1

National AcademiesNational Academies

Radioactive Waste Radioactive Waste UpdateUpdate

Kevin D. Crowley, DirectorKevin D. Crowley, DirectorNuclear and Radiation Studies Board

2

Who We Are

The National Academies National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Academy of Engineering (NAE) Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Research Council (NRC)

BRWM (1958), NRSB (2005) Private, nonprofit, Congressionally

chartered to provide scientific and technological advice to the nation

3

Topics to be Discussed Three studies of potential interest:

Management of Certain Radioactive Waste Streams Stored in Tanks at Three Department of Energy Sites

Risk and Decisions about Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste

Improving the Characterization and Treatment of Radioactive Wastes for the Department of Energy’s Accelerated Site Cleanup Program

Organizational change

4

Certain Tank Wastes Congressional request

Section 3146 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005

Evaluate and make recommendations to improve DOE’s plans for disposing of certain radioactive wastes at Savannah River Site (SRS), Hanford, and Idaho National Laboratory (INL)

Interim report on SRS in July 2005 Final report on all sites in January 2006

5

Congressional Charge

Waste streams addressed in study:Stored in tanks at Hanford, INL, SRSExceed Class C concentration limits (10 CFR

61)To be disposed of onsite

6

Congressional Charge

Study to evaluate: DOE’s understanding of waste characteristics Additional actions needed by DOE to comply with 10

CFR 61 performance objectives Adequacy of monitoring plans for disposal sites Technology alternatives for managing wastes Technology gaps Any other matters directly related to the subject

matter of the study

7

Committee Roster Frank L. Parker, CHAIR, Vanderbilt Univ. Hadi Abu-Akeel, AMTENG Corp John S. Applegate, Indiana Univ. School

of Law Howie Choset, Carnegie Mellon Univ. Paul P. Craig, Univ. of California, Davis

(emeritus) Allen G. Croff, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory (retired) Patricia J. Culligan, Columbia Univ. Ken Czerwinski, Univ. of Nevada, Las

Vegas Rachel Detwiler, Braun Intertec Corp Edwin E. Herricks, Univ. of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign Tissa Illangasekare, Colorado School of

Mines

Milton Levenson, Bechtel International (retired)

Paul A. Locke, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Michael H. Mobley, Mobley Radiation Consulting

Dianne R. Nielson, Utah Dept. of Environmental Quality

Ken E. Philipose, AECL Chalk River Alfred P. Sattelberger, Los Alamos

National Laboratory Anne E. Smith, Charles River Associates Leslie Smith, Univ. of British Columbia Don Steeples, University of Kansas

8

Risk and Decisions

Requested and sponsored by DOE-EM Focus on approaches for incorporating risk into DOE

decision making for disposition of TRU and HLW The baseline disposition pathway for these wastes

involves retrieval, treatment, and deep geologic disposal Nearly 650,000 m3 TRU and HLW Over $60 billion and 70 years required to complete baseline

activities under current schedules Report issued in February 2005

9

Statement of Task

Provide recommendations on implementation of risk-based approaches in DOE’s cleanup program Key elements of a risk-based approach Criteria for risk assessment Potential alternatives to geologic disposal for disposition of low-hazard

waste Compatibility with current regulatory regimes Knowledge and technology gaps for implementation Broader implications, if any, for disposition of other EM wastes

Apply risk-based approaches to selected DOE waste streams to assess their practical usefulness

10

Committee Roster

David E. Daniel, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Chair

John S. Applegate, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington, Vice Chair

Lynn Anspaugh, School of Medicine, University of Utah

Allen G. Croff, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ret.)

Rodney C. Ewing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Paul A. Locke, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Patricia A. Maurice, University of Notre Dame

Robin Rogers, University of Alabama

Anne E. Smith, Charles River Associates

Theofanis G. Theofanous, University of California, Santa Barbara

Jeffrey Wong, California Department of Toxic Substances Control

11

Selected Findings & Recommendations The nation needs a mechanism for considering

alternatives to deep geologic disposal for those wastes that may not warrant such isolation based on the risks they pose and the risks and costs involved in retrieving and disposing of them

Risk is a good starting point for such considerations, but other factors may be at least as important deciding what disposition path to use, so a risk-informed decision process should be used

