National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Characterization of Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10244.
×

Executive Summary

About 3,600 m3 of defense-related remote-handled transuranic (RH-TRU)1 waste are currently stored across the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) weapons complex. DOE is seeking authorization to dispose this waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), in New Mexico, as part of the weapons complex cleanup effort. To this end, DOE will propose to WIPP’s regulatory agencies a plan for characterizing RH-TRU waste. DOE has asked the National Research Council to review the first draft of this plan and to provide recommendations to improve, if necessary, the plan’s technical soundness, compatibility with worker safety, and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Preliminary findings and recommendations are provided in this interim report.

The two regulatory agencies for WIPP are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). The WIPP is currently certified by EPA and permitted by NMED to dispose only of contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) waste. Approval of a characterization plan for RH-TRU waste is required to dispose of that waste in WIPP. The EPA and NMED will establish the final characterization requirements for RH-TRU waste on the basis of DOE’s proposed plan.

The RH-TRU waste inventory is composed of retrievably stored waste and newly generated waste. Retrievably stored waste is waste produced prior to EPA and NMED approval of a characterization plan for RH-TRU waste. Newly generated waste is waste that is produced after the approval of a characterization plan and meets the characterization requirements set forth by the regulatory agencies. Newly generated waste can be anticipated waste that has yet to be generated, or it can be existing waste that needs to be re-packaged in a suitable form for transportation and disposal. The data provided by DOE (Table 1 in Chapter 2) show that most of the retrievably stored RH-TRU waste is located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and that most of the newly generated waste will be produced at the Hanford Site. The RH-TRU waste volume inventory comprises between 1 and 4 percent in volume of the total (CH-TRU plus RH-TRU) inventory for the WIPP facility. DOE calculated the total activity from the RH-TRU waste inventory (from retrievably stored waste and newly generated waste) to be approximately one million curies. Approximately 90 percent of the retrievably stored RH-TRU radioactivity is located at ORNL (Table 2, Chapter 2). Most of the radioactivity in RH-TRU waste is due to short-lived radionuclides, which will decay away in approximately 300 years. After this period, the radioactive content of RH-TRU waste would be approximately the same as that of CH-TRU waste. From the point of view of the long-term performance of WIPP (10,000 years is the regulatory compliance period), after approximately 300 years, RH-TRU waste will be virtually indistinguishable from CH-TRU waste.

DOE’s stated objective is to propose a characterization plan for RH-TRU waste based on its impact on the performance of WIPP while protecting worker safety, reducing costs, eliminating unnecessary self-imposed requirements, and complying with

1  

Transuranic waste is radioactive waste containing alpha-emitting radionuclides of atomic number greater than 92, half-life greater than 20 years, and activity greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste. Transuranic waste is classified as remote-handled or contact-handled waste, according to the radiation dose rate at the surface of the package. A more detailed definition is given at the beginning of Chapter 2.

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Characterization of Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10244.
×

regulatory requirements. The proposed characterization plan relies mainly on preexisting knowledge of the waste, also called acceptable knowledge2 (AK), and limited use of confirmatory measurements. This approach arises from DOE’s concern that higher surface dose rates associated with RH-TRU waste present potentially higher radiological risks to workers and higher associated costs compared to the approach for characterizing CH-TRU waste.

According to the information provided by DOE, about 80 percent of the RH-TRU waste inventory will meet the new characterization requirements set forth by the regulatory agencies, because it consists of future waste, waste that will be re-packaged, or waste that was characterized according to the approved CH-TRU characterization plan.3 For the remaining 20 percent of RH-TRU waste, DOE proposes to complement the existing AK, where necessary, with additional confirmatory activities. These activities are listed in 40 CFR 194.22(b) and are to be used individually or in combination to qualify AK: (1) peer review, (2) use of corroborative evidence, (3) confirmation by measurements, or (4) qualification of previous quality assurance programs (see Chapter 4).

The preliminary findings and recommendations of this interim report, presented in Chapter 5, are the following:

Finding 1: With this new characterization plan for RH-TRU waste, DOE has an opportunity to introduce a truly performance-based characterization plan containing only requirements relevant to the long-term performance of WIPP and that have a safety, technical, or legal basis. Recommendation: DOE should not include in its characterization plan unnecessary requirements that do not affect the long-term performance of the repository and that do not have a safety, technical, or legal basis.

Finding 2: The committee questions the relevance of some of the requirements in the RH-TRU waste characterization plan to DOE’s stated objective. According to the performance-based evaluation of RH-TRU waste by Sandia National Laboratories, presented in the characterization plan, none of the RH-TRU waste components have an effect on the long-term performance of the repository. Recommendation: DOE should evaluate characterization requirements in the proposed plan against safety, their impact on the performance of the repository, and regulatory compliance. For example, according to the data provided by DOE on RH-TRU waste inventories (see Tables 1 and 2 in Chapter 2) and to the Sandia National Laboratory evaluation, the detection of prohibited items, the determination of metal content, and the attribution of waste summary category groups in the proposed RH-TRU waste characterization plan do not appear to affect the long-term performance of the repository.

