A group of governors from western states voiced “disappointment” in a recently released five-year strategic plan for ongoing operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, contending they weren’t adequately consulted on the future of the nuclear waste repository near Carlsbad.
BY: ADRIAN HEDDEN | carlsbadcurrentargus.com
Don Hancock, director of the Nuclear Waste Program at the Southwest Research and Information Center said the plan was insufficient in that it did not detail plans and costs needed to keep WIPP open until 2050. He said the plan detailed projects intended to keep WIPP open beyond 2025, without adequately explaining the associated costs.
“It’s not a five-year plan,” Hancock said. “The centerpiece of the plan is WIPP being open until 2050. That’s 30-year plan. They’re saying WIPP’s timeline needs to be doubled. This should be saying how WIPP is transitioning from emplacement to closure, but it does the opposite.”
Hancock said the DOE must communicate with the public on either keeping WIPP, known as a pilot project, open indefinitely or developing other repositories to handle the low-level transuranic (TRU) waste disposed of at the site.
He said another alternative would be for the DOE to develop a plan to emplace the waste at the generator sites – multiple nuclear facilities across the country – themselves.
The Western Governors’ Association (WGA) sent a letter outlining its concerns to Kirk Lachman, acting manager of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carlsbad Field Office which oversees WIPP’s management and planning.
The five-year plan, mostly describing capital projects and schedules for waste emplacement, was released in August as WIPP officials contended the facility could continue accepting waste until 2050, double its original proposed lifespan of 25 years from its initial opening in 1999 to 2024.
Lachman said the plan was essential for the DOE to continue supporting WIPP’s “critical missions” related to updating infrastructure, increasing emplacement operations and ensuring working safety.
“Our ability to support these critical missions over the next five years and beyond is contingent on repairing, refurbishing, and recapitalizing aged and failing infrastructure at the WIPP facility, as well as modernizing the WIPP facility,” he said.
Shown is a conceptual representation of what WIPP may
Shown is a conceptual representation of what WIPP may look like in the next several years. The new area of the mine is represented in blue. (Photo: Courtesy of Department of Energy)
Nora Sackett, press secretary to New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said the governor’s office hoped for a “robust” stakeholder process involving planning at WIPP.
“New Mexico is engaged on a daily basis with the planning of the WIPP, not only in securing the infrastructure funding that the state is owed, but also in the day-to-day permitting and regulation of the facility itself,” she said in a statement.
The WGA’s letter pointed its Technical Advisory Group (TAG) established in 1989 and comprised of state nuclear waste and transportation experts, which did work with DOE officials in creating a waste transportation plan that was implemented nationwide upon WIPP’s opening.
“Western Governors are disappointed that the TAG was not involved with updates to the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan makes only minimal references to the crucial role that states play in planning, organizing, and transporting waste to WIPP,” read the Sept. 30 letter.
“The success of the WIPP shipping campaign relies on rigorous planning and coordination with states, and this practice should have been replicated when updating the Strategic Plan.”
John Heaton, chair of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance said the WGA was historically focused on the transportation of nuclear waste to WIPP.
And with about 15 million loaded miles driven by WIPP drivers without incident, Heaton said it was unlikely the transportation plan would change.
“It’s like going to the moon and back 30 times, and we’ve had no release,” Heaton said. “Traditionally, the WGA is focused on the transportation because that’s what impacts them jointly. There’s really nothing changing related to the transportation system.”
Concerns to be considered
WGA’s letter, signed by chair and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and vice chair and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, said the process of drafting the strategic plan would have benefited from the perspective and expertise of state nuclear experts.
“The TAG is comprised of state agency representatives with extensive experience in nuclear waste management, transportation planning and policy development,” the letter read. “Their extensive experience with WIPP’s operations would have been a valuable contribution to DOE’s consideration of future plans and activities at WIPP.”
State perspectives are integral to the variety of capital improvement projects detailed in the plan, read the letter, along with potential modifications to federal regulations that could impact “cross jurisdictional and transportation planning efforts,” the letter read.
