Board on Radioactive Waste Management - Böcker

To complement the growing body of knowledge on the physical aspects of radioactive waste disposal, this new report identifies the;ITsocioeconomic and institutional;IT policy issues that must be addressed in implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Site location, transportation modes, disposal schedules, regulatory systems, and the effects of these systems on the people living near the sites and along the transportation routes are addressed.

This book recounts the issues raised and the viewpoints aired at a recent symposium on repository licensing. It summarizes the problems surrounding the setting of an Environmental Protection Agency standard for the release of radionuclides and the regulatory problems inherent in meeting such a standard. Symposium participants came from a variety of federal agencies and advisory groups, state governments, public interest groups, engineering firms, national laboratories, and foreign and international organizations. The book illustrates the strong feeling in the radioactive waste disposal community that changes must be made if the United States is to fulfill its promise of safe management of current and future nuclear waste.

The site of a proposed repository for high-level radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear power plants is not at risk of ground water infiltration, concludes this important book. Yucca Mountain, located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been proposed as the site for permanent underground disposal of high-level radioactive waste from the nation's civilian nuclear power plants. To resolve concerns raised by a Department of Energy (DOE) staff scientist concerning the potential for ground water to rise 1,000 feet to the level proposed for the repository, DOE requested this study to evaluate independently the past history and future potential of large upward excursions of the ground water beneath Yucca Mountain.

The Hanford Site (also known as the Hanford Reservation) occupies approximately 1,450 km2 (560 square miles) along the Columbia River in south-central Washington, north of the city of Richland. The site was established by the federal government in 1943 to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Currently, the mission of the site, under the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is management of wastes generated by the weapons program and remediation of the environment contaminated by that waste. As part of that mission, DOE and the State of Washington Department of Ecology prepared the Hanford Site Tank Waste Remediation System Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Hanford Tanks is a general review of the DEIS. Its findings and recommendations are the subject of this report. Selection of a disposition plan for these wastes is a decision of national importance, involving potential environmental and health risks, technical challenges, and costs of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars. The last comprehensive analysis of these issues was completed 10 years ago, and several major changes in plans have occurred since.Therefore, the current reevaluation is timely and prudent. This report endorses the decision to prepare this new environmental impact statement, and in particular the decision to evaluate a wide range of alternatives not restricted to those encouraged by current regulatory policies.

Research Needs in Subsurface Science provides an overview of the subsurface contamination problems across the DOE complex and shows by examples from the six largest DOE sites (Hanford Site, Idaho Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge Reservation, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, and Savannah River Site) how advances in scientific and engineering knowledge can improve the effectiveness of the cleanup effort. This report analyzes the current Environmental Management (EM) Science Program portfolio of subsurface research projects to assess the extent to which the program is focused on DOE's contamination problems. This analysis employs an organizing scheme that provides a direct linkage between basic research in the EM Science Program and applied technology development in DOE's Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area. Research Needs in Subsurface Science also reviews related research programs in other DOE offices and other federal agencies (see Chapter 4) to determine the extent to which they are focused on DOE's subsurface contamination problems.On the basis of these analyses, this report singles out the highly significant subsurface contamination knowledge gaps and research needs that the EM Science Program must address if the DOE cleanup program is to succeed.

The Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program (DOEEM) is one of the largest environmental clean up efforts in world history. The EM division charged with developing or finding technologies to accomplish this massive task, its Office of Science and Technology (OST), has been reviewed extensively, including six reports from committees of the National Research Council's (NRC's) Board on Radioactive Waste Management (BRWM) that have been released since December 1998. These committees examined different components of OST's technology development program, including its decision-making and peer review processes and its efforts to develop technologies in the areas of decontamination and decommissioning, waste forms for mixed waste, tank waste, and subsurface contamination. Gerald Boyd, head of OST, asked the Board on Radioactive Waste Management (BRWM) to summarize the major findings and recommendations of the six reports and synthesize any common issues into a number of overarching recommendations.