Finding 3: The RH-TRU waste draft characterization plan reviewed by the committee does not clearly present DOE’s stated objective of characterizing waste based on its impact on performance of WIPP, while protecting worker safety, reducing

2  

For a definition of acceptable knowledge see the glossary (Appendix D) and Chapter 4.

3  

For newly generated waste and re-packaged waste, the information constituting AK will be collected during generation or re-packaging of the waste according to the characterization requirements set forth by EPA and NMED. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, RH-TRU waste was characterized according to the approved CH-TRU waste characterization plan and will probably not need to be re-characterized.

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Characterization of Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10244.
×

costs, eliminating unnecessary self-imposed requirements, and complying with regulatory requirements. In the committee’s opinion, the documents reviewed do not put forward a performance-based characterization plan. Recommendation: In the supporting documents, DOE should clarify the objectives of the characterization plan and how to achieve them.

Finding 4: From the information gathered during the two committee meetings, it appears that most of the RH-TRU waste to be disposed of at WIPP will be newly generated waste, repackaged waste, or waste that has already been characterized following the CH-TRU waste characterization plan. Therefore, most of RH-TRU waste does not need confirmatory measurements because the information collected during repackaging or generation can meet characterization requirements. Recommendation: In the documents supporting its characterization plan, DOE should discuss the relative volumes of retrievably stored waste and newly generated waste in the context of the different qualities of AK. DOE should also consider the impact of these volumes and AK differences on the characterization plan.

Finding 5: There is substantial variability among RH-TRU waste generator sites with respect to waste volumes and activity contents, extent of AK available, and availability of characterization and repackaging facilities. DOE’s current characterization plan allows some flexibility to the sites but it does not account explicitly for the above variability. Recommendation: The RH-TRU waste characterization plan should recognize the large variabilities from site to site and should ensure sufficient flexibility to accommodate them. However, characterization activities that share common elements across sites should be standardized.

Finding 6: The requirements to qualify information collected on each waste stream, whether by AK or by any other method described in 40 CFR 194.22(b), have not been established with any specificity in the supporting documents. Recommendation: DOE should revise the supporting documents by adding clear and technically defensible data qualification requirements for its RH-TRU waste characterization plan. Additionally, each data quality objective should have a safety, technical, or legal basis.

Finding 7: Available estimates of worker exposure and characterization costs for RH-TRU waste are scarce and may not be representative of all RH-TRU waste generator sites. Recommendation: To better develop and support its characterization plan, DOE should provide more detailed and site-specific estimates of worker exposure and characterization costs for RH-TRU waste. The characterization plan should clearly demonstrate how it minimizes radiation exposure to workers and associated costs.

Finding 8: DOE’s characterization plan calls for application of specific technologies, such as X-ray radiography, to provide confirmatory data. The committee could not determine the effectiveness of these technologies in characterizing the high-dose-rate fraction of RH-TRU waste containers. Recommendation: DOE should provide complete and defensible justification for the technologies proposed for obtaining confirmatory data and provide evidence of their effectiveness.

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Characterization of Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10244.
×

To improve understanding, corroborate, and add credibility to the characterization plan, the committee also provides the following observations and issues for future consideration; details are given in Chapter 5: the information in the supporting documents for the RH-TRU waste characterization plan is sometimes convoluted, difficult to understand, difficult to find, and repetitious; there are also conflicting statements and discrepancies; it is not clear how visual examination and radiography can differentiate all prohibited from non-prohibited items. For example, visual examination and radiography cannot distinguish between corrosive and non-corrosive liquids, whereas AK may provide records of the existence of such liquids in the waste. Therefore, AK may be a better indicator of some of the currently prohibited items than visual examination and radiography.

The committee’s recommendations are based strictly on scientific and technical considerations. Overall, the committee acknowledges and supports DOE’s endeavors to improve worker safety, reduce costs, and eliminate unnecessary self-imposed requirements. However, the documents prepared for EPA and NMED to present the characterization plan for RH-TRU waste do not address these goals as effectively as they could. The committee will hold two more meetings to discuss the next draft of the characterization plan (if available), further address issues identified in this interim report, and develop its final report, which will be issued in the summer 2002.

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Characterization of Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10244.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Characterization of Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10244.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Characterization of Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10244.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Characterization of Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10244.
×
Page 4
Next: 1 Introduction and Task »
Characterization of Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Interim Report Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!