NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES PLUTONIUM DISPOSAL AT WIPP. MAYOR S NUCLEAR TASK FORCE JOHN HEATON, CHAIR March 13, 2018

Transcription

1 NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES PLUTONIUM DISPOSAL AT WIPP MAYOR S NUCLEAR TASK FORCE JOHN HEATON, CHAIR March 13, 2018

2 TASK FORCE PERSPECTIVE Brief History of WIPP & Community Support 1975 we began the consent process 1979 began geologic exploratory process Sandia began educating community about salt and HLW 1981 experiments to demonstrate long term safety case began Transportation was studied and tests performed for NRC licensing More and more comfort 1987 became defense TRU only 1992 LWA passed and State RCRA permit drafted 1999 Opened 2014 Fire and Rad event occurred, many town halls & community steadfast

3 CHALLENGES TO SAVE MOX PLANT High Bridge hired by MOX contractor to assert criticality concerns about WIPP diluted Pu Refuted by Sandia from extensive previous analysis & 3 tons D&D waste in WIPP Latest EPA 5 yr Compliance Recertification Approval without additional Pu content The CRA evaluation is for what is known at cut off before EPA recertification decision D&D Pu is CH waste which has no curie limit only RH waste has a radioactivity limit CRA Assumes Fixed Volume but Curie Can change for Determination of long term PA 40CFR Pt 191 Critics claim Inconsistency between Yucca & WIPP long term performance criteria EPA evaluation of WIPP was to grant No Migration Determination due to robustness Critics claim WIPP does not have the capacity for the D&D Pu Volume of Record counting has included air in the overpacks used to transport drums A new permit modification for counting the drums waste will allow additional 60,000 cu meters Governor Richardson assertions about WIPP and D&D waste to WIPP Whether the Pu is on clothing or in diluted form calling one weapons and the other not, is absurd

4 CHALLENGES TO SAVE MOX PLANT Critics claim Possibility of Criticality and lack of research Original criticality studies extremely rigorous before Rocky Flats D&D Pu sent to WIPP Confirmation of no criticality issues by Sandia after High Bridge report Concern over 5,000 truckloads of CH TRU shipments There is an obvious statistical risk to highway travel accidents. WIPP s transportation system is a remarkable story and the envy of all trucking companies Finally, a summary of concerns attacking WIPP and policy and process Where were complaints when WIPP was taking Rocky Flats Pu? Critics fail to understand that WIPP s mission is to take low level long lived contact handled Plutonium waste defined as CH TRU waste with no Safeguards That is WIPP s mission

5 SAFEGUARDS AND WIPP SNM (Pu) Disposal is to Reduce Proliferation, Smaller Inventories, expensive Safeguards, etc. Pu that meets WAC when Oxidized, Diluted and Safeguards removed Pu declared Excess or of No Programmatic Use is D&D candidate The WIPP WAC Requires NO Safeguards and D&D Pu is CH TRU waste with all Safeguards Terminated MOX fuel requires Safeguards Pu easily separated Expensive MOX Does Not Achieve Goal No Reactor to Burn It Other SNM Materials based on attractiveness and need for protection may be considered for treatment and WIPP disposal when Safeguards removed

6 PERMIT MODS SUBMITTED TO NMED Panel and south end closure Class III Training program revision Class II Above Ground storage Class III New 540,000 Cfm Safety Significant Hepa Ventilation building Class II New shaft submitted as Class II Removal of tank waste prohibition Class III Volume of record calculation will submit as Class II

7 7 VOLUME OF RECORD PMR PIPE OVERPACKCOMPONENT Primarily used for shipping larger amounts of fissile material (<200g) Outer volume: 208-liter Inner volume : 50-liter ~26,000 emplaced ID - 15 cm Outer volume: 5,224 m 3 Inner volume: 1,250 m 3 Difference: 3,974m3

8 8 STANDARD WASTE BOX Primarily used for overpacking 208-liter drums Outer volume: 1.8 m 3 Inner volume : 0.8 m 3 (four 208-liter drums) 12,075 emplaced Outer volume: 21, 735 m 3 Inner volume: 9,660 m 3 Difference: 12,075m3

9 9 TEN DRUMOVERPACK Primarily used for overpacking 208-liter drums Outer volume: 4.5 m 3 Inner volume : 2.1 m 3 (Ten 208-liter drums) 5,755 emplaced Outer volume: 25, 897 m 3 Inner volume: 11,510 m 3 Difference: 14,387m3

10 1 0 Non Waste Volumes From Over Packing Emplac e d Volume of Record Inner Co ntaine r Volume Volume Capacity Used by nonwaste volumes TDOP 25,897 11,510 14,387 SWB 21,735 9,660 12,075 POC 5,224 1,250 3,974 30,436 2 Disposal Panels of Air

11 CONCLUSION WIPP Has Very Strong Regional Support Strong Nuclear IQ in Region From Constant Education Living WIPP High Level of Confidence in Salt Repository Technical Aspects Acceptance of URENCO and Consolidated Interim Storage Attacks on D&D Pu Criticality Unfounded Attacks on WIPP to Preserve MOX is Misguided Volume Limitations Unfounded with PMR If WIPP Limits were Challenged, LWA Changes in NDAA Highly Probable WIPP Is A National Treasure & Must Be Used To Fullest Extent Possible

12 JUST IN CASE =CASE Pu+Oxidize+Stardust Safeguard = WAC CASE