During the next several years, decisions are expected to be made in several countries on the further development and implementation of the geological disposition option. The Board on Radioactive Waste Management (BRWM) of the U.S. National Academies believes that informed and reasoned discussion of relevant scientific, engineering and social issues can-and should-play a constructive role in the decision process by providing information to decision makers on relevant technical and policy issues. A BRWM-initiated project including a workshop at Irvine, California on November 4-5, 1999, and subsequent National Academies' report to be published in spring, 2000, are intended to provide such information to national policy makers both in the U.S. and abroad. To inform national policies, it is essential that experts from the physical, geological, and engineering sciences, and experts from the policy and social science communities work together. Some national programs have involved social science and policy experts from the beginning, while other programs have only recently recognized the importance of this collaboration.An important goal of the November workshop is to facilitate dialogue between these communities, as well as to encourage the sharing of experiences from many national programs. The workshop steering committee has prepared this discussion for participants at the workshop. It should elicit critical comments and help identify topics requiring in-depth discussion at the workshop. It is not intended as a statement of findings, conclusions, or recommendations. It is rather intended as a vehicle for stimulating dialogue among the workshop participants. Out of that dialogue will emerge the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the National Academies' report.

The National Research Council convened a committee of experts to advise the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on the operation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a geologic repository for disposal of defense transuranic (TRU) waste near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The committee was asked to provide recommendations on the following two issues: (1) a research agenda to enhance confidence in the long-term performance of WIPP; and (2) increasing the throughput, efficiency, and cost-benefit without compromising safety of the National TRU Program for characterizing, certifying, packaging, and shipping waste to WIPP. The committee has written this interim report to provide DOE with recommendations on several issues that the committee believes merit immediate consideration and action. In developing this report, the committee has been guided by the principle of "reasonableness" with respect to risks, costs, and the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle. In the committee's judgment, implementing the recommendations contained in this report will contribute to the continued safe operation of WIPP.

In the past decade, officials responsible for clean-up of contaminated groundwater have increasingly turned to natural attenuation-essentially allowing naturally occurring processes to reduce the toxic potential of contaminants-versus engineered solutions. This saves both money and headaches. To the people in surrounding communities, though, it can appear that clean-up officials are simply walking away from contaminated sites. When is natural attenuation the appropriate approach to a clean-up? This book presents the consensus of a diverse committee, informed by the views of researchers, regulators, and community activists. The committee reviews the likely effectiveness of natural attenuation with different classes of contaminants-and describes how to evaluate the "footprints" of natural attenuation at a site to determine whether natural processes will provide adequate clean-up. Included are recommendations for regulatory change. The committee emphasizes the importance of the public's belief and attitudes toward remediation and provides guidance on involving community stakeholders throughout the clean-up process.The book explores how contamination occurs, explaining concepts and terms, and includes case studies from the Hanford nuclear site, military bases, as well as other sites. It provides historical background and important data on clean-up processes and goes on to offer critical reviews of 14 published protocols for evaluating natural attenuation.

It is now becoming clear that relatively few U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) waste sites will be cleaned up to the point where they can be released for unrestricted use. "Long-term stewardship" (activities to protect human health and the environment from hazards that may remain at its sites after cessation of remediation) will be required for over 100 of the 144 waste sites under DOE control (U.S. Department of Energy, 1999). After stabilizing wastes that remain on site and containing them as well as is feasible, DOE intends to rely on stewardship for as long as hazards persist-in many cases, indefinitely. Physical containment barriers, the management systems upon which their long-term reliability depends, and institutional controls intended to prevent exposure of people and the environment to the remaining site hazards, will have to be maintained at some DOE sites for an indefinite period of time. The Committee on Remediation of Buried and Tank Wastes finds that much regarding DOE's intended reliance on long-term stewardship is at this point problematic.The details of long-term stewardship planning are yet to be specified, the adequacy of funding is not assured, and there is no convincing evidence that institutional controls and other stewardship measures are reliable over the long term. Scientific understanding of the factors that govern the long-term behavior of residual contaminants in the environment is not adequate. Yet, the likelihood that institutional management measures will fail at some point is relatively high, underscoring the need to assure that decisions made in the near term are based on the best available science. Improving institutional capabilities can be expected to be every bit as difficult as improving scientific and technical ones, but without improved understanding of why and how institutions succeed and fail, the follow-through necessary to assure that long-term stewardship remains effective cannot reliably be counted on to occur. Long-Term Institutional Management of U.S.Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites examines the capabilities and limitations of the scientific, technical, and human and institutional systems that compose the measures that DOE expects to put into place at potentially hazardous, residually contaminated sites.