Such decisions, and the analyses and discussions that support those decisions, should involve DOE, regulators, and interested and affected outside parties in an iterative and cooperative decision process

12

Selected Findings & Recommendations

The process would be more credible if an agency other than DOE had the authority to approve or reject DOE's proposals for alternate disposal paths

Congress, DOE, U.S. EPA, and U.S. NRC should take actions as necessary to enable DOE to implement effectively the risk-informed approach recommended in the report

DOE should form an authoritative, credible, and reasonably independent group to revamp the way DOE goes about implementing risk-informed approaches applied to waste disposition decisions

13

Accelerating Characterization and Treatment of DOE Wastes Requested and sponsored by DOE-EM Focus on large DOE sites (Hanford, INL, Oak

Ridge, SRS) Study motivated by DOE’s desire to improve the

utilization of facilities and capabilities across its sites to reduce cleanup schedules, costs, and risks to workers and nearby residents, both now and in the future

Final report issued in February 2005

14

Statement of Task Identify opportunities for improving waste

characterization and treatment capabilities: Make more effective use of existing capabilities and facilities for waste

characterization, treatment, or disposal Eliminate self-imposed requirements that have no clear technical or

safety basis Improve characterization and treatment capabilities to achieve step

efficiency improvements or to treat orphan waste streams Recommend technology development and demonstration investments

that EM should make over the near term to achieve these improvements Focus on waste streams for which current

characterization, treatment, or disposition pathways are difficult and (or) expensive, and for which improvements would help reduce costs, schedules, and hazards to workers, public, or the environment

15

Committee Roster

Milton Levenson, Bechtel International (retired), Chair

Cynthia Atkins-Duffin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Patricia J. Culligan, Columbia University

Robin Dillon-Merrill, Georgetown University

Lloyd A. Duscha, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired)

Thomas Gesell, Idaho State University

Carolyn L. Huntoon, CLH Associates, Inc.

Barry Scheetz, Pennsylvania State University

Laura Toran, Temple University

Raymond G. Wymer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired)

16

Recommendations

DOE should aggressively pursue opportunities to simplify and expedite waste characterization, treatment, and disposal by:

Work with the responsible classification offices to declassify, to the extent possible, classified materials declared as wastes

Better utilize the waste removal provisions of CERCLA, and

Develop more consistent interpretations among sites of waste acceptance requirements and accelerated cleanup objectives

17

Recommendations DOE should consider managing the following

facilities as corporate assets for the characterization and treatment of both mainstream and special-case or “orphan” wastes: Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) incinerator at Oak Ridge High-level waste calciner at Idaho Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Facility (AMWTF) at Idaho Vitrification Facilities at Savannah River and Hanford Existing groundwater-monitoring wells at all sites H-Canyon at Savannah River T-Plant at Hanford

18

Recommendations EM should continue developing and deploying

new or improved technologies that address limitations in current characterization and treatment capabilities. The committee recommends investments in

Steam reforming, “No-consequence” TRU shipping containers, Improved high-level waste vitrification, and State-of-the-art sensors for environmental monitoring

19

Recommendations For waste that EM considers leaving in place, the

committee recommends that EM broaden the use of the “cocooning” concept as currently applied to the Hanford reactors

Applied to certain wastes for which cleanup cost and risk to workers exceeds benefits, the cocooning concept provides a scientifically sound framework to: Stabilize wastes or contamination in place for now; Monitor until radioactive decay, other natural processes, or new

technologies make ultimate cleanup feasible or unnecessary; Adapt to new knowledge; and Make responsibilities clear to all stakeholders

20

Organizational Change Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board

Established on March 1, 2005 Merger of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management and

Board on Radiation Effects Research

Interest areas: Radioactive waste management & environmental

cleanup Radiation health effects (including BEIR and RERF) Nuclear and radiological terrorism and security (new)

First board meeting: September 12, 2005

21

For additional Information: Visit our “current projects” web site at

www.national-academies.org. Click on “current projects” and search under the project title or BRER, BRWM, or NRSB to see all projects in progress.

For a list of reports visit www.national-academies.org/nrsb. Click on “publications.” Most reports can be read on line.

Call us at 202-334-3066 or send us an e-mail message (nrsb@nas.edu) to be placed on our electronic mailing lists.