“Western Governors request that states are be provided with advance notice and significant details about these projects, as they could influence shipment schedules and associated planning efforts in states,” read the letter. “Western Governors encourage DOE to engage in early, meaningful and substantive consultation with states when considering changes to these regulatory processes.”
Heaton said any added perspectives from the WGA or others would be considered by DOE officials. “They are always willing to accept any recommendations that make sense,” he said.
Heaton said WIPP’s ongoing operations are essential to cleaning up the nuclear waste in each of the host states, and governor’s should support the mission’s expedience.
He said WIPP is still primarily in recovery-mode, as the facility seals off contaminated areas and upgrades its infrastructure while intending to increase the rate of waste acceptance and emplacement.
“States don’t want to do anything that would slow down recovery,” Heaton said. “It’s essential to their cleanup.”
What about the 2014 incident?
Aside from the lack of state feedback solicited during the drafting of the plan, the WGA also called for more information related to a 2014 accidental radiological release that led to a three-year cease of WIPP’s core operations: mining and emplacement.
“The amount of discussion devoted to the 2014 incident and DOE’s response is minimal given the severity of the accident,” the letter read. “Accidents such as these affect the management and shipping time frames of transuranic waste at sites across the West, and the Strategic Plan should contain more information about the incident, lessons learned, and actions taken to avoid future releases of radiation.”
Heaton said concerns related to the incident in 2014 were addressed in the plan’s increases in WIPP’s waste acceptance criteria.
He said a new, multi-level approach to evaluate drums of waste accepted for disposal at WIPP would better ensure the safety of operations in the years to come.
The new model for acceptance was even made able to look at the actual chemical make up of the waste itself, not just the integrity of the drums, he said.
“The new approach is extremely rigorous,” Heaton said. “Every drum is presumed guilty,or un-shippable, until proven shippable.
Expanding the mission?
Don Hancock, director of the Nuclear Waste Program at the Southwest Research and Information Center said the plan was also insufficient in that it did not detail plans and costs needed to keep WIPP open until 2050. He said the plan detailed projects intended to keep WIPP open beyond 2025, without adequately explaining the associated costs.
“It’s not a five-year plan,” Hancock said. “The centerpiece of the plan is WIPP being open until 2050. That’s 30-year plan. They’re saying WIPP’s timeline needs to be doubled. This should be saying how WIPP is transitioning from emplacement to closure, but it does the opposite.”
Hancock said the DOE must communicate with the public on either keeping WIPP, known as a pilot project, open indefinitely or developing other repositories to handle the low-level transuranic (TRU) waste disposed of at the site.
He said another alternative would be for the DOE to develop a plan to emplace the waste at the generator sites – multiple nuclear facilities across the country – themselves.
“Congress always said there would be multiple repositories,” Hancock said. “WIPP was the first. Where are the others? They (DOE) have to start saying what the plan is.”
And such a plan must include feedback from the states impacted by WIPP, he said, including New Mexico where the facility resides and the states that hold nuclear facilities and transport waste to WIPP.
“When you double the lifetime of WIPP, you also more than double the cost,” Hancock said. “Did taxpayers sign up for that? That’s an important national conversation. Congress and the states have not had that conversation.”
Heaton said recent analysis of the inventory of TRU waste within the DOE’s Weapons Complex was used to increase WIPP’s expected timeline.
He said WIPP’s mission could continue to evolve as more waste disposal is needed, and the DOE works to change how it characterizes high-level waste, looking at its actual chemical make-up, not simply the origin.
“There is a real movement at the DOE to look at high-level waste differently,” he said. “If WIPP needs to be open for longer, you just have to keep emplacing waste that meets its acceptance criteria.”
WIPP’s mission could extend even beyond 2050, Heaton said, depending on regulatory changes and the continued need to address the country’s nuclear waste.
“We have such a better idea of what the inventory is than we did in 1975,” he said. “Once (WIPP) gets back into full operation, we know generally what the shipping rate is. You emplace waste until its full. When it’s full, it’s full.”
Adrian Hedden can be reached at 575-628-5516, [email protected] or @AdrianHedden on Twitter.