Federal nuclear waste officials announced last month a shipment of diluted surplus weapons-grade plutonium was dumped at a repository near Carlsbad after it was shipped from South Carolina to New Mexico, amid criticism from state nuclear watchdog groups.
The shipment contained plutonium that was diluted using a process known as “downblending,” which lowered its radioactivity to meet the requirements of the waste isolation pilot facility at which the US Department of Energy is disposing of transuranic (TRU) nuclear waste in an underground salt storage facility.
It was brought to the WIPP from the DOE’s Savannah River Site, a laboratory where the federal government is developing nuclear weapons.
More:Feds ramp up shipments of nuclear waste to New Mexico repository, led by waste from other states
After downblending, the waste meets the definition of TRU waste, according to an announcement by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and can be legally disposed of at WIPP.
Disposal at WIPP was in response to a 2020 agreement between the DOE and the state of South Carolina that provided for the removal of 9.5 tonnes (MT) of plutonium waste from the state, achieved after years of negotiation and litigation.
The waste was first taken to Savannah River to be irradiated in a mixed oxide (MOX) facility to convert the nuclear waste into fuel.
More:New Mexico nuclear waste project rejected in latest poll, company pledges local support
The MOX plant was shut down by then-Energy Secretary Rick Perry in 2018 because the project was $13 billion over budget and 32 years behind schedule, a DOE report reads.
But the waste remained in South Carolina, and the DOE was obligated under the agreement to pay the state of South Carolina $1 million a day up to a maximum of $100 million a year for plutonium after a period of January 1, 2022 away.
In the 2020 agreement, the DOE chose to pay the state $600 million upfront, was relieved of previously required payments until 2037, and South Carolina agreed to waive its rights to a lawsuit against the DOE .
More:Feds push plan to dispose of plutonium at nuclear waste repository near Carlsbad
In 2037, under the agreement, the DOE will pay a percentage of payments accrued between 2022 and 2037 based on how much plutonium remains in Savannah River and will continue to do so for each year thereafter.
NNSA Undersecretary Jill Hruby said the successful first shipment of the waste validated the federal government’s efforts to dispose of nuclear waste.
“The NNSA remains committed to nuclear non-proliferation, safety and risk reduction,” Hruby said in a statement. “We are proud to demonstrate our firm commitment to these missions and we value the relationship with the states of South Carolina and New Mexico.”
More:New Mexico’s nuclear history is celebrated in the national stamp collection, despite the repercussions
The first shipment was announced while the DOE was underway, with a public statement to use the same “dilution and disposal” method for 34 tonnes (MT) of waste plutonium, most of which is at the Pantex facility in Amarillo, Texas , located.
However, this would mean that the waste would be transported from Pantex to Los Alamos and then to the Savannah River site for final packaging before going to the WIPP, meaning the waste would traverse New Mexico three times.
Opponents of this proposal in New Mexico feared that the repeated travel across their state would increase the risk of radiation exposure in their communities.
More:New Mexico is seeking nuclear waste permitting contributions for a repository near Carlsbad
Critics oppose the use of the New Mexico site for plutonium disposal
Don Hancock, nuclear waste program manager at the Albuquerque Watchdog Group Southwest Research and Information Center, said the group and others in the state oppose the project and its use of WIPP.
He said the DOE’s practice of applying for a permit for individual segments of the plutonium waste, rather than for the entire waste at once, is intended to protect decisions that have already been made without public input.
“The DOE made that decision before they did any analysis,” Hancock said. “All of these documents are intended to provide legal protection and justify decisions already made.”
More:Air projects at nuclear waste repository near Carlsbad move forward after delays
NNSA spokesman Roger Bain said the original shipment contained waste plutonium that the agency already had the right to dilute and dispose of under a previous decision made under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
This allows the method to be used on 6 tons of waste at Savannah River and an additional 7.1 tons of non-mine plutonium of the 34 tons being screened, Bain said.
Plutonium mines are the triggers for nuclear warheads, and the DOE recently announced plans to increase their production at Savannah River and Los Alamos.
More:Nuclear waste lies untreated on the Carlsbad area while the FBI figures out what to do
Bain said the success of the first shipment of plutonium proves the DOE can continue to use this method for the full 34 tons it intends to dispose of with WIPP.
“The success of this shipment demonstrates DOE and NNSA’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and the mission to safely dispose of surplus weapons-grade plutonium pending NEPA decisions using the dilution and disposal process,” Bain said in an E -Mail.
He said the agency plans to address road safety concerns during the ongoing public comment period, including public hearings scheduled in Carlsbad, Santa Fe and virtually later this month.
More:Nuclear waste policies proposed for the Carlsbad-area site drew criticism from watchdogs and local leaders
“DOE takes transportation safety very seriously and will continue to work closely with the State of New Mexico to address state and local concerns about material transportation in New Mexico,” said Bain.
“DOE securely ships all material in the Surplus Plutonium Disposal Program using licensed Type B shipping containers that have been extensively tested and validated to ship this material safely within the United States.”
But Hancock argued that using WIPP as a dump for the plutonium, even after it was diluted to meet the requirements of TRU waste, represented an unreasonable expansion of WIPP’s mission beyond what the people of New Mexico agreed upon had when the facility was built in their state.
“We are not against geological disposal. We don’t think WIPP is the right place,” he said. “WIPP has a limited mission. It was never intended for excess plutonium. It’s already decided. The public should be outraged.”
Adrian Hedden can be reached at 575-628-5516, [email protected] or @AdrianHedden on Twitter.