The Second World War introduced the world to nuclear weapons and their consequences. Behind the scene of these nuclear weapons and an aspect of their consequences is radioactive waste. Radioactive waste has varying degrees of harmfulness and poses a problem when it comes to storage and disposal. Radioactive waste is usually kept below ground in varying containers, which depend on how radioactive the waste it. High-level radioactive waste (HLW) can be stored in underground carbon-steel tanks. However, radioactive waste must also be further immobilized to ensure our safety. There are several sites in the United States where high-level radioactive waste (HLW) are stored; including the Savannah River Site (SRS), established in 1950 to produce plutonium and tritium isotopes for defense purposes. In order to further immobilize the radioactive waste at this site an in-tank precipitation (ITP) process is utilized. Through this method, the sludge portion of the tank wastes is being removed and immobilized in borosilicate glass for eventual disposal in a geological repository. As a result, a highly alkaline salt, present in both liquid and solid forms, is produced.The salt contains cesium, strontium, actinides such as plutonium and neptunium, and other radionuclides. But is this the best method? The National Research Council (NRC) has empanelled a committee, at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), to provide an independent technical review of alternatives to the discontinued in-tank precipitation (ITP) process for treating the HLW stored in tanks at the SRS. Alternatives for High-Level Waste Salt Processing at the Savannah RIver Site summarizes the finding of the committee which sought to answer 4 questions including: "Was an appropriately comprehensive set of cesium partitioning alternatives identified and are there other alternatives that should be explored?" and "Are there significant barriers to the implementation of any of the preferred alternatives, taking into account their state of development and their ability to be integrated into the existing SRS HLW system?"

Focused attention by world leaders is needed to address the substantial challenges posed by disposal of spent nuclear fuel from reactors and high-level radioactive waste from processing such fuel. The biggest challenges in achieving safe and secure storage and permanent waste disposal are societal, although technical challenges remain. Disposition of radioactive wastes in a deep geological repository is a sound approach as long as it progresses through a stepwise decision-making process that takes advantage of technical advances, public participation, and international cooperation. Written for concerned citizens as well as policymakers, this book was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and waste management organizations in eight other countries.

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a deep underground mined facility for the disposal of transuranic waste resulting from the nation's defense program. Transuranic waste is defined as waste contaminated with transuranic radionuclides with half-life greater than 20 years and activity greater than 100 nanocuries per gram. The waste mainly consists of contaminated protective clothing, rags, old tools and equipment, pieces of dismantled buildings, chemical residues, and scrap materials. The total activity of the waste expected to be disposed at the WIPP is estimated to be approximately 7 million curies, including 12,900 kilograms of plutonium distributed throughout the waste in very dilute form. The WIPP is located near the community of Carlsbad, in southeastern New Mexico. The geological setting is a 600-meter thick, 250 million-year-old saltbed, the Salado Formation, lying 660 meters below the surface. The National Research Council (NRC) has been providing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) scientific and technical evaluations of the WIPP since 1978.The committee's task is twofold: (1) to identify technical issues that can be addressed to enhance confidence in the safe and long-term performance of the repository and (2) to identify opportunities for improving the National Transuranic (TRU) Program for waste management, especially with regard to the safety of workers and the public. This is the first full NRC report issued following the certification of the facility by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 18, 1998. An interim report was issued by the committee in April 2000 and is reproduced in this report. The main findings and recommendations from the interim report have been incorporated into the body of this report. The overarching finding and recommendation of this report is that the activity that would best enhance confidence in the safe and long-term performance of the repository is to monitor critical performance parameters during the long pre-closure phase of repository operations (35 to possibly 100 years).Indeed, in the first 50 to 100 years the rates of important processes such as salt creep, brine inflow (if any), and microbial activity are predicted to be the highest and will be less significant later. The committee recommends that the results of the on-site monitoring program be used to improve the performance assessment for recertification purposes. These results will determine whether the need for a new performance assessment is warranted. For the National TRU Program, the committee finds that the DOE is implementing many of the recommendations of its interim report. It is important that the DOE continue its efforts to improve the packaging, characterization, and transportation of the transuranic waste.

