WIPP Today · •Linear No Threshold (LNT) is easy to regulate. •Atomic bomb survivors give best...
58
WIPP Today Dr. Robert Bruce Hayes, CHP, PE Associate Professor Nuclear Engineering Department North Carolina State University Guest lecture NE 201, Wed Oct 15 Supported by Federal Grant NRC-HQ-84-14-G-0059
Transcript of WIPP Today · •Linear No Threshold (LNT) is easy to regulate. •Atomic bomb survivors give best...
WIPP Today
Dr. Robert Bruce Hayes, CHP, PE
Associate Professor
Nuclear Engineering Department
North Carolina State University
Guest lecture
NE 201, Wed Oct 15
Supported by Federal Grant NRC-HQ-84-14-G-0059
Outline
• Introduction to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
– Where is the WIPP, what does it do and how does it work?
– Stellar operational history of WIPP up to the event
• Overview of the history of the WIPP event leading to the
release
• Follow on emergency response and recovery phases
– Consequence analysis – how bad was the impact outside the
mine
• Contextualization and perspective – a comparative look
– Comparison to Chernobyl, Fukushima in light of a risk based
perspective
• Conclusions
WIPP waste
• Basically just trash from
weapons complex work
(including decon) such as
discarded PPE
• Most of the waste is
Contact Handled (CH)
less than 200 mrem/hr on
contact
• Can be Remote Handled
(RH) which is greater than
200 mrem/hr on contact
Facility configuration
• Multiple surface
structures and
underground work
areas
• 4 shafts for
ventilation and
access
• 8 panels intended
• Repository is
located 2150 feet
underground
General regional details
• Situated approximately
midway between Hobbs and
Carlsbad, NM
• Approximately 42 miles
directly west of the National
Enrichment Facility (by
Louisiana Enrichment
Services) and WCS
• Isotopes International
deconversion facility
between Hobbs and WIPP
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
• The worlds first
licensed geological
repository for
Transuranic (TRU)
waste
• Located in southeast
New Mexico
approximately 26 miles
east of Carlsbad, NM
• The site is composed
of 10,240 acres
Short history of WIPP
• In 1957, the National Academy of Sciences recommends
geological disposal of waste in salt deposits
• In 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission began looking at
the WIPP site as a candidate for a geological disposal
• In 1982, construction of the WIPP underground began
• In 1985, EPA established federal regulations for WIPP – 40CFR191 Environmental radiation protection standards for management and disposal
of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes
– 40CFR194 Criteria for the certification and re-certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant's compliance with the 40CFR191 disposal regulations
• In 1992, President Bush signed the Land Withdrawal Act
(LWA)
• In 1996, President Clinton signed an amendment to the LWA
Opening WIPP and beyond…
• March 26, 1999 first waste shipment and emplacement in the
WIPP underground.
• Because of the intensely dedicated commitment to safety and
environmental protection, the WIPP site has continually enjoyed
substantial grass roots support from its surrounding communities.
– Over 2 decades of obtaining the safest mine in the state award
(annually)
– Multiple instances of 2 million safe worker hours
– Multiple Department of Energy (DOE) star of star awards
– Multiple voluntary protection program (VPP) star among stars
awards
– Continuous VPP certification since 1994
– A large number of emergency response team awards (medical
and mine rescue)
WIPP regulators and oversight
• Department of Energy
– 10CFR835, 10CFR820, standards, orders etc.
• Environmental Protection Agency
– 40CFR191&194, NESHAPS
• State of New Mexico (RCRA, hazardous waste facility permit)
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (transportation)
• Department of Transportation
• Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
• Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB)
• OSHA, DOL, etc.
