HOW MUCH RADIOACTIVE WASTE COULD POTENTIALLY BE IMPORTED INTO TEXAS

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What is “Appalachian Compact”?
Advertisements

A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratory Operated by The University of Chicago Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Risk-Based Regulation.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Generation Information for Appalachian Compact September 2014.
Radioactive Waste Import: Liability and Risks for Texas Cyrus Reed Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club Cyrus Reed Lone Star.
14.4 Nuclear Energy FIGURE 16: Structure of the atom.
Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly…
Performance Assessment Issues in Waste Management and Environmental Protection Annual Meeting of the Baltimore-Washington Chapter of the Health Physics.
Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Compacts and update on Commercial LLRW Disposal Facilities Tom Wolf, Governor John Quigley, Secretary.
Status of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities.
1 Overview of Proposed Changes to Rules for Import of LLRW By: Rod Baltzer, President November 9, 2011 Texas LLRW Disposal Compact Commissioners.
Nuclear Waste Storage in Utah!. Clive Storage Facility (Energy Solutions)  In 1990 Energy Solutions was permitted to treat and dispose of Class A low.
Regulatory Framework for Uranium Production Facilities in the U.S.
Just Do It Now – E Problems 1.Given that the electricity for home use is five cents per kilowatt- hour, how much would it cost to operate five fluorescent.
Appalachian Compact 2014 LLRW Disposal Data Tom Wolf, Governor John Quigley, Secretary.
By: Joe Jackson Nuclear Power Plant.
Update on NRC Low-Level Waste (LLW) Program Activities.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. Overview Introduction to nuclear reactors Fundamentals of LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) Economic viability.
Radioactive Waste sites
Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Compacts and Update on Commercial LLRW Disposal Facilities.
Status Update on the NRC Proposed Rule to Amend 10 CFR Part 61.
Technetium-99m By Emily Vella Science Assessment Task 3.
Texas supports the requirement for a site-specific analysis and specific dose limit of 25 mrem/yr within the 1,000-year compliance period Texas.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) Disposition at the
Background - Federal Legislation
Status Update on the NRC Proposed Rule to Amend 10 CFR Part 61
Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste
Radiological impacts from nuclear industrial facilities on the public and the environment : Their magnitude and the next 50 years forecast Sylvain Saint-Pierre.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Requirements for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Minimization Plans Rich Janati, M.S., Chief Division of Nuclear Safety PA Dept. of Environmental Protection.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 61
Leigh Ing Executive Director
Clive 2017 Disposal Update presented by Dan Shrum
South Carolina Perspective on Part 61 Proposed Revisions
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)
Al-Quds University Faculty of Science And Technology Physics Department Portable Nuclear Reactor VS Traditional By Maram shawasha Instructor Dr: Adnan.
NRC’s LLW Regulatory Program: Update of Emerging Issues
Regulatory Guide 1.21 – Reporting of LLW shipped
Fall Low Level Waste Forum Meeting
Morgan Pedneault Laina Oldford
NRC’s LLW Regulatory Program: Update of Emerging Issues
Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Compacts and update
Clive 2018 Disposal Update presented by Dan Shrum
BEIR VII: Update on the risks of “low-level” radiation
Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste
Status of Disposal Capabilities for Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Theresa J. Kliczewski GTCC EIS Document Manager Office of.
Revisions to the Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation Branch Technical Position A. Christianne Ridge Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery,
Tom Wolf, Governor Patrick McDonnell, PA DEP Secretary
Nuclear Energy Fission vs Fusion.
LLW FORUM Part 61 Working Group SRM overview
Fission vs. Fusion.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program Update
NRC Oversight on Storage of Special Nuclear Material
LL Forum Meeting Richland Washington
Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste
Mike Garner Chair/Executive Director Northwest Compact
Industry Perspectives on Part 61 Rulemaking
NRC Panel Discussion on Part 61 Proposed Rule. June 25, Perry D
Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste
Engineering Materials 27
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program Update
By Daveed Ransome and a little bit of work done by Charles Cramer
Licensed Process for Disposal of Low-Activity Wastes in the WCS RCRA Cell Chris Shaw – May 2018 Corporate RSO & TSPM.
Exempt and Low Activity Radioactive Waste Disposal
Radioactive Materials Section Update
PAPER NUMBER 98 Disposal project for LLW and VLLW generated from research facilities in Japan: A feasibility study for the near surface disposal of VLLW.
Office of Waste Disposal Office of Environmental Management
Licensed Process for Disposal of Low-Activity Wastes in the WCS RCRA Cell Chris Shaw – 2019 Corporate RSO & Head of Licensing.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Spring 2019 Meeting – Alexandria, VA
Presentation transcript:

