUT DISCRET
• MUST BE APPROPRIATED
• TRANSFER TO FEDERAL/CORPORATION
HERE WE GO AGAIN
A SOLUTION TO USED
FUEL STORAGE
ANOTHER CONSENT
PROCESS
• ELEA is an LLC that includes the cities of Hobbs and Carlsbad, New Mexico, and Eddy and Lea counties
• ELEA purchased 1,000 acres of land approximately halfway between Carlsbad and Hobbs, N.M. for potential use
• Land studied extensively during Global Nuclear Energy Partnership process
• Includes land ideal for interim storage
EDDY LEA ENERGY
ALLIANCE (ELEA)
Example of interim storage facility
• Remote location
• Geologic stability
• Dry area
• Infrastructure present, including rail
• Preexisting robust scientific and nuclear operations workforce
• Excellent location for future repository nearby
• Highly supportive community
WHY THE ELEA SITE?
A NEW HOST AGREEMENT
• What is a consent based process?
– Every community, every state will have their
own ideas, requirements and process
– Willing community – region
– Tentative acceptable geology & geography
– Agreement by state to host the facility to allow
geo-technical/environmental assessment
– Agreement is the set of conditions required to
accept the facility
Host Agreement
– Health, safety and environmental standards • How much involvement? Defer to NRC?
• Violations?
– Security • Defer to NRC standards? Additional?
– Communication level? Who?
– Transportation oversight?
– Reporting? Who? What? How much?
– What is the definition of “Interim”?
– Resolution of disputes? Arbitration?
– Competent Court of Jurisdiction?
– Incentives? Each entity will have their own wish list.
– Decommissioning? • How clean is clean?
• Financial assurance for decommissioning?
AGREEMENT, WHAT THEN?
• Public education and integration of project in
region and state
• DOE negotiates deal to move forward
• Environmental, geo-technical evaluation to
prove site
• Final agreement with state approved
• DOE agreement to support NRC license
• DOE chooses sites
• DOE engages contractor thru RFP
Governor Susana Martinez addresses
the BRC in Carlsbad, January 2011
“At the end of the day it must be the science
that will lead us to the best decision that will
be in the best interest of this community and
of our nation.”
POLITICS
UGH!!
POLITICAL LANDSCAPE
• NEW CONGRESS – SAME OLD
CONGRESS
–Mostly same old faces
–Democrats nominally have more control
• FISCAL ISSUES WILL DOMINATE
–Debt crisis, debt ceiling, sequestration is real,
already talking 2014 CR
• IS A DEAL POSSIBLE?
–Too balanced, too radical, middle gone
ENERGY AGENDA
• Who is Ernie Moniz?
– Just an east coast scientist?
• What’s on everyone’s mind?
– Keystone pipeline, “all of the above”, DOE clean-up, all
the big projects failing –WTP, MOX, CMRR, spent fuel,
Gang of Four Bill, interim storage, Nat Gas
• New Faces on Committees:
– Maria Cantwell, Marcy Kaptur, Nita Lowry, Barbara
Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Ron Wyden
• 2014 Budget request
WELL…….
• New Gang of Four Bill Prospects?
– Linkage needs to go
– Needs more rapid unfolding
– Needs designated Board with specific representatives
– Too paternalistic – let states decide what they will agree
to or not
– How can one decide what’s best without repository site
– Bill like Bingaman Bill – no Yucca reference
– Has decoupling language
• Senate can pass it with modifications
• House hates anything but Yucca – real challenge
• Budgets for Nuke Industry will be tough
WHY DOES THE U.S. LIVE FOR
TODAY ONLY? • Why are we abandoning nuclear power?
• Our fleet is aging quickly
• Many units will be non-licensable at same
time
• How long will natural gas be cheap?
• Will a large fleet of SMR’s be the answer?
• Why are we pursuing high priced, non-
dispatchable energy sources?