Remote Handled (RH) TRU Waste
• Requires continuous
shielding
• Minimum dose rate of
200 mrem/hr contact
• Maximum 1000 rem/hr
contact
• Maximum 23 Ci/liter
activity density
• Relatively large content
of Sr/Y and 137Cs
Warning future generations
• Passive Institutional
Controls
• A large berm
• Perimeter monuments
• An information center
• Two information storage
rooms
• Buried warning markers
• Archives stored in various
locations around the world
Quick review of it’s stellar operational
history and record prior to what was
effectively a nightmarish event for
everyone
TRUPACT-III and the standard large box
• Rather than break down entire
glove box systems (or drill press
or lathes etc.) and repackage into
55-gallon drums, we can now
package the entire glove box
(drill press, lathe etc)
• Breaking down large items such
as lathes, presses and glove
boxes generates substantial
additional waste and operator
risk
• Saves time and money
Underground observatory with low
background natural radiation
• Underground
Laboratory
• Double beta decay
– Neutrino mass
• Low level radiation
effects on cells
• Repository science
• Dark Matter
Telescope
Homeland Security
• WIPP has cost taxpayers
around 6 billion US$ to date.
• This does not include
generator sites own funding
for TRU waste.
• Yucca Mountain has cost over
10 billion US$.
• Clearly very different scope
and missions for geological
repositories.
• Is this a reasonable
comparison? Maybe not,
there are a number of factors.
A metric for cost effectiveness?
• Start with an ad-hoc estimation for the LD50 (limit assumed to kill
50% of those exposed) for internal uptake of 10,000 ALI
• From this relationship, 1 LD50 = 1E4 ALI and 2E6Ci=1E12 ALI,
we get 1E12 ALI x 1LD50/1E4 ALI = 1E8 LD50
• The WIPP would then have permanently removed from the
biosphere 1E8 LD50 of activity.
• Using then the number 1E10 US$ as a total cost estimate for
WIPP, this means that taxpayers have spent around 1E10
US$/1E8 LD50 =100 US$ per LD50
– Permanently removed from the biosphere via the WIPP
• Using these units is misleading insofar that they suggest the
activity can be distributed for intake (or is already completely
inside the food you are eating).
WIPP was a crown jewel of operational
excellence … and then this happened…
• The waste arrived in over 10,000
shipments traveling over more
than 13 million loaded miles!
• Equivalent to more than 27 trips
to the moon and back without a
single detectable release of
radioactivity
• Total waste emplaced is both
over 2.9E6 ft3 and 2E6 Ci
• Capacity limited to 6.2E6 ft3
• Activity limited to 5.1E6 Ci
• Better safety record than most
libraries
How was this possible?An overview of the history of the
WIPP event leading to the release
Comedy of errors?• LANL chemists instructed this material had to be
neutralized with inorganic material only
– Operations recorded this as material has to be neutralized with
an organic material only
• LANL violated their permit
– Permit allowed only characterizing the waste
• Industrial hygienist notified management that he was
concerned the mixtures could have safety problems and
requested LANL chemists review the process
– Management did not follow through with the requested review
• Glovebox operators notified management by asking if
the mixture should be smoking as observed
– Management ignored this final warning
Actual WIPP
release path
860 Fans
700 Fans
700 Fan
If everything operated
as designed, how did a
release occur?
Actual filter
recovery the day
after the release
1. Sampling later that day from
Station B demonstrated that
the release was not a “puff”
but rather protracted.
2. Additional modeling
required.
Initial plume estimate generated that morning
for monitoring and analysis planning
Hidden lessons learned
• When we retrieved the first air sample, I reported what
was measured, the data was consistent with radon
progeny
– This was misinterpreted by some that “there was no
release”
• 2nd effluent sample was refused to be allowed for
radioassay by M&O decision makers
• Custom WIPP rapid field assay found 50 dpm TRU in
initial air sample
• No external support for many days (no RAP teams)
– CMHT and NARAC were not stood up for 5 days
Consequence analysis
• Hayes R. B. (2016) Consequence assessment of the
WIPP radiological release from February 2014. Health
Phys. 110(4), 342-360.
Lessons learned on the ER side…
8 106
8.2 106
8.4 106
8.6 106
8.8 106
9 106
1 10 100 1000
Integrated Station A
activity (dpm)
To
tal
ac
tiv
ity
on
Sta
tio
n A
FA
S (
dp
m)
Hours post CAM alarm (hrs)
m1*(1-exp(-x/m2))+m3*(1-exp(-x/m4))+m5*x
ErrorValue
1.14e+47.401e+6m1
1.02e-21.4989e+0m2
1.1e+41.486e+6m3
3.4e-27.5172e+0m4
4.5e-15.5888e+0m5
NA5.4383e+1Chisq
NA9.9998e-1R
C(t)=C(0)*exp(-t/m2) where m2 = V/Q where Q is the flow rate to the volume V.
