Radiation Source Use and Replacement Abbreviated Version (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
10 IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS FOR ENCOURAGING REPLACEMENT OF RADIONUCLIDE RADIATION SOURCES WITH ALTERNATIVES
10 IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS FOR ENCOURAGING REPLACEMENT OF RADIONUCLIDE RADIATION SOURCES WITH ALTERNATIVES
Pages 159-174
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 159... ...
The same policy options could be applied to replacement of other radionuclides, americium-241 sources being the most similar to radioactive cesium chloride both with respect to hazard and with respect to the lack of disposal options. The committee does not here emphasize these other radiation sources because (1)
|
From page 160... ...
Some observers may argue that if the U.S. NRC determines that a set of radiation sources pose substantial risks, then it should impose a swift, categorical prohibition.
|
From page 161... ...
; or classes of use inflexible New source ban -- Stop issuing new Caps number of uses Slow; inflexible licenses for particular radionuclides or classes of use Push Incentives More stringent regulations -- Require Directly reduce risks; make Regulatory costs; regulations investments by users in risk reduction replacements relatively more may not sufficiently promote attractive replacement Use fees -- Raise monetary cost of Makes replacements relatively Difficult to choose appropriate use through fees on particular more attractive; generates rate; administrative costs radionuclides revenue for other uses Decommissioning funds -- Impose Internalizes disposal into May be prohibitive in absence full dispositioning costs at time of technology choice of disposal options; purchase administrative costs Pull Incentives Direct subsidies -- Offer payments Marginally encourages flexible Budgetary cost; administrative for particular retirements or replacements costs replacements Tax subsidies -- Reduce cost Marginally encourages flexible Revenue loss; not applicable through allowed deductions for replacements to nonprofits replacements Buybacks -- Offset scrapping costs Encourages flexible Budgetary cost; by purchasing particular classes of replacements, especially for older administration of physical devices devices disposal Supply Incentives Supplier subsidies -- Research and Encourages improvements in Administratively difficult to development grants replacement technologies pick good projects; budgetary cost Certification services -- Provide Encourages improvements in Budgetary cost publicly funded testing and replacement technologies; no certification services for replacement need to pick winners devices SOURCE: Provided by the committee.
|
From page 162... ...
Because production of more robust forms of cesium-137, such as pollucite, require investment in new production lines, suppliers would have to be convinced that a sufficient and sustained demand exists for the product. Actions that tend to ensure that there will be a continued demand for these new radionuclide radiation sources at a somewhat higher price would tend to lower one of the barriers to availability of this alternative.
|
From page 163... ...
Under a decommissioning plan, the financial assurance amount must include estimated costs for disposal. The program has not had to confront the problem of estimating disposal costs for radiation sources that would require disposal as Greater-than-Class-C waste (high-activity cesium-137 and americium-241 sources)
|
From page 164... ...
The more standardized cost of testing and certification of a limited number of designs could be borne by the public through the federal government. Phase Out Use of Category 1 and 2 Cesium Chloride Devices In Chapter 3, the committee makes findings and recommendations concerning radioactive cesium chloride sources.
|
From page 165... ...
NRC to increase the security requirements for new cesium chloride irradiators to levels that would result in few new units being licensed. Indeed, the imposition of more stringent safety requirements based on a comprehensive assessment of risk by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission effectively stopped the licensing of new cesium chloride irradiator designs and has resulted in an overall decline in Category 1 and Category 2 cesium chloride sources by approximately 50 percent since 2000 (R.
|
From page 166... ...
Consequently, under current circumstances, replacement of these devices before the end of their useful life is unlikely to be financially attractive, so that a ban by itself on new irradiators would most likely only result in a slow decline in the stock of cesium chloride irradiators over several decades. One strategy for making replacement of existing cesium chloride irradiators more financially attractive is to make their scrap value positive or at least nonnegative.
|
From page 167... ...
and thus creates a disincentive to acquiring a new cesium chloride irradiator. Similarly, recovering radioactive cesium chloride devices and sources and storing them without consideration of whether alternative disposal options are available to users would encourage decommissioning of cesium chloride irradiators.
|
From page 168... ...
The following estimates are based on the answer to the following simple question: For any given interest rate and years of remaining life in a cesium chloride irradiator, how high would the buyback price have to be to induce a switch to an x-ray irradiator? The answer to this question assumes a ban on new cesium chloride irradiators and on recharging of existing cesium chloride irradiators so that a switch would be made to an x-ray irradiator at the end of the useful life of the currently used cesium chloride irradiator.
|
From page 169... ...
25 278 273 267 TABLE 10-3 Breakeven Buyback Prices Assuming Alternative-Form Cesium Replacement (Thousands of Dollars) Real Interest Rate Years of Life Remaining 0.04 0.06 0.08 5 36 51 64 10 65 88 107 15 89 117 137 20 109 138 157 25 125 153 171 Because the committee was not able to monetize the risks associated with the use of cesium chloride irradiators, or the risks associated with the use of alternative-form cesium irradiators, it does not make a specific recommendation about the magnitude of a desirable buyback price.
|
From page 170... ...
Reduce Use of Other Category 1 and 2 Radionuclide Sources Although eliminating the use of cesium chloride irradiators deserves the highest priority by policy makers, speeding the introduction of replacement technologies also deserves consideration. This, too, can be done through push, pull, and supply incentives outlined in Table 10-1.
|
From page 171... ...
The costs of disposal and potential terrorism are real and to decide not to internalize the costs is a decision to support use of radionuclide radiation sources rather than to discourage their use. However, users make choices based on the regulatory environment in place at the time of purchase.
|
From page 172... ...
The committee describes several options for implementation of alternatives in this report. Among these options are to make licensees bear the full life-cycle cost of radiation sources, particularly for disposal of cesium-137 and americium-241 sources; to revise the requirements for decommissioning funds for Category 1 and 2 devices to increase the up-front costs for higher hazard sources; enhance DOE's OSRP to include a buyback of devices that still have use value, provided that the devices are replaced with lower hazard devices.
|
From page 173... ...
NRC. Requiring that Category 1 and 2 source users establish decommissioning funds that reflect the full social costs of disposal should be considered as part of a long-term strategy for reducing the uses of radiation sources that involve net social costs.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.