HOW MUCH RADIOACTIVE WASTE COULD POTENTIALLY BE IMPORTED INTO TEXAS HOW MUCH RADIOACTIVE WASTE COULD POTENTIALLY BE IMPORTED INTO TEXAS? WHAT ARE THE RISKS TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT? Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. President, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

Potential Import Volume and Radioactivity Commercial low-level radioactive waste disposed of in the US between 1/1/06 and 12/31/08: 8,760,000 ft3 2,230,000 curies of radioactivity Average: 2.9 million cubic feet and 0.74 million curies per year Almost all this waste is now generated in states that do not have an in-compact disposal facility (Data cited here are from the DOE MIMS database)

Importation Could Easily Overwhelm the Site as Licensed Class A Waste The only facility open to non-compact commercial waste at present is the Clive, Utah facility, which is licensed for only Class A waste. From 2006 to 2008 Clive took on average 2.8+ million cubic feet of Class A waste per year Under the Proposed Rule, much or most of those 2.8 million cubic feet of Class A waste per year could be diverted to Texas, depending on relative economics. The WCS site is licensed to hold 2.31 million cubic feet and could be exceeded by out-of-compact waste in one year Class B&C Waste Opening up the WCS site to waste imports could result in the importation of a significant amount of Class B and C waste as well – there is currently no site that is accepting out-of-compact Class B and C waste. Well over 90 percent of the approximately 2.2 million curies LLRW was generated in states without waste compacts The vast majority of this is Class B and C waste. This is an out-of-compact average of about 700,000 curies per year which would likely come to Texas The WCS facility is only licensed for 3.89 million curies and could be exceeded by out-of-compact waste in less than six years

19 Times the Radioactivity of Compact States Texas and Vermont Radioactivity from commercial wastes comes largely from nuclear power plants Texas-Vermont Compact has only 5 operating nuclear reactors, with total reactor capacity of 5,500 megawatts US has 104 reactors, with a total power rating of 106,000 megawatts Thus, importation would increase the radioactivity in the waste that could be sent to Texas roughly 19 times

Risks to Public Health and Environment  Major Environmental Rule In § 2001.0225, Texas Government Code , a “Major Environmental Rule” is one: “that may adversely affect, in a material way… the environment or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state.” The Compact Commission does not consider the proposed rule to be a “Major Environmental Rule” If the Texas facility is opened to 19 times the total reactor capacity, the likely environmental impact can be expected to increase commensurately. LLRW consists of fission products that are dangerous to human health if ingested or inhaled in amounts of a fraction of a curie This import rule could result in millions of additional curies of radioactivity being brought to Texas LLRW also contains depleted uranium. While smaller in amounts (average for 200-2008 about 98 curies per year), it is very long loved and radioactivity builds up over time The Compact Commission has concluded, without analysis, that the transport, handling, storage, and disposal of millions of curies of radioactivity, some being very long-lived, does not constitute a “Major Environmental Rule” Increasing potential volume and radioactivity by more than an order of magnitude over the presently licensed amounts without a detailed estimation of environmental impact would be unwise The facts warrant a conclusion that the Proposed Rule should be considered a Major Environmental Rule until an impact assessment is completed

Risks to Public Health The impact of at least some non-compact long-lived radionuclides disposed of at the WCS site could be significant Radiation and radionuclides are Class 1 carcinogens. Exposure to radionuclides and radiation increases the risk of cancer and potentially other diseases as well. Dose from disposal of a single average year of non-compact depleted uranium (about 98 curies per year, 2006 to 2008 average) would likely cause the long-term dose (thousands or tens of thousands of years) to exceed the 10 CFR 61 regulation limit of 25 millirem per year. Multi-year disposal at these rates would cause the 10 CFR 61 radiation dose limit to be greatly exceeded. Disposal of other long-lived radionuclides would increase the health impacts even further. It should be noted that there is no time limit for performance under 10 CFR 61. Dose limits must be met at all times in the future.