Emergency response and
non-proliferation applications
1x10-5
1x10-4
1x10-3
1x10-2
1x10-1
1x10-5
1x10-4
1x10-3
1x10-2
1x10-1
Computed Value (Bq/m3)
Overestimates
Ca
lcu
late
d (
Bq
/m3)
Measured (Bq/m3)
One-to-one
corresponcence line
y = m1 + m2 * M0
ErrorValue
1.1e-53.1e-5m1
0.190.86m2
NA0.71Chisq
NA0.98R
Mine reentry
• Assume the worst, sample verify and proceed
• Ventilation being down, convective currents
caused updrafts
• Entry began with battery powered portable
instruments only
– Assume the worst, sample verify and proceed
– Continually assume the worst you can miss is there
Recovery plans (all now complete)
• Decon and contamination control
– Water wash and run of the mine salt (ROTMS)
– Layer of bright colored tarp material
– Additional layer of ROTMS
– When tarp is seen, area is sequestered until new
ROTMS is brought in for cover
• New Ventilation planned
• New waste transfer planned
• Emptying the waste handling building
• Lessons learned, new requirements
New Mexico State University independent
oversight for NM makes radical claims!
Thakur P, Khaing H, Hardy R. “Should WIPP resume unfiltered discharge of underground ventilation”. Trans. Amer. Nuc. Soc. 116, 235-238, 2017.
Chernobyl – worst case scenario
• 100+ liquidators
• 500+ leukemia
• Graphite core fire following
coolant steam flash
• Thousands of cancers and
deaths
– Compare to Bhopal India
event of the same year
• Methyl Isocyanate killing up to
16k
Fukushima – BEU event
• A modern western design
• Terrorizes people still to
this day
• Single handedly stopped
the nuclear renaissance?
• Zero radiation deaths, zero
measured radiogenic bio-
effects, zero measured
environmental detriment.
– How is that possible?
Really, no deaths from Fukushima?
• The only deaths were from
premature evacuations
– Fear is the enemy
• United Nations Scientific Council
on the Atomic Effects of
Radiation (UNSCEAR) found no
expected radiogenic effects.
• World Health Organization
issued similar findings along with
professional societies etc.
What about the recent open literature?
• Linear No Threshold
(LNT) is easy to regulate.
• Atomic bomb survivors
give best estimates only
on moderate and high
doses for cancer risk
• Psychosocial effects are
real and can contribute to
substantial health effects
(e.g. suicide).
• Children and in-uetero
most at risk
Review papers addressing Chernobyl consistently contradict LNT predictions
Mutation Research 771 59–84 2017Physica Medica 43 153–158, 2017Int. J. Cancer 141 1585–1588, 2017Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology
& Metabolism 22(6) 1061–1073, 2008J. Radiol. Prot. 35(4) R35-R45, 2015Lancet Oncol 3, 269-279, 2002Clinical Oncology, 23(4) 297-305 2011Lancet 386 469–478 2015Radiation Measurements 73 51-59 2015
Children do have relative low dose risk Radiography 22 S41-S46 2016
What is risk and risk management?