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has approximately 400 million liters (100 million gallons) of liquid high-level waste (HLW) stored in underground tanks and approximately 4,000 cubic meters of solid HLW stored in bins. The current DOE estimate of the cost of converting these liquid and solid wastes into stable forms for shipment to a geological repository exceeds $50 billion to be spent over several decades (DOE, 2000). The Committee on Long-Term Research Needs for Radioactive High-Level Waste at Department of Energy Sites was appointed by the National Research Council (NRC) to advise the Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP) on a long-term research agenda addressing the above problems related to HLW stored in tanks and bins at DOE sites.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is nearing a decision on how to process 30 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste salt solutions at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to remove strontium, actinides, and cesium for immobilization in glass and eventual shipment to a geologic repository. The department is sponsoring research and development (R&D) work on four alternative processes and plans to use the results to make a downselection decision in a June 2001 time frame. The DOE requested that the National Research Council help inform this decision by addressing the following charge: 1. evaluate the adequacy of the criteria that will be used by the department to select from among the candidate processes under consideration; 2. evaluate the progress and results of the research and development work that is being undertaken on these candidate processes; and 3. assess whether the technical uncertainties have been sufficiently resolved to proceed with downsizing the list of candidate processes. Responses to the last two points are provided in this report.Research and Development on a Salt Processing Alternative for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site focuses exclusively on the technical issues related to the candidate processes for radionuclide removal from high-level waste salt solutions at SRS. The committee's interim report served as a response to the first point of this charge, and may be read in Appendix B. In that report, the committee found that DOE's proposed criteria are an acceptable basis for selecting among the candidate processes under consideration, but that the criteria should not be implemented in a way that relies on a single numerical "total score."

When the Cold War abruptly ended, DOE halted most nuclear materials production. In 1995, Congress chartered DOE's Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP) to bring the nation's scientific infrastructure to bear on EM's most difficult, long-term cleanup challenges. The EMSP provides grants to investigators in industry, national laboratories, and universities to undertake research that may help address these cleanup challenges. On several occasions the EMSP has asked the National Academies for advice on developing its research agenda. This report resulted from a 15-month study by an Academies committee on long-term research needs for deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) at DOE sites.

The Hanford Site was established by the federal government in 1943 as part of the secret wartime effort to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The site operated for about four decades and produced roughly two thirds of the 100 metric tons of plutonium in the U.S. inventory. Millions of cubic meters of radioactive and chemically hazardous wastes, the by-product of plutonium production, were stored in tanks and ancillary facilities at the site or disposed or discharged to the subsurface, the atmosphere, or the Columbia River. In the late 1980s, the primary mission of the Hanford Site changed from plutonium production to environmental restoration. The federal government, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), began to invest human and financial resources to stabilize and, where possible, remediate the legacy of environmental contamination created by the defense mission. During the past few years, this financial investment has exceeded $1 billion annually. DOE, which is responsible for cleanup of the entire weapons complex, estimates that the cleanup program at Hanford will last until at least 2046 and will cost U.S. taxpayers on the order of $85 billion.Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup at Hanford provides background information on the Hanford Site and its Integration Project,discusses the System Assessment Capability, an Integration Project-developed risk assessment tool to estimate quantitative effects of contaminant releases, and reviews the technical elements of the scierovides programmatic-level recommendations.

The U.S. Department of EnergyA (DOE) disposes of plutonium-contaminated debris from its 27 nuclear weapons facilities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), an underground repositoryA inA Carlsbad,A New Mexico.A After four years of operational experience, DOE has opportunities to make changes toA the costly and time-consuming process of "characterizing" the wasteA to confirm that it is appropriate for shipment toA and disposal at WIPP. A The report says that in order to make such changes,A DOE should conduct and publish a systematic and quantitative assessment to show that the proposed changes would not affect the protection of workers, the public, or the environment.

About 155,000 cubic meters of waste contaminated with both radioactive isotopes and hazardous chemicals are stored at some 30 DOE sites, and another 450,000 cubic meters are buried. While DOE is making a concerted effort to properly dispose of this waste, the amount translates to a multi-decade effort that will require handling, characterizing, and shipping hundreds of thousands of waste containers at a total cost of billions of dollars. This report describes basic scientific research that can lead to new technologies for performing these tasks more safely and cost effectively.