• Risk = Consequences x Probability
– Risk increases proportionately with either the consequences of
the event or its likelihood
– Risk management requires all risks be first brought to an
equivalent level and then all reduced accordingly
• Many people associate any claim that nuclear
technology can be safe to be synonymous with a zero
risk
• Any expectation that an activity has zero risk then
requires that the activity simply not take place as any
activity will have some risk
What is the risk from a nuclear accident? The popular fear is not ARS but cancer induction
• Radiogenic cancer probability has been estimated as
0.05/Gy based on LNT
• Radiation can cause various detrimental effects all the
way up to and including death
• Consensus based risk is that the design basis for life on
earth encompasses or fits to the biosphere
– All environmental variables including pressure, vibration, heat,
light, impurities in water and air, and yes, radiation • Historical variations in solar and cosmic are assumed constant
– Terrestrial radiation increases exponentially as you go back in
time to the origin of homosapiens if not life itself
Cancer is normal in that it has always
been here, since the dinosaursNatarajan LC, Melott AL, Rothschild BM, Martin LD. Trans. Kansas
Acad. Sci. 110(3 & 4), 155-158. 2007
Dunn B. Nature, 483( Suppl 7387), S2-S6. 2012
Rothschild BM, Witzke BJ, Hershkovitz I. The Lancet, 354, 398. 1999
Faguet GB. Int. J. Cancer: 136, 2022–2036. 2015
Argyle DJ, Blacking T. The Veterinary Journal, 177(3), 2008
Weiss L. Cancer and Metastasis Reviews 19(3–4), 193–204. 2000
https://nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/toptencancers.aspx
Radiogenic cancer is very well understood –
at least very consistently studied
• Radiogenic cancer is believed to be caused by double
strand breaks of DNA.
• Many natural effects can randomly cause double strand
breaks in DNA
– This definitely includes background radiation
• Life has the ability to repair DNA
– The scientific journal DNA Repair is a good example
demonstrating the depth and breadth of this aspect of life
• DNA repair rates are assumed to optimally function at
natural occurrence rates (its design specification).
Scientific consensus on low dose modelthat would be nice
• The simplest empirical model to reproduce measurement
is a linear threshold model
– This is consistent with coming to a location that just overwhelms
natural repair mechanisms
• Some evidence is consistent with hormesis effects.
• National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements. Uncertainties in the estimation of
radiation risks and probability of disease causation.
Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements; NCRP Report No. 171; 2012
CDC study of 137Cs deposition from global nuclear fallout
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/feasibilitystudy/technical_vol_1_chapter_3.pdf
Radioactivity in food, we must eat it for life and health
• Medical studies show we do not
get enough 40K in our diet leading
to excess hypertension
– J. Amer. Soc. Hypertension, 7:395-
400; 2013.
– Mayo Clinic Proc. 88:987-995; 2013
• Compare 40K to 137Cs
– 40K has a higher energy gamma • 40K(g)=1.46 MeV, 137Cs(g)=0.66 MeV
– 40K has a higher energy beta• 40K( ҧ𝛽)=560 keV, 137Cs( ҧ𝛽) ≈190 keV
– Both elements are in the same
chemical family
55
How harmful was the WIPP event then?
1. Nuclear Waste Repository2. Worst Case Event?3. Drum rupture into a
fireball!4. No reportable doses5. No personnel
contamination6. Environmental release less
than historical values7. Terrorized residents
Radiophobia may be the greatest risk
associated with nuclear accidents
• Luddites and Pasteurization, is this a good analogy?
• Is natural radiation good or ok, what about medical
exposures?
– When natural elevated background results in moderate annual
doses, no carcinogenic effects are seen in the population.
• Fear can cause individuals to forbid important medical
procedures, oppose useful industrial practices and
require inordinately low risk potential.
– Biol. Theory (2016) 11:69–101
Conclusions
• WIPP began and ran with a stellar record until the LANL
valentines day gift went a bit overboard.
• WIPP may still end up being under budget and ahead of
schedule although the drivers which placed them in this
situation may have aided the environment allowing the
release to occur.
• WIPP still has the promise of demonstrating the fuel cycle
can be closed safely and efficiently.
• Worker, public and environmental exposures were all within
legal limits and substantially below annual allowed levels.
• The release was negligible in terms of worker, public or
environmental safety or impact.
Hayes RB. (2017) Reconstruction of a radiological release using aerosol sampling Health Phys. 112(4), 326-337.Hayes R. B. (2016) Implementation of a portable HPGe for field contamination assay. Health Phys. 110(6), 571-579.Hayes R. B. (2016) Consequence assessment of the WIPP radiological release from February 2014. Health Phys. 110(4),
342-360.