Compared to other large engineering projects, geologic repositories for high-level waste present distinctive challenges because: 1) they are first-of-a-kind, complex, and long-term projects that must actively manage hazardous materials for many decades: 2) they are expected to hold these hazardous materials passively safe for many millennia after repository closure; and 3) they are widely perceived to pose serious risks. As is the case for other complex projects, repository programs should proceed in stages. One Step at a Time focuses on a management approach called "adaptive staging" as a promising means to develop geologic repositories for high-level radioactive waste such as the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Adaptive staging is a learn-as-you-go process that enables project managers to continuously reevaluate and adjust the program in response to new knowledge and stakeholder input. Advice is given on how to implement staging during the construction, operation, closure, and post-closure phases of a repository program.

The production of nuclear materials for the national defense was an intense, nationwide effort that began with the Manhattan Project and continued throughout the Cold War. Now many of these product materials, by-products, and precursors, such as irradiated nuclear fuels and targets, have been declared as excess by the Department of Energy (DOE). Most of this excess inventory has been, or will be, turned over to DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM), which is responsible for cleaning up the former production sites. Recognizing the scientific and technical challenges facing EM, Congress in 1995 established the EM Science Program (EMSP) to develop and fund directed, long-term research that could substantially enhance the knowledge base available for new cleanup technologies and decision making. The EMSP has previously asked the National Academies' National Research Council for advice for developing research agendas in subsurface contamination, facility deactivation and decommissioning, high-level waste, and mixed and transuranic waste.For this study the committee was tasked to provide recommendations for a research agenda to improve the scientific basis for DOE's management of its high-cost, high-volume, or high-risk excess nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuels. To address its task, the committee focused its attention on DOE's excess plutonium-239, spent nuclear fuels, cesium-137 and strontium-90 capsules, depleted uranium, and higher actinide isotopes.

End Points for spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in Russian and the United States provides an analysis of the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in Russia and the United States, describing inventories, comparing approaches, and assessing the end-point options for storage and disposal of materials and wastes. The authoring committee finds that despite differences in philosophy about nuclear fuel cycles, Russia and the United States need similar kinds of facilities and face similar challenges, although in Russia many of the problems are worse and funding is less available. This book contains recommendations for immediate and near-term actions, for example, protecting and stabilizing materials that are security and safety hazards, actions for the longer term, such as developing more interim storage capacity and studying effects of deep injection, and areas for collaboration.

As operational experience is gained in the disposal of transuranic waste from nuclear weapons facilities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the Department of Energy (DOE) has opportunities to change how it a /characterizesa waste to confirm that it is appropriate for shipment to and disposal at the underground repository. The waste shipped to the facility includes gloves, rags, tools, and other debris or dried sludge that has been contaminated by radioactive elements, including plutonium, during production or cleanup activities in the DOE weapons complex. However, before the DOE seeks regulatory approval for changes to its characterization program, the agency should conduct and publish a systematic and quantitative assessment to show that the proposed changes would not affect the protection of workers, the public, or the environment, according to the committee. The assessment should take into account technical factors, societal and regulatory impacts, and the time and effort required to make the changes.

The Department of Energya (TM)s Office of Environmental Management (EM) directs the massive cleanup of more than 100 sites that were involved in the production of nuclear weapons materials during the Manhattan Project and the Cold War. This report offers suggestions for more effectively characterizing and treating the orphan and special-case wastes that are part of EMa (TM)s accelerated cleanup program. It identifies technical opportunities for EM to improve the program that will save time and money without compromising health and safety. The opportunities identified include: making more effective use of existing facilities and capabilities for waste characterization, treatment, or disposal; eliminating self-imposed requirements that have no clear technical or safety basis; and investing in new technologies to improve existing treatment and characterization capabilities. For example, the report suggests that EM work with DOE classification officers to declassify, to the extent possible, classified materials declared as wastes. The report also suggests a new approach for treating the wastes that EM will leave in place after cleanup.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) manages dozens of sites across the nation that focus on research, design, and production of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors for defense applications. Radioactive wastes at these sites pose a national challenge, and DOE is considering how to most effectively clean them up. Some of the greatest projected risks, cleanup costs, and technical challenges come from processing and disposing transuranic and high-level radioactive waste. This report addresses how DOE should incorporate risk into decisions about whether the nation should use alternatives to deep geologic disposal for some of these wastes. It recommends using an exemption process involving risk assessment for determining how to dispose of problematic wastes. The report outlines criteria for risk assessment and key elements of a risk-informed approach. The report also describes the types of wastes that are candidates for alternative disposition paths, potential alternatives to deep geologic disposal for disposition of low-hazard waste, and whether these alternatives are compatible with